relic would u please fix the way you count wins/losses????

[M[A]DBuLL]

for the love of god, 2 games in a row, noob gets owned, lags out, I get a LOSS!!!!!!!!

i drop like 50,000 positions in the world rank

tired of this, also the damn lag since its a p2p

why dont u make this a server based game, like ANY OTHER NORMAL GAME

its freaking 21st century this is not GARENA or Age oF Empires p2p LOL are you guys insane? how much money you make off DLCs how hard is it to have a damn server?

[Aristotle Full Throttle]

I agree that they need to have better matchmaking because it is very embarrasing when you know you have the game won at that climatic battle that is supposed to decide who wins and then your idiot teamate with 3 Panzer IVs just sits back and doesn't commit so the battle still isn't decided and most likely the enemy will learn and come back even more committed than before.

[Le Elvis]

Match making is fine. No algorithm in the world can recognize an idiot just by looking at stats.

[1-800-Help-Bob]

Ranger_501st lähetti viestin:

I agree that they need to have better matchmaking because it is very embarrasing when you know you have the game won at that climatic battle that is supposed to decide who wins and then your idiot teamate with 3 Panzer IVs just sits back and doesn't commit so the battle still isn't decided and most likely the enemy will learn and come back even more committed than before.

ElvisWasAbducted lähetti viestin:

Match making is fine. No algorithm in the world can recognize an idiot just by looking at stats.

who the f*ck is talking about matchmaking algortim????

all im saying is, when the opponent in 1v1 gets dropped/lags out, I get a loss

like, he gets owned, then he doesnt surrender but does some weird ♥♥♥♥ on his end, and lags out, leaves the game, and then all i see is "YOU HAVE FAILED THE FATHERLAND - LOSS"

W-T-F?????

[Le Elvis]

mAdBuLL lähetti viestin:

who the f*ck is talking about matchmaking algortim????

Seriously now? Did you completely ignore the 2nd post in this thread?

[datguy13]

__h.stickeye_ lähetti viestin:

relic doesnt care about steam forums, go to coh2.org

I have it on good authority that this statement is false.

ElvisWasAbducted lähetti viestin:

mAdBuLL lähetti viestin:

who the f*ck is talking about matchmaking algortim????

Seriously now? Did you completely ignore the 2nd post in this thread?

You made a good point, but he's not talking about match incompetence. For a change, Madbull actually has a valid complaint. People drop out of games using some weird lag drop and their opponent ends up with a loss even though they should receive a win. That would be remedied by dedicated servers and a small overwatch script being added to the connection code.

[76561198086577775]

What you're talking about is termed by the community "drop hacking". The issue is to avoid a loss someone will cause lag to force a disconnect of the game and send it to arbitration which is done by our servers. Our servers decide who wins, and who loses and assigns the win and loss from that.

The servers don't take into account who is currently winning in a game. It's hard to determine that, since there's different strategies and different factions are better early game or late game. (This is the same system that we've been using since launch in the original Company of Heroes). Also if it automatically assigned a win to whoever was first based on say "Victory Points" or resources, then it would encourage players to play a reckless early game to get as many VP points as possible, then disconnect.

What happens is that every Company of Heroes 2 player has a certain amount of what we call trust points. Everyone starts off with the same number, so everyone starts equally.

Anytime you're involved in a game that disconnects before it ends, and is sent to arbitration, you get some of these points docked from your total. This includes whether you're purposefully forcing a disconnect, or if you just have a crappy WiFi connection that drops anytime your roommate uses the microwave.

So when a disconnect happens the servers examine the two players' trust ratings and awards the win to the one who has the higher rating. The one who has been involved in the least amount of dropped games.

A player wanting to use drop hacking as a long term strategy may have some initial success when he's matched up with players with a similar (or lower) trust rating. However if 8/10 games he plays is ending in a disconnection his trust rating will soon fall lower than the typical player and he'll stop winning games.

The problem with this system in the original CoH was that players were able to create unlimited alternate accounts, each with their own trust rating. Thus they could get a clean slate anytime they wanted.

In CoH2 your account is your Steam account. So players are tied to their trust rating, unless they're willing to buy an alternate copy of the game on an alternate Steam account.

[datguy13]

Seems a little rudimentary to me. Is it possible to add additional factors and qualifiers to the loss or gain of these "trust points"? And is there any way to redeem lost ones that might have been lost by unlucky happenstance such as the power company working on a line or a gerbil chewing through your power cable and knocking you offline?

[1-800-Help-Bob]

Relic_Noun lähetti viestin:

What you're talking about is termed by the community "drop hacking". The issue is to avoid a loss someone will cause lag to force a disconnect of the game and send it to arbitration which is done by our servers. Our servers decide who wins, and who loses and assigns the win and loss from that.

The servers don't take into account who is currently winning in a game. It's hard to determine that, since there's different strategies and different factions are better early game or late game. (This is the same system that we've been using since launch in the original Company of Heroes). Also if it automatically assigned a win to whoever was first based on say "Victory Points" or resources, then it would encourage players to play a reckless early game to get as many VP points as possible, then disconnect.

What happens is that every Company of Heroes 2 player has a certain amount of what we call trust points. Everyone starts off with the same number, so everyone starts equally.

Anytime you're involved in a game that disconnects before it ends, and is sent to arbitration, you get some of these points docked from your total. This includes whether you're purposefully forcing a disconnect, or if you just have a crappy WiFi connection that drops anytime your roommate uses the microwave.

So when a disconnect happens the servers examine the two players' trust ratings and awards the win to the one who has the higher rating. The one who has been involved in the least amount of dropped games.

A player wanting to use drop hacking as a long term strategy may have some initial success when he's matched up with players with a similar (or lower) trust rating. However if 8/10 games he plays is ending in a disconnection his trust rating will soon fall lower than the typical player and he'll stop winning games.

The problem with this system in the original CoH was that players were able to create unlimited alternate accounts, each with their own trust rating. Thus they could get a clean slate anytime they wanted.

In CoH2 your account is your Steam account. So players are tied to their trust rating, unless they're willing to buy an alternate copy of the game on an alternate Steam account.

Hey noun thank you for your elaborated reply and the time and patience you put into writing this. Needless to say, I appreciate the effort and attention, and owe an apology for "yelling out" to you guys - just did not know how else to get your attention

Now that I have a good understanding of how the trust system works, it only adds more fuel to the argument FOR a server (which, by the way, you conveniently avoided in your reply :) ).

Wouldn't you agree that having a dedicated server would eliminate the need for a trust system alltogether? Say, the server would be processing the incoming packages of data from the 2 players in a 1v1 game, and if one lags out, then there's no need to arbitrage and assign a win to the "more trusted" one, just give a loss to the one that went MIA. Right?

Assuming you agree with the above, I can only ask you then why does Relic refuse to add a dedicated server?

And I'll be honest with you Noun, I sort of quit playing 3v3 and 4v4 because of the lags. If little Vova from Moscow has a crappy PC and he insists on playing at highest settings to add constant interruptions to the flow of game (and gaming experience of the other 5 or 7 players), then why should I care? Why doesn't he lag "on his own" while we can play normally? Add to this the unecessary additions to ping delay caused by poor internet connections.

Or are there some technical issues that I am missing?

Thanks again!

[datguy13]

Relic doesn't refuse to put in a dedicated server. They just haven't committed one way or the other about putting them in.

[76561198086577775]

datguy13 lähetti viestin:

Relic doesn't refuse to put in a dedicated server. They just haven't committed one way or the other about putting them in.

Dedicated servers don't really work in RTS games since there's so many units. Even StarCraft doesn't use them, and they have all the money.

A good explanation of how most server for RTS games are designed is here: {LINKKI POISTETTU}http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3094/1500_archers_on_a_288_network_.php

There is the way that SC2 does things in that there's a third server that exists between the two client systems (the gamers' computers) and authenticates data. That's something we're introducing to the original Company of Heroes very soon, and may make its way to CoH2 in the future.

[76561198086577775]

datguy13 lähetti viestin:

Seems a little rudimentary to me. Is it possible to add additional factors and qualifiers to the loss or gain of these "trust points"? And is there any way to redeem lost ones that might have been lost by unlucky happenstance such as the power company working on a line or a gerbil chewing through your power cable and knocking you offline?

One or two disconnects won't have an effect on a player's rating. So if your power goes out you don't have to worry.

However if your power goes out twice a week for a month, then that's going to be an issue.

[Aristotle Full Throttle]

If I may ask Relic_Noun, is there a list where players who play games and pull off a comeback get paired up with weaker players (one star or no star) against strong players (by strong I mean seasoned as in 4 or 5 stars; I am not saying that stars a perfect indicator of skill and if it does exist then why) because I have had this happen to me lately and I enjoy a challenge but not that kind of a challenge or is it just internet connection?

[datguy13]

Relic_Noun lähetti viestin:

One or two disconnects won't have an effect on a player's rating. So if your power goes out you don't have to worry.

However if your power goes out twice a week for a month, then that's going to be an issue.

I live in the boonies of New England. Between October and April, the power can go out as much as 6 times in one day, every day for a week solid. =p

I see what you're saying though- the scoring system is not extremely strict so it does provide some leeway. But is there a way to regain some of the lost "trust points", say in the event that one of these habitual droppers has a sudden change of heart and starts behaving themselves?

Relic_Noun lähetti viestin:

Dedicated servers don't really work in RTS games since there's so many units. Even StarCraft doesn't use them, and they have all the money.

A good explanation of how most server for RTS games are designed is here: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3094/1500_archers_on_a_288_network_.php

There is the way that SC2 does things in that there's a third server that exists between the two client systems (the gamers' computers) and authenticates data. That's something we're introducing to the original Company of Heroes very soon, and may make its way to CoH2 in the future.

Useful info. Much obliged. I suppose with Starcraft it's also a matter of Blizzard having the infrastructure already available due to how much they had to put in for WoW. I assume Relic is building from the ground up, so we get to Beta test it through CoH1, right?

Well, if it works, it'll make a lot of people alot happier, so best of luck.

[Zangetsu]

Relic_Noun lähetti viestin:

What you're talking about is termed by the community "drop hacking". The issue is to avoid a loss someone will cause lag to force a disconnect of the game and send it to arbitration which is done by our servers. Our servers decide who wins, and who loses and assigns the win and loss from that.

The servers don't take into account who is currently winning in a game. It's hard to determine that, since there's different strategies and different factions are better early game or late game. (This is the same system that we've been using since launch in the original Company of Heroes). Also if it automatically assigned a win to whoever was first based on say "Victory Points" or resources, then it would encourage players to play a reckless early game to get as many VP points as possible, then disconnect.

What happens is that every Company of Heroes 2 player has a certain amount of what we call trust points. Everyone starts off with the same number, so everyone starts equally.

Anytime you're involved in a game that disconnects before it ends, and is sent to arbitration, you get some of these points docked from your total. This includes whether you're purposefully forcing a disconnect, or if you just have a crappy WiFi connection that drops anytime your roommate uses the microwave.

So when a disconnect happens the servers examine the two players' trust ratings and awards the win to the one who has the higher rating. The one who has been involved in the least amount of dropped games.

A player wanting to use drop hacking as a long term strategy may have some initial success when he's matched up with players with a similar (or lower) trust rating. However if 8/10 games he plays is ending in a disconnection his trust rating will soon fall lower than the typical player and he'll stop winning games.

The problem with this system in the original CoH was that players were able to create unlimited alternate accounts, each with their own trust rating. Thus they could get a clean slate anytime they wanted.

In CoH2 your account is your Steam account. So players are tied to their trust rating, unless they're willing to buy an alternate copy of the game on an alternate Steam account.

Good to know I can get a free win once a month by drop hacking. Thanks for the heads up.

[datguy13]

Krobelus lähetti viestin:

Good to know I can get a free win once a month by drop hacking. Thanks for the heads up.

You don't get a free win. From what Noun is saying, these drops eventually add up and will ultimately bite you in the a$$.