PDA

View Full Version : Reduce the minimum number of players in Ranked match PC



Noctrune
5th Feb 2014, 06:21
Almost impossible to get a match in PC (Steam) for a ranked game. I have only one friend playing the game and together we are not enoght. Any chance to reduce the minimum number of players in ranked mode ? I wanted to make the Archovement with my frind basicly but, not chance even to start the game this way :(

Murphdawg1
5th Feb 2014, 06:30
Almost impossible to get a match in PC (Steam) for a ranked game. I have only one friend playing the game and together we are not enoght. Any chance to reduce the minimum number of players in ranked mode ? I wanted to make the Archovement with my frind basicly but, not chance even to start the game this way :(

How about no multiplayer in the sequel?

Jurre
5th Feb 2014, 08:16
^ Defeatist!

Seriously, I think ranked should be removed, as it cuts the number of available players in two.

_Ninja_
5th Feb 2014, 13:37
How about no multiplayer in the sequel?

Too late for that.

Murphdawg1
5th Feb 2014, 13:49
Too late for that.

How? We know nothing about the sequel as of yet.

CakeLuv
5th Feb 2014, 13:52
What if CD is making it and it happens to be the most extraordinary Multiplayer ever created?

Jurre
5th Feb 2014, 14:00
... Then there's still people screaming that multiplayer doesn't belong in a Tomb Raider game... But the people who do like multiplayer will shrug their shoulders and go back to enjoy it, at least that's what I will do...

BridgetFisher
6th Feb 2014, 02:48
Pretty sure that like TR2013 their going to spend a huge portion of the budget on multiplayer to attract the COD crowd. While Tomb raider doesnt fit into multiplayer which is why noone plays it, it may work. Assassins Creed has a multiplayer that noone likes but they keep making that too for some reason. haha. I wonder if the new hitman will have capture the flag or other online modes as well.

Murphdawg1
6th Feb 2014, 03:01
... Then there's still people screaming that multiplayer doesn't belong in a Tomb Raider game... But the people who do like multiplayer will shrug their shoulders and go back to enjoy it, at least that's what I will do...

It doesn't. Some games just don't need multiplayer in them as their themes don't really fit with multiplayer. I will be perfectly happy if the next Tomb Raider offers up a great single player with good gameplay, lots of exploration, challenging puzzles and tombs, less human combat and no multiplayer.

pirate1802
6th Feb 2014, 04:21
Assassins Creed has a multiplayer that noone likes but they keep making that too for some reason. haha.

There are plenty of people who like it and play it regularly, me included. So I dunno where this assumption is coming from, probably from the same place where the no one likes the bow idea came from lol. And tell you what, it is THE most innovative MP I've seen on the market. However, this is the reason I don't take the MP-doesn't-belong-in-TR!!one1 argument seriously. Before Brotherhood, I too thought MP doesnt belong in an AC game. But they made it and now I love it. Sure a good MP isn't NEEDED in a TR game. That doesn't however, mean that they can't make it and make it good. Only problem is that they made it crap. So now people are saying it doesn't belong. Had it been super amazing, no one would be complaining that it doesn't belong and would be too busy playing it.

Another example: Mass Effect 3 MP. You'd think no one likes it. But there are plenty of people who are still playing it two years after release, again, me included. That was another game I thought MP never belonged to. But here it is, and its great. So yes, because I happened to be the guy who thought mp didnt belong to both of the above example and subsequently became addicted to their mp, I don't think they should not make mp because it "doesn't belong". Just make sure you make it good and people would stop complaining.

Jurre
6th Feb 2014, 08:19
It doesn't. Some games just don't need multiplayer in them as their themes don't really fit with multiplayer.

What does that even mean: 'don't need multiplayer'? What does a game need then? Does it really need trees or water or can we leave that out as well? Wait, who said that everything that is not absolutely needed in a game has to be left out?

And who determines what fits a theme or not? You're thinking of your own preferences as an objective truth here...

People who don't like multiplayer can ignore it, its as simple as that. But I find it rather selfish when those people insist that multiplayer shouldn't be there, denying it to all those who do enjoy it.

_Ninja_
6th Feb 2014, 08:54
How? We know nothing about the sequel as of yet.

I'm not sure if they said anything but around the time sequel was announced CD had a job posting looking for a multilayer designer. Also Square Enix wants their future games to have "persistent online experience".

So while you're right that "we don't know". Everything leans in that direction.

BridgetFisher
6th Feb 2014, 08:56
There are plenty of people who like it and play it regularly, me included. So I dunno where this assumption is coming from, probably from the same place where the no one likes the bow idea came from lol. And tell you what, it is THE most innovative MP I've seen on the market. However, this is the reason I don't take the MP-doesn't-belong-in-TR!!one1 argument seriously. Before Brotherhood, I too thought MP doesnt belong in an AC game. But they made it and now I love it. Sure a good MP isn't NEEDED in a TR game. That doesn't however, mean that they can't make it and make it good. Only problem is that they made it crap. So now people are saying it doesn't belong. Had it been super amazing, no one would be complaining that it doesn't belong and would be too busy playing it.

Another example: Mass Effect 3 MP. You'd think no one likes it. But there are plenty of people who are still playing it two years after release, again, me included. That was another game I thought MP never belonged to. But here it is, and its great. So yes, because I happened to be the guy who thought mp didnt belong to both of the above example and subsequently became addicted to their mp, I don't think they should not make mp because it "doesn't belong". Just make sure you make it good and people would stop complaining.

There are still people playing the original old duke nukem multiplayer, I dunno there a niche group. Its good that some people enjoy multiplayer in games like AC and Tomb Raider so all that time wasnt wasted. But steamgraph for TR2013 has always been sorta dead for people playing online. Maybe its not that it doesnt belong, its more that other companies do the same thing better?

*I do see ALOT of posts online and discussion on games that show alot of people will not buy a game if it doesnt have a MP component. That doesnt seem to mean they will play it, but they seem to enjoy the option of having it there.

pirate1802
6th Feb 2014, 09:05
Yes, its not a question of whether it belongs or not, but that it was poorly done. And other companies did it better. AC MP was successful (relatively speaking) because it is unique. For those of us who want a taste of social stealth-based mp experience its the only game out there. TR MP was basically a third person shooter. Hardly unique. And yes, those mp are niche groups, they don't even begin to approach the popularity of the bigger mp games but that doesn't mean they arent there. On ubi forums the mp section is flooded to whiny kids, showoff brats, clan recruitment and such. You wouldn't have them if no one cared about it.

a_big_house
6th Feb 2014, 10:09
People who don't like multiplayer can ignore it, its as simple as that. But I find it rather selfish when those people insist that multiplayer shouldn't be there, denying it to all those who do enjoy it.

Isn't it then selfish for those who do want multiplayer to insist that valuable development time and money goes on something, that is the complete opposite of what people liked so much in the first place? (GoL co-op)

Perhaps people who like PvP multiplayer should go and play games that are well known for multiplayer, such as good ol' CoD. Tomb Raider has always been a SP game and you simply cannot call people selfish for them wanting to it stay that way.

Jurre
6th Feb 2014, 10:34
TR MP was basically a third person shooter. Hardly unique.
Someone, I don't remember who, made a great point: the TR multiplayer is unique because it stars Lara Croft :)


Isn't it then selfish for those who do want multiplayer to insist that valuable development time and money goes on something, that is the complete opposite of what people liked so much in the first place? (GoL co-op)How much more awesome would TR9 have been if the money used for the MP was send to the SP, honestly? My guess is that it was used to do more things that the same conservatives who complain about the MP hate: more gunfights.

Maybe they could have made one or two more rooms with it, but then it would have taken Crystal D some more time to complete the SP since the MP was made by a different studio. Seeing how the multiplayer is good for many hours of gameplay I do value it higher than another SP room that is explored in 5 minutes or so.


Perhaps people who like PvP multiplayer should go and play games that are well known for multiplayer, such as good ol' CoD. Tomb Raider has always been a SP game and you simply cannot call people selfish for them wanting to it stay that way.

Yeah it's always really good to tell people who want something to play a different game. And this argument that it has to be this way because it has always been this way makes just as little sense now as it has ever, whether you write it in bold or not.

I've been playing the multiplayer for several months and I have seen hundreds if not thousands of people who enjoyed it too and cared about ranking up to unlock new stuff. To say to all those people: NO! you can't have this because I don't want it! is selfish.

a_big_house
6th Feb 2014, 11:01
Someone, I don't remember who, made a great point: the TR multiplayer is unique because it stars Lara Croft :)

No, it doesn't. Not until you unlock her, which takes a crap ton of time to do


How much more awesome would TR9 have been if the money used for the MP was send to the SP, honestly? My guess is that it was used to do more things that the same conservatives who complain about the MP hate: more gunfights.
I guess we'll never know, since we're now stuck with MP.
As for you guess, well it is a guess, that's all I need to say about that.


Maybe they could have made one or two more rooms with it, but then it would have taken Crystal D some more time to complete the SP since the MP was made by a different studio. Seeing how the multiplayer is good for many hours of gameplay I do value it higher than another SP room that is explored in 5 minutes or so.
So? We waited 4 and a bit years, another couple months wouldn't kill us, we wouldn't have even known any different.

Seeing how the multiplayer is good for many hours of gameplay I do value it higher than another SP room that is explored in 5 minutes or so.
If you like MP, yes it's good forever, but generally, people play Tomb Raider for the SP. And well, that's your play style, if you like to rush through stuff then that's up to you, other people might take their time.


Yeah it's always really good to tell people who want something to play a different game. And this argument that it has to be this way because it has always been this way makes just as little sense now as it has ever, whether you write it in bold or not.
Well why not? Aren't you basically saying if we don't want to play a game with MP then to not play TR9 (and future games) Cause that's what it looks like.


I've been playing the multiplayer for several months and I have seen hundreds if not thousands of people who enjoyed it too and cared about ranking up to unlock new stuff.
Again, that's just you. And I've seen a lot of people who have said they only played the MP so they could unlock the achievements/trophies for it.

To say to all those people: NO! you can't have this because I don't want it! is selfish.
1 - I never said that.
2 - Take a look at the Wishlist thread, are you going to call everyone in there selfish too, just because the do or don't want something?

Jurre
6th Feb 2014, 11:35
Well why not? Aren't you basically saying if we don't want to play a game with MP then to not play TR9 (and future games) Cause that's what it looks like.
That's basic logic: if you don't want to play a game with MP: don't play TR9 - because it has MP. Why anyone wouldn't want to play TR9 when the MP can be safely ignored is something I'll never understand. Just like those people who play something they don't like just for the achievements. I mean it's not like you earn money with that or something...



2 - Take a look at the Wishlist thread, are you going to call everyone in there selfish too, just because the do or don't want something?
No, because most of those things are related to the SP campaign. The inclusion of an MP has no effect on the SP whatsoever so why do people who play just the SP insist that it has to be removed? The only thing is that some money has to be spend on it, but in earlier days they would spend that on Karima Abebibe and Carrol Alison to get SAS training. I didn't see the masses revolt against that.

Something else: the argument of 'it has be this way because it always has been that way' is only uttered when the result of something new is not a success or not a complete success. I didn't hear that argument when Guardian of Light came out. So the argument that a developer Always has to keep doing the same because something new is never going to yield good results is utterly false. You'll never know if something new will be good or not until you try. And for that reason they should keep on trying.

TR9 multiplayer is not a complete success like GoL was, but like the Assassins Creed multiplayer or the Call of Duty zombies it has started out small. It can grow stronger and better if given the chance.

a_big_house
6th Feb 2014, 12:03
That's basic logic: if you don't want to play a game with MP: don't play TR9 - because it has MP. Why anyone wouldn't want to play TR9 when the MP can be safely ignored is something I'll never understand. Just like those people who play something they don't like just for the achievements. I mean it's not like you earn money with that or something...
I don't know anyone like that, it was just a bad example



No, because most of those things are related to the SP campaign. The inclusion of an MP has no effect on the SP whatsoever so why do people who play just the SP insist that it has to be removed? The only thing is that some money has to be spend on it, but in earlier days they would spend that on Karima Abebibe and Carrol Alison to get SAS training. I didn't see the masses revolt against that.

"MP has no effect on the SP" Technically, it does.
As for the models, who even cared about them, they were just cheap promotion? (Well, Alison was anyway, I still remember that interview she did where she knew nothing about history :lol:)


Something else: the argument of 'it has be this way because it always has been that way' is only uttered when the result of something new is not a success or not a complete success. I didn't hear that argument when Guardian of Light came out.
GoL was something new! It wasn't even a TR game to start with and the MP, as I said earlier was co-op.
You stated earlier that MP was all about shooting, something which there was too much of in SP. The failure is that they decided to go with PvP instead of Co-op which they already knew would succeed.

So the argument that a developer Always has to keep doing the same because something new is never going to yield good results is utterly false. You'll never know if something new will be good or not until you try. And for that reason they should keep on trying.
No they shouldn't. they should ditch the PvP and add in the Co-op


TR9 multiplayer is not a complete success like GoL was, but like the Assassins Creed multiplayer or the Call of Duty zombies it has started out small. It can grow stronger and better if given the chance.
AC MP was a new kind of PvP, it wasn't shooting, it was stalking your prey, hiding from the predators that is why it has grown. CoD is shooting in FPS. TR is shooting in TPS.
There is absolutely no different between CoD and TRs MP other than location and characters, which is why is isn't a success.

But getting back to the point (kinda), I agree that ranked matches should removed, they're just pointless IMO.

Jurre
6th Feb 2014, 12:35
But getting back to the point (kinda), I agree that ranked matches should removed, they're just pointless IMO.

Oh gosh, yeah that was what the topic was about... :o

Alright, to sum this up really quickly:

- I think the multiplayer audience is large enough to deserve a piece of the cake, especially when there's already an awesome SP for the SP-only crowd to gorge upon.
- To the people who argue that it takes resources away from the SP I'd say that a lot of money is spend on all kinds of things, like promotion stunts with models and boxers and swimming pools in the Crystal D office, that don't directly improve your situation. And I don't think that extra money automatically means a better SP campaign...

a_big_house
6th Feb 2014, 15:39
To the people who argue that it takes resources away from the SP I'd say that a lot of money is spend on all kinds of things, like promotion stunts with models and boxers and swimming pools in the Crystal D office, that don't directly improve your situation. And I don't think that extra money automatically means a better SP campaign...

I did say technically - As in it takes up disc space :p

Jurre
6th Feb 2014, 15:44
Alright, that's a given :)

Flintmelody
6th Feb 2014, 17:39
The ranked and casual modes just don't work as an idea. Would be better if they just pooled it together.

The multiplayer is great fun WHEN it works. With things like the matchup system that either doesn't match up enough players for ranked (or DLC matches) to start or match streaming that ends up really jumpy at times it certainly has problems.