READ HERE About 1.0 multiplayer structure

I quote them like I quote any other user of this or other forum, for example right now I'm quoting you and is not because you said something smart.

 

The one thing I hope is that the server weights system is rethought. Don’t really understand it and I feel like it’s trying to change something already well established for no real gain. Why not just use filters like 99% of other titles?

 

I think the current system is fine to float the best matching servers to the top, however I agree filters would then be useful to to further refine.

What I don’t understand is how servers that are down i.e. no ping are making into the list, perhaps a bug?

 

Some nice selective quotes here. Surely you realise that in the race department interview, by open servers they're referring to servers with the driver rating algorithms disabled ?

Irrespective though, I still maintain that to accuse the devs of being purposely deceitful is not only unfounded, but also low.

 

If they were not being deceitful why they didn't make this very same statement 6 months ago instead of 10 days from release? it is not like people was not asking them about this topic 1000 times in this forum, they had many chances to be open and honest, they knew what people were expecting but they still chose to remain silent, something that (oh surprise) also means more profits. Being so naive in this world of sharks is surprising, but IDK, maybe I'm an old cynical fart.

 

Funny, I've been on the thread from the start, and all I'm seeing is:
1) You are wrong to call the devs deceitful / liars.

2) You are wrong to call the devs deceitful / liars.

3) You are wrong to call the devs deceitful / liars.

4) You are wrong to call the devs deceitful / liars.

 

I wish people would stop regurgitating Minolin's post which clearly was sarcasm. People can't read the first sentence of that post... they just jump straight to 'wouldn't call it matchmaking' without comprehending what's being said. Look at the damn wink...

I think it's sad to see what the community has turned into. Instead of constructive criticism it's turned into some kind of hatefest. Such a shame.

 

I cannot say why they remained silent, but I cannot see how the above approach could result in more sales /profits. That is, lie during early access to push sale numbers (when the price is discounted), and then reveal the truth just prior to full release when you are about to maximise your returns.

 

Nature of the human race I'm afraid - cos it's more gratifying to hate and destroy than it is to appreciate creation.

 

i completely misunderstood what you meant. sorry.

 

If Kunos are trying to cash in as you put it, why reveal it now just before 1.0? Why not delay a few more weeks to maximise the 'deceit' and associated returns?

 

You cannot defend a lie. Just this. Matchmaking is matchmaking. Filters on servers are not matchmaking. I would not complain if they told me that after the rewrite on multiplayer code they have to pospone it for later updates. They didn't. They have said they will do just what we have and maybe some additions. We have been told one thing to buy it and then we get something that haven't got that thing. So it's a lie. Don't say they didn't cause they said MATCH MAKING.
I hope they read all this comments and make this game not only a good multiplayer game but the best one.

 

@jaxx_za
Nobody can tell for sure that the developers used that word with a bad intention, you actually showed a very good reason to believe they didn't. But the fact of the matter is that they used a word that misled a lot of people.
So either they:
a) Had the intention of implementing such feature, but realize they couldn't do it later down the line or
b) Had a different interpretation of the word "matchmaking".
If "a" is the case, I think the best thing to do is to just say "Look guys, we're sorry, we really wanted to give you this feature but for x and y reason we couldn't do it".
If "b" is the case, I believe Minolin is wrong to say that we, the users, misinterpreted the word. If you look at any other game where the word "matchmaking" is used, I don't think there's a single one where that word is used to describe a feature that helps you choose between public servers. In every instance I've seen so far, matchmaking corresponds to a system where you connect to official, very well organized servers. By continuing to use that word, they are basically saying that Assetto Corsa Competizione has the worst implementation of matchmaking I've ever seen so far, because on all the other games where that word is used, it's used to name a better feature than what we have.

Either way, I would strongly suggest that Kunos stop using that word if what we have now is what we'll get.

Edit: Just to add one more thing:
Remember on AC1 when everybody was asking for rain, and Stefano just said something along the lines of:
"If we're gonna implement rain, we're gonna do better than everyone else. Since we can't do that, we won't implement rain at all"?
And then what happened? When they finally did implement rain, it was the best implementation of rain done in a race simulator that I know of.
So if we're supposed to call those filters "Matchmaking", it's exactly the opposite. Like I said, it's the worst matchmaking system that I'm aware of. So when people complain about that, I really don't think you can say it's for no reason, we're not used to see Kunos doing the worst thing of a kind.

 

I guess it is A case, because I'm not sure why so many people says matchmaking can lead to confusion. I is just a thing. Open servers are what is told custom games or private games or private server based multiplayer???. That's not matchmaking even if it is filtered or ordered by some indicators. They should've said this and tell that if anybody wants, they can get a refund. And that's a good case of we don't lie. Just we can't. If they don't want to do a refund and they can do it, then promise it for a future (not so far pls xD) update.

 

I hope they stopped reading this thread, it's full of false acusation, ignorance and misunderstanding of the way you develop a game and what it take to develop advanced functionnality.
but hey wathever, all the pitiful people that thrive for drama came here...
And now even the youtubers try to milk views and attention from this .

 

That's not the case. It's based on what they promised to sell the game on September or October (i don't remember exact date). If they didn't said that.... No problem there. If they wanted to do and they couldn't say it. Don't say they didn't mean that thing.

EDIT: Or even say you will do later or at another cost (take my money Kunos). No problem. I just want what they promised.
Again. I want this game being the very best, not destructive critics.

 

Why do you need to cash in at all on this?
We have no idea why they took the approach they did re the comms, but they are doing many good things in parallel - the results of which are clearly visible.

Why add to the hate, with your 'i told you so' commentary response?

PS: Haven't watched your video, so if my assumptions are wrong, my apologies.

 

up to the 9 or 10th page, it was okay, people had constructive conversation, but the next 19 pages are just hate, intellectual dishonesty and trolls, loads of troll

 

Well it would not be the first time that you have quoted someone that as not said something smart

 

Appreciate the level headed response mate.

Personally, I think it's a matter of case B. In my own googling, I couldn't find two definitions of the word matchmaking that were undoubtedly aligned.

My problem is not that people are complaining, but I don't feel it's right to accuse the devs of deceit and lies. This is just plain wrong and low.
Surely you can see that most responses are not meant to be constructive or to add to the discussion, but rather just to hate on the devs.

Can you imagine what this must do to the morale of a team that have working long hours for the past 9 months? Constructive criticism on the other hand should always be welcome.

Edit: I missed the bit about Minolin's response - can you please point me to the thread?