CQC Game all but unplayable

Controlledpress · Jun 4, 2016

FD, Fix the damn matchmaking. PLEASE!

as it stands now, the team deathmatch never starts... 8 players and it's "Waiting for players to join"

And of course, there's the problem of the ACTUAL matchmaking.. A bunch of low levels getting thrown in with lvl 48 players.

Like so many other things... Arena is a great idea, that got completely ruined by the execution.

kossack · Jun 4, 2016

FD been "fixing matchmaker" since October 2015. Don't hold your breath for it to be fixed any time soon...

suburbanguerilla · Jun 6, 2016

the way to improve is to be challenged , and i am level 400 + thank you very much .

( as when you get to 50 you can reset or "prestige" 8 times ( max ) ) . Oh an Kossack , cheer up m8 , your begining to remind me of Marvin off hitchhikers guide to the galaxy .

kossack · Jun 6, 2016

Nope. Does not work with Frontier/CQC this way. And current level of complaining is not enough to change their mind.. Just a bit of reality for you.
You need to up your game to get things moving.

Globusdiablo · Jun 7, 2016

CQC is a bad joke. A good idea terribly executed. FD obviously have no clue how to make an arena game, but don't seem to mind. Don't waste your time, play the main game instead.

ph1Lt0r · Jun 7, 2016

The reason you get matched with the level 48 players is the fact that there isn't anyone else playing. I enjoy playing Arena every now and then, but the lack of players and 20 minute matchmaking times makes it rather stale after a while.

Capt.Blackbird · Jun 29, 2016

If the match-scheduler don't work, nobody try to play more..
Doesn't understand frontier, that they kill their product ?!?

kossack · Jun 29, 2016

Frontier intended for the CQC to fail. Pretty obvious that they are not "that stupid".
My guess - CQC was "strongly suggested" by their publisher pre-Xbox release. So they put it together to get on Xbox...
Have not done much with it (only making it worse imho) ever since..

My suggestion - just give it up and move on - there are a few 6-dof shooters out there worth trying... (Star Citizen AC despite being very buggy has no shortage of players any time of the day for one)
Or look @ http://store.steampowered.com/tag/en/6DOF/#p=0&tab=TopSellers

SushiCW · Jun 29, 2016

Kossack, how does your theory deal with the fact that Frontier still regularly does CQC livestreams?

If they intended for the game to fail, or had given up on it altogether for any reason, why would they bother?

kossack · Jun 29, 2016

Livestreams done by community outreach people. Resources (dev time) allocated by completely different department.
(Telling you as a "gaming industry insider")

SushiCW · Jun 29, 2016

kossack said:
Livestreams done by community outreach people. Resources (dev time) allocated by completely different department.
(Telling you as a "gaming industry insider")

I get that, but why would the community outreach people bother? What's the point in promoting CQC if you want it to die?

Or do you think it's a case of right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing?

kossack · Jun 29, 2016

SushiCW said:
I get that, but why would the community outreach people bother? What's the point in promoting CQC if you want it to die?

Or do you think it's a case of right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing?

Inertia and insignificance of the expense I guess...
And to clarify "Intended for CQC to fail":
- Decided not to spend much resources beyond "original push".
- Allocated resources for "stand-alone spin-off" rather then for "fixing design bugs". (This is actually a classic "cut your losses" move)
- Alienated players by not acknowledging (let alone fixing) CQC shortcomings - in fact there is barely any communication from Frontier regarding CQC at all..
- Not made any effort to get into a bundling agreement with HTC Vive (I have some info on "F" actually being approached on that matter)

All of the above is pretty obvious and the only way it can happen if somebody @ Frontier actually "decided to let CQC fail".
And it probably even makes a business sense.
That said personally I think it was a huge mistake. IMHO CQC had a very good chance of becoming "THE 6dof game"... Too bad Frontier abandoned it...

SushiCW · Jun 29, 2016

Thanks, that's a lot clearer.

I still hope that FD plans to include some CQC love: 2.2 would be a great time since it's fighters-themed already. Nothing to do but wait and see, I guess.

kossack · Jun 29, 2016

SushiCW said:
Thanks, that's a lot clearer.

I still hope that FD plans to include some CQC love: 2.2 would be a great time since it's fighters-themed already. Nothing to do but wait and see, I guess.

I kind of hope for it too, but also realize that the chance is getting more and more remote. There is a lot of competition in the pipeline and business-wise it makes even less sense to spend on CQC now.. But of course all it takes is for one person at FD to decide... So there is always a chance.

SushiCW · Jun 29, 2016

It's definitely not a straightforward decision, and that kind of crystal-ball peering is well above my paygrade. Even if I had access to all the info.

tgarpestad · Jun 30, 2016

I've had this problem several times today. Trying to play deathmath, but the game won't start eventhough we meet the minimum requirement for players. Very strange. Hopefully this will be fixed.

kossack · Jun 30, 2016

tgarpestad said:
I've had this problem several times today. Trying to play deathmath, but the game won't start eventhough we meet the minimum requirement for players. Very strange. Hopefully this will be fixed.

I suspect this may happen if you all can connect to FD's server (that is where a "waiting list" is created) but one of you can't connect P2P..
Probably just a design bug..

SushiCW · Jun 30, 2016

kossack said:
I suspect this may happen if you all can connect to FD's server (that is where a "waiting list" is created) but one of you can't connect P2P..
Probably just a design bug..

What *used* to happen in that scenario is the game would start but you couldn't see everyone. Game and scoreboard would still progress normally, but you would only see some of the players in the match...

I haven't seen that since 2.1, so maybe they are avoiding that issue by preventing game start.

kossack · Jun 30, 2016

SushiCW said:
What *used* to happen in that scenario is the game would start but you couldn't see everyone. Game and scoreboard would still progress normally, but you would only see some of the players in the match...

I haven't seen that since 2.1, so maybe they are avoiding that issue by preventing game start.

I was not able to get a single game since 2.1 (tried half a dozen times) - so don't know for sure.
But really I was referring to the design flaw of their CQC "pre-game". It shows you players that may not be able to get into the same "instance" with you.
Both errors ("invisible participants/split instance" and "unable to start") are consequences of this fundamental design oversight/bug...

VR Jay Le Chardon · Jul 3, 2016

There is a CQC club who run fight nights on a Friday night 19:00 -> 03:00 GMT, they have their own discord, the link that follows in an open ended invite to join them https://discord.gg/hNgCU

If you tie in with the CQC fight night guys you have a much better chance of getting a match, and more chances of working around the bugs outlined above, unless of course it is you who has the P2P communication issues causing the matches to fail.