Having to compromise between Quickplay & Hunt 2.0 just to play?


#1

Hello there. I’m a longtime player, but have never done more than lurk on these forums from time to time.
I normally play with my wife (side by side setup), and when we can, my brother and a friend. The issue we’ve got is that compared to the old Skirmish mode, neither of the two new modes seem allow us to just play the game without some kind of concession.

I think there’s enough topics on ranked’s issues, so I’m not gonna bother going too far into depth, just gonna list absurdly long wait times even on Hunters, everyone getting bounced back to the lobby everytime there’s a disconnect (whether network or ragequit), and the shoddy matchmaking.

Thing is, Quickplay doesn’t really seem that much better. It’s certainly an easier experience, just pick up and play, and I love that, but there’s two pretty big issues.

The first, as others have discussed, is the pretty much even split between Hunt, Arena and Defend, and what seems to be a restricted map list? Arena and Defend are certainly better game modes than Nest & Rescue, but I feel they just come up too much and have a tendancy to result in pretty samey matches. Sure, we can vote to skip, but not twice in a row? I feel Skirmish handled this better; priority on Hunt, with a variant matchtype every so often.

The bigger issue though is that the monster is no longer locked out in premades, which means one of the four of us tends to get dealt as the monster, even if we all have it as lowest priority. Obviously this is annoying, as we want to play as a team, like Skirmish used to allow. It’s a more noticeable problem if my wife or I get dealt as the monster, as we can see each other’s screens! My wife’s not a hardcore gamer either, and playing as the monster just panics and stresses her.

Couldn’t we have an option on the preference screen to turn monster on or off? I know from these forums that there’s a ton of monster players who resort to Quickplay just to get a game as the monster due to Hunt 2.0’s wait times, and I imagine there’s a load of groups like mine that want to let them play monster.

I’m aware of Custom, but this has issues of its own; it’s closed, so you only fight the more limited, less interesting AI rather than a human player, and unless you want to back out each time, it repeats the same level.

I was really exited back when Hunt 2.0 was released, but after some time’s passed, I just feel that the game’s taken a step back from where it was even on release. We have to make compromises now that we didn’t used to, and the player base is split between the two modes.

If anyone on the development team are listening, I implore you to make Quickplay more like the original Skirmish mode.


#2

I really like your suggestions. I’ll mention a Dev and if he has time he’ll come.
@MacMan


#3

I would beg to differ, I think Nest would be a far better mode for Quick Play and that it is now fairly balance between the two sides.

So yeah @macman @LadieAuPair (or TRS in general) please consider doing Nest in QuickPlay, its a shorter less time consuming game mode. Its more chill and layed back, giving it a nice break between the 20 minute hunts or intense arena wipeouts.

I get your overall feel on the matter though OP.


#4

Toms"TheDevil’sAdvocate"MeatPlatter here for counter arguments!

I think Quickplay is better than Skirmish. It lets you vote for skips instead of forcing you to play a game-mode you don’t want. My only potential issue with voting for Skip more than once means there is the potential for multiple skips as trolling or just annoying. Doesn’t mean it can’t be improved though. It’d be cool if they did like a 2 choice system like COD did, with an option to randomize if both options are bad.

Next as for Quickplay only having Hunt, Arena, and Defend. I believe this was decided based on numbers. Most people played Hunt (duh) and Arena, meanwhile Defend was the main way to grind for Masteries. I believe TRS said Nest and Rescue were rarely played. If you include all 5 modes, you have a 20% chance of playing what you actually want.

As far as Hunt 2.0 goes, it was asked for by the Community and splitting the playerbase was a concern, however it was a necessary risk. As for a matchmaking goes, sadly this game isn’t Halo or COD where you can get a match pretty much at anytime. It’s actually closer to R6 Siege, sometimes based on your Rank and Timezone, it’s just going to be easier or harder to find a match!

Well articulated points, I do not disagree with most of them!


#5

I’m not so sure you could endlessly vote skip to grief, doesn’t a successful skip require 3 votes? Honestly, if you find yourself in a lobby with 3 griefers, then you’re probably better off leaving anyway.
Besides, if Hunt was the priority and came up 80% of the time, you likely wouldn’t need a multi-skip option. like Arena and Defend, but by their nature they’re more limited versions of the game, and fall short of the ‘complete experience’ of Hunt.


#6

i wanted to like the post but the last line got me. for me defend and arena (hell even nest and rescue) are their own things and sure when compared to hunt arent the full package but thats honestly because they are different game modes at the end of the day. i do agree with above though wishing it had like 2 or 3 choices to pick from to vote between rather this or it gets voted no and forced into the next one super quick


#7

what system do you play on? i love playing monster and like playing them all and i dont mind using map effects or vanilla rules or even some crazy ruleset we come up with on the fly. Im on xbox so hopefully thats the case so you guys can get some monster matches in :slight_smile:


#8

We are indeed on the Xbox One (add me, TheDecadentOne), but we’re in the UK and have a pretty erratic schedule. We tend to play without a lot of organisation in advance, so I’m not sure how easy it would be to arrange some games with you.


#9

i have pretty consistent times im online, which basically as much as i can be lol. well bump into each other