Matchmaking: for or against?

Nerdkiller1991

For me, I'm against the whole aspect of only having to be thrown into a match, rather than being able to select which server you want to join. I wouldn't really mind it as an option (as long as there's a server list, like the Resistance games), but so many games and even already established franchises are going this route. Killzone 2 had a list where you can choose your own game. Next game, dumped it entirely for matchmaking. MotorStorm, latest game only has matchmaking. Gears of War had lists for unranked games and matchmaking for ranked. Gears 2 comes along, BOTH only have matchmaking. And don't get me started on SOCOM 4. That's one of the main reasons why the game is getting a load of hate.

This also leads the probability of being matched to a host with a poor connection if the server is P2P. Hosting your own public game is also non existent, meaning you can only create a private, invite only game, hindering your chances of making your own game, as you might not have anyone who has the same game.

So what do you think? Should we just have matchmaking or should it be an option where you still get to choose your own game?

cherryghost

Against. Totally. PC server browsing is awesome. Pick your mode, pick your map, join in on the mayhem. Despite the grievances PC gamers get, we're very lucky with this kind of thing (except MW2, but even thats been hacked and there's public servers available )

ShadowHearth

Well perfectly I would like to have bouth options. We played sooooo much on pc mw2, becomes we could make steam party and get thrown bs ather people. When black ops came out it all went ball up. We could not join proper server with people as not all of us could get in. Spot wise. We bought our own server and we could not play if there were only 2 or 3 of us as you need 6 to start of match... We newer ever came back to black ops after sinking so much time in mw2.

That's what I love about xbox. We make a party and go play together. Matchmaking works perfect for us. All benefits what cherry listed too.

The only downside when developers being cheap. Making player act as a server so ping issues.

Perfect world: matchmaking with dedicated servers like xbox bc2. Works perfect. We can do party. To stay together, choose: mode, map etc and just play.

I think more people got a bad taste in they'd mouths because matchmaking is always followed with no dedicated servers... And I don't blame them, Crysis 2 is perfect example.

Sierra Oscar

I prefer the choice. Matchmaking does have its advantages such as (obviously) quick and easy access to servers. All the same in order to pick the most suitable server I think a server browser is the way to go.

Magill

Match making is ****e, you dont realise how awesome server lists and having the whole community server thing etc is until you dont have that option anymore.

tman

Most definitely against... I've recently rediscovered my love of Unreal Tourny instagib action, I somehow doubt I'd even find a match of it going if it weren't for dedicated servers!

Varik

Some quick join option is good, but i like very detailed sever lists.

SeantheMan

Server lists with custom filters. Hardcore /passworded /full / empty etc etc

Most here already know, but for certain STEAM / valve games (L4D2, TF2 etc) you can open console and type "openserverbrowser" to get a list.

I still don't know why they don't have this as a default option in the games tbh.

Zeouterlimits

Both are great, I don't care which of the two systems developers choose to use, as long as they use it well i.e. some implement matchmaking better than others.

Sabre0001

I like being able to browse through games and join something that suits me.

But at the same time, some matchmaking is spot on - example: Starcraft 2. 9 times out of 10 I get a good, even game.

Jazzy

matchmaking is another thing that can go suck a fat one

Retr0gamer

Matchmaking is the worst thing to happen to online gaming in the last 10 years. Since there's no community servers it just means that anything that isn't one of the big name games end up dying with in 2-6 months. then there's when matchmaking completely and utterly fails when it searches for the best server and you get thrown into a server with a ping of 400+ and it's unplayably laggy. It was such a pain only being able to matchmake servers in L4D2, it meant we had to restart matches about 5 times before we got acceptible pings. With a server list we could have arranged by ping and been playingn in seconds instead of have the matchmaking code wait a minute while it totally failed and the number of restarts.

Halo 2 has a lot to answer for.

Nerdkiller1991

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Matchmaking is the worst thing to happen to online gaming in the last 10 years. Since there's no community servers it just means that anything that isn't one of the big name games end up dying with in 2-6 months. then there's when matchmaking completely and utterly fails when it searches for the best server and you get thrown into a server with a ping of 400+ and it's unplayably laggy. It was such a pain only being able to matchmake servers in L4D2, it meant we had to restart matches about 5 times before we got acceptible pings. With a server list we could have arranged by ping and been playingn in seconds instead of have the matchmaking code wait a minute while it totally failed and the number of restarts.

Halo 2 has a lot to answer for.

Case in point, the SOCOM series. The gameplay isn't the only thing that gave it such a large community. It was the option to choose which server and its region you wanted to join. Now that both options are being thrown out in favour of matchmaking, you won't see anyone aside from the most hardcore of players...and even they're not going to be joining SOCOM 4 by the looks of things with the amount of changes made to it.

TerrorFirmer

On the flip side, Matchmatching in Halo is absolutely fantastic. I play alot between H3 and Reach, and it would be incredibly rare for me to get a laggy game. I'm not saying that MM is better then a browser; I'm a PC Gamer, too; but I find it works exceptionally well in Halo.

ShadowHearth

I think people mixing up matchmaking and Server list with dedicated and non dedicated servers.

There are games which use matchmaking with dedicated servers aka bc2, and it works fine. There are games like cod which use matchmaking and non dedicated servers. Cod makes real shot out of it.

I am playing Crysis 2 on pc now. Those server list does feck all to me, as I rarely get ability to join server I played before. Having dedicated server is different story...

Jim

Server browser +100. Since it's infinitely better than matchmaking and most games can just add a "Quick Join" option which essentially does the same job as Matchmaking.

The only advantage to Matchmaking is that it can put you with players of similar skill to you, but the only way I can really see that working is by Rank which is more about time played than skill. I'm not even sure games do join you up based on skill.

Retr0gamer

Well it certainly didn't matchmake me based on rank in call of duty since even matchmaking as a noob I'd be up against about 3 players already at prestige level.

Jim

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Well it certainly didn't matchmake me based on rank in call of duty since even matchmaking as a noob I'd be up against about 3 players already at prestige level.

Exactly.

ShadowHearth

Am I the only one who sees some good in it?

I love the idea that you can make a party with friends and go play instantly...

cherryghost

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Am I the only one who sees some good in it?

I love the idea that you can make a party with friends and go play instantly...

Steam -> Friends List -> Right click -> Join game

Problem?

Jim

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Am I the only one who sees some good in it?

I love the idea that you can make a party with friends and go play instantly...

This is possibly the only positive of the system as with Server Browsing you can be waiting awhile to all get on the same server etc. But then again it can take awhile for a game to start up if you're in a group of friends with Matchmaking.

Seifer

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Matchmaking is the worst thing to happen to online gaming in the last 10 years. Since there's no community servers it just means that anything that isn't one of the big name games end up dying with in 2-6 months. then there's when matchmaking completely and utterly fails when it searches for the best server and you get thrown into a server with a ping of 400+ and it's unplayably laggy. It was such a pain only being able to matchmake servers in L4D2, it meant we had to restart matches about 5 times before we got acceptible pings. With a server list we could have arranged by ping and been playingn in seconds instead of have the matchmaking code wait a minute while it totally failed and the number of restarts.

Halo 2 has a lot to answer for.

Assuming you are talking about L4D2 on pc; you can browse the server list. And then the lobby leader can set the ip to connect to.
All has to be done through the console though.

ShadowHearth

cherryghost wrote: »

Steam -> Friends List -> Right click -> Join game

Problem?

Right click: server full.

Here's your problem. Not all games are steam based.

I do love steam system, but not all gamesxwork like that.

Don't understand me wrong, I am oldschool gamer, I remember server list. Quake etc. I like server list, but I would not consider of matchmaking like it's pure evil.

Matchmaking on pc mw2 work great for our little group, when black ops came out we had so many problems.

4 of the lads got in to server, and the rest can't as it full.

go find a server half empty - all lads in, but it's mess in teams and half empty game on server.

We rented a server - you need minimum of 6 or 8 people to start playing... There were only 3 or 4 of us at time.... We could not play.

I wont say one is better then anather. I will just say that Bourgogne got they're good and bad points. No need to say that matchmaking is the worst thing to happen to gaming community... As it's not...

cherryghost

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Right click: server full.

Here's your problem. Not all games are steam based.

Xfire caters for games non Steam based, you can join servers from that

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Matchmaking on pc mw2 work great for our little group, when black ops came out we had so many problems.

Matchmaking on MW2 was the biggest load of rubbish.

ShadowHearth wrote: »

No need to say that matchmaking is the worst thing to happen to gaming community... As it's not...

Yes it is. Quake III on the Dreamcast had servers and it was like a dream come true. Matchmaking is like gambling; you could get disconnects, you could have a terrible host, you could lose a friend, you could have hackers on the game. Then again everything could be perfectly fine in a perfect world.

Retr0gamer

Seifer wrote: »

Assuming you are talking about L4D2 on pc; you can browse the server list. And then the lobby leader can set the ip to connect to.
All has to be done through the console though.

Yeah they saw sense at least but the first few days of release were a nightmare.

Chairman Meow

I think one of the first console FPSes i ever palyed online was Halo 3. All i remember was firing it up and looking for the server browser, and spending about a half hour going through various stages of shock, lolling, crying, and so forth at how ****ing ham fisted and god ****ing awful an idea matchmaking is.
Its just another money saving excuse from devs so they dont have to provide dedicated servers or any kind of server tools and just have ****ty P2P gaming under the guise of "matchmaking".
Even basic **** like having a game where peope are able to join mid game isnt an option in stuff like Halo. If it was, you might not have the problem of quitters ruining games, yet another area where consoles are totally lagging behind PCs. Pun unintentional but appropriate.

Nerdkiller1991

Chairman Meow wrote: »

I think one of the first console FPSes i ever palyed online was Halo 3. All i remember was firing it up and looking for the server browser, and spending about a half hour going through various stages of shock, lolling, crying, and so forth at how ****ing ham fisted and god ****ing awful an idea matchmaking is.
Its just another money saving excuse from devs so they dont have to provide dedicated servers or any kind of server tools and just have ****ty P2P gaming under the guise of "matchmaking".
Even basic **** like having a game where peope are able to join mid game isnt an option in stuff like Halo. If it was, you might not have the problem of quitters ruining games, yet another area where consoles are totally lagging behind PCs. Pun unintentional but appropriate.

I had the same problem when I first played CoD4. I was expecting a server list of all things, but realising that it was matchmaking. Game companies should really let you know if the game has matchmaking only on the box, I mean, the only way I knew MotorStorm Apocalypse had it before I got it was through other people's experiences. I just hope that Twised metal PS3 doesn't suffer from the same problem, especially considering its being built on the Warhawk engine, but considering the freedom Jaffe and Campbell are given on the game's development, I don't think it'll be an issue.

Nerdkiller1991

I found this good argument regarding the implementation of matchmaking in Starhawk. The game itself will still have a server browser, but it does a good job discussing the flaws of a matchmaking system, especially in other Sony published games where they haven't really gotten it right (eg. Killzone 3).

http://community.us.playstation.com/thread/3872256?start=0&tstart=0

Fnz

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Yeah they saw sense at least but the first few days of release were a nightmare.

True. Am I right in thinking they still don't let you order by latency in the L4D2 server browser?

Seifer

Fnz wrote: »

True. Am I right in thinking they still don't let you order by latency in the L4D2 server browser?

You are not. You can click on the latency header to sort in ascending or descending order like every other column.

Fnz

Seifer wrote: »

You are not. You can click on the latency header to sort in ascending or descending order like every other column.

Actually, now that I think about it, that was a problem with matchmaking in L4D2. I believe my issue with the server browser was that the 'map' column was indecipherable when it came to trying to figure out how far into the campaign a game was.