Am I the only one completely disgusted by matchmaking?

i completely agree with you...matchmaking has ruined alot of the fun i have with gears....gears 1 was great...pick your map and how many rounds...bleed out time...all up to you...and matchmaking just makes it all uniform...not fun at all

[QUOTE="Palantas"]

I don't see why games can't have both. Have a server browser for people who want something very specific, and have matchmaking for everyone who doesn't care.

protoking

I think it would have something to do with not enough people using matchmaking. :)

I honestly don't mind matchmaking I just hate it when it takes eons to get into a match (cough cough Gears of War 2) but games like CoD4 and Halo 3 did it perfectly.

As much as I dislike matchmaking for the same reasons, it brings forth fairness. Hosts are usually chosen at random and for the most part you go against other teams of people. I hate the whole server list system because of course the host would stack the teams and the best part is, that these teams would play against randoms. When they start to lose they boot people from matches. Ive grown to like matchmaking though it is terribly flawed.

as long as im in a game quick i dont care if i chose the map but when u have to wait 10 mins for a game(gears 2) i get f***** pissed!

As much as I dislike matchmaking for the same reasons, it brings forth fairness. Hosts are usually chosen at random and for the most part you go against other teams of people. I hate the whole server list system because of course the host would stack the teams and the best part is, that these teams would play against randoms. When they start to lose they boot people from matches. Ive grown to like matchmaking though it is terribly flawed.

Nocturnal15

it doesn't bother me much at all.

I love matchmaking, it allows you to search games "with" your friends while also keeping a fresh group of opponents every game. It also makes you a well rounded player on every map, not just your favorites; and if you don't like the map most games give you the option to veto for a new one. I don't see the problem with matchmaking, unless you have no friends to play online. I think a good matchmaking system should be put in every new game instead of the prehistoric search list.napalm44

Ah I see then, you like it because it offers you ease of team stacking.

They really should make it so "groups" like yours are only matched against "groups" and never randoms.

Who honestly should win, A group of friends that all know eatch other and have mics etc. or some random group of randoms most of which won't have mics?

[QUOTE="napalm44"]I love matchmaking, it allows you to search games "with" your friends while also keeping a fresh group of opponents every game. It also makes you a well rounded player on every map, not just your favorites; and if you don't like the map most games give you the option to veto for a new one. I don't see the problem with matchmaking, unless you have no friends to play online. I think a good matchmaking system should be put in every new game instead of the prehistoric search list.protoking

Ah I see then, you like it because it offers you ease of team stacking.

They really should make it so "groups" like yours are only matched against "groups" and never randoms.

Who honestly should win, A group of friends that all know eatch other and have mics etc. or some random group of randoms most of which won't have mics?

Why don't you read my post again, b/c you definitely don't understand any of it.

[QUOTE="protoking"]

[QUOTE="napalm44"]I love matchmaking, it allows you to search games "with" your friends while also keeping a fresh group of opponents every game. It also makes you a well rounded player on every map, not just your favorites; and if you don't like the map most games give you the option to veto for a new one. I don't see the problem with matchmaking, unless you have no friends to play online. I think a good matchmaking system should be put in every new game instead of the prehistoric search list.napalm44

Ah I see then, you like it because it offers you ease of team stacking.

They really should make it so "groups" like yours are only matched against "groups" and never randoms.

Who honestly should win, A group of friends that all know eatch other and have mics etc. or some random group of randoms most of which won't have mics?

Why don't you read my post again, b/c you definitely don't understand any of it.

I hate matchmaking, its communism! Some system telling me who I have to play and what map. They can do matchmaking in China and France, but America is the land of Freedom and I want a choice!

I hate matchmaking, its communism! Some system telling me who I have to play and what map. They can do matchmaking in China and France, but America is the land of Freedom and I want a choice!

jackophant

I've even compared the two before in a thread on the Gow2 forums.

[QUOTE="jackophant"]

I hate matchmaking, its communism! Some system telling me who I have to play and what map. They can do matchmaking in China and France, but America is the land of Freedom and I want a choice!

protoking

I've even compared to two before in a thread on the Gow2 forums.

In da Soviet Russia, Server chooseYOU.

If you're serious about this, you should consider writing an email to someone on the XBOX team. I'm sure you'll be able to find some names. let me know if you can't. I'll try to get you in touch with some program manager at Microsoft. You should be able to send me an private message, right?

SF4 is the worst ive seen with matchmaking. 3 games to choose from and they fill instantly and have different extremes of skill.

I don't see a problem with matchmaking, if executed well. I find that in many games, a lack of matchmaking normally results in a lack of general variety in the maps or gametype. There usually ends up being 1 or 2 'favorite' maps or gametypes and those are normally the only matches found. Less popular maps that are still enjoyable to many, are left unplayed. Sure, manual-host systems allow deeper customization of the match by the host, however, that freedom comes at the expense of other players' familiarity with the match, when taken to extremes. I think the whole Gears 2 matchmaking was conceptually brilliant. However, the Gears 2 online team lacked the proper skills and experience with the matchmaking architecture to make it run smoothly. Having a voting system for 2 variables (map and gametype) is a great way of ensuring variety without sacrificing player interest/familiarity. If finding games in Gears 2, worked with the efficiency of Halo 3 (in its prime), it would have been a great online experience, in my opinion. Another factor to consider is that joining games with friends is a pain in the ass without matchmaking. It's hard to find good games that have the perfect number of players. Even if you find the right people, you usually end up having one guy as host the whole time, unless everyone agrees to quit and join a new host every few games, which not only is a pain in the ass for everyone, but also not a likely scenario.

On the other hand, matchmaking is a fairly new system, not too many people in the industry are masters at creating such online interfaces, so there are bound to be problems. However, with time I believe that they will find a nice balance in the benefits of matchmaking and manual host/custom games. We just have to be patient and not jump to conclusions; claiming that matchmaking sucks altogether and we should always stick with the old.

Anyway, this is just my opinion.

Being able to choose maps would be nice, however, I don't think that it's a bad idea to have random maps . . . honestly, it shows true skill and lets you get use to things. Also, they have avoting system in Halo 3and COD, so if you really despise a map you veto, and hopefullly get a beeter one.

SF4 is the worst ive seen with matchmaking. 3 games to choose from and they fill instantly and have different extremes of skill.

MuscleCarMan

Being able to choose maps would be nice, however, I don't think that it's a bad idea to have random maps . . . honestly, it shows true skill and lets you get use to things. Also, they have avoting system in Halo 3and COD, so if you really despise a map you veto, and hopefullly get a beeter one.

ace070590

Reminds me of TF2 on xbox. The only problem with it is that it doesn't find games besides the ones for which you specify. This wouldn't be a problem if a lot of people played the game. For instance, we should be able to just pick the map and game type, and not the number of people in the game. It becomes ridiculous having to constantly re-search for games. I'm not too upset with Halo's matchmaking because it keeps things alive and new. You aren't always playing the same maps. However I do like server lists, like in CS:S. It's a toss up really.Ghost_702

Yea well imagine Halo 3 with a low population... matchmaking times would increase dramitically.

As long as the game has a high population serverlists and matchmaking both work, but Serverlists give you far more choice.

There are a lot of other games that give you many options. It is mainly the popular games that are more rigid i.e. GTA4 - GOW - COD4 - HALO3.

As far as I know Far Cry 2 is the best customizable setup I've seen.

sucks when everyone picks what map to play because you end up playing the same 2/3 maps every game, every game i played like that always had lists dominated by the same maps. just veto or custom games if you cant hack it. playing ranked matchmaking isnt meant to give you choice of map, because its competitive and it gives everyone the same level of choice to accept or veto. rather than one person picking just the map they are good ondjrobst

Ranked matches already aren't on equal grounds when you consider it lets you party up with your friends.

Who will win, a random group of people in a ranked match or a group of all friends with mics?

I hate how in Halo 3 during matchmaking it loads the first map before you can veto it. Why not let us vote on it and THEN load if we want to play that map.

I hate it when a map gets chosen, you play it, and IT'S THERE AGAIN, ONLY WITH A DIFFERENT GAMETYPE! :evil:

[QUOTE="djrobst"]sucks when everyone picks what map to play because you end up playing the same 2/3 maps every game, every game i played like that always had lists dominated by the same maps. just veto or custom games if you cant hack it. playing ranked matchmaking isnt meant to give you choice of map, because its competitive and it gives everyone the same level of choice to accept or veto. rather than one person picking just the map they are good onprotoking

Ranked matches already aren't on equal grounds when you consider it lets you party up with your friends.

Who will win, a random group of people in a ranked match or a group of all friends with mics?

sucks when everyone picks what map to play because you end up playing the same 2/3 maps every game, every game i played like that always had lists dominated by the same maps. just veto or custom games if you cant hack it. playing ranked matchmaking isnt meant to give you choice of map, because its competitive and it gives everyone the same level of choice to accept or veto. rather than one person picking just the map they are good ondjrobst

Ranked matches already aren't on equal grounds when you consider it lets you party up with your friends.

Who will win, a random group of people in a ranked match or a group of all friends with mics?

sucks when everyone picks what map to play because you end up playing the same 2/3 maps every game, every game i played like that always had lists dominated by the same maps. just veto or custom games if you cant hack it. playing ranked matchmaking isnt meant to give you choice of map, because its competitive and it gives everyone the same level of choice to accept or veto. rather than one person picking just the map they are good ondjrobst

Ranked matches already aren't on equal grounds when you consider it lets you party up with your friends.

Who will win, a random group of people in a ranked match or a group of all friends with mics?

Bump time.

[QUOTE="chaoscougar1"][QUOTE="protoking"]

Ranked matches already aren't on equal grounds when you consider it lets you party up with your friends.

Who will win, a random group of people in a ranked match or a group of all friends with mics?

Godfather3000

[QUOTE="Godfather3000"][QUOTE="chaoscougar1"] u do realise that parties are 3 and 4 on halo are matched up with other parties of 3 and 4?chaoscougar1

[QUOTE="chaoscougar1"][QUOTE="protoking"]

Ranked matches already aren't on equal grounds when you consider it lets you party up with your friends.

Who will win, a random group of people in a ranked match or a group of all friends with mics?

phynixblack

[QUOTE="phynixblack"][QUOTE="chaoscougar1"] u do realise that parties are 3 and 4 on halo are matched up with other parties of 3 and 4?chaoscougar1

I think it was simply an over exagration on his part.

[QUOTE="chaoscougar1"]

[QUOTE="Godfather3000"] well obviously they get matched up with equal teams, but random people parties, people who have no idea who each other are, versus people who might be bff's and have a uber proofed setup to win.....hardly sounds like a fair match....protoking

[QUOTE="chaoscougar1"]

[QUOTE="phynixblack"] Thats in Halo3, he may be addressing other games too as a more 'in general' statement based from experience. Also, I used to hate the Halo3's matchamking for being cruel to players. I want people at my skill level who are playing similar. If I lose several matches in a row, I would appreciate the game trying to match me with people who are also on losing streaks, this at least gives me the chance to break the streak with other people who are also still warming up and finding their groove. I hated how getting into my gameplay groove required about 50 deaths and 10-20 losses. Drove me insane every time that I had to go through the post-game nonsense because I couldn't be bothered to play all through the night to keep my groove up.protoking

I think it was simply an over exagration on his part.

[QUOTE="protoking"][QUOTE="chaoscougar1"] if they dont know who eachother is why are they in a party together? that makes absolutely no sense...

chaoscougar1

Often times they do not, I often find myself versus a group of friends that all have the same icon or clan tags.

[QUOTE="chaoscougar1"][QUOTE="protoking"] He's saying a group of random people that got matched on the same team hardly stand a chance against another team of best friends who all know each other and have mics.protoking

Often times they do not, I often find myself versus a group of friends that all have the same icon or clan tags.

[QUOTE="protoking"]

[QUOTE="chaoscougar1"] hence my previous statement PARTIES OF 3 AND 4 GET MATCHED UP WITH OTHER PARTIES OF 3 AND 4, parties means that they were in the same lobby together, far out, its not rocket sciencechaoscougar1

Often times they do not, I often find myself versus a group of friends that all have the same icon or clan tags.

That means the pepole on my team decided it would be fun to party up with the suckiest friends they had lol.

*Sigh* even if what you say is true something about it still seems unfair.

I really don't think they should allow parties in RANKED matches, only in "Social" or "Player" matches depending on the game.

Matchmaking annoys me. I like to choose what game type and map I want to play on.

[QUOTE="chaoscougar1"]

[QUOTE="protoking"]

Often times they do not, I often find myself versus a group of friends that all have the same icon or clan tags.

protoking

That means the pepole on my team decided it would be fun to party up with the suckiest friends they had lol.

*Sigh* even if what you say is true something about it still seems unfair.

I really don't think they should allow parties in RANKED matches, only in "Social" or "Player" matches depending on the game.

[QUOTE="protoking"]

[QUOTE="chaoscougar1"] its never a full party though right? basically what will happen is that with 4 you only get matched up against another 4. with 3, sometimes its 3vs3 or they bring in 2 randoms, 1 for each team, so even though ure versing a clan, the other people on your team are most likely in a party themselves

chaoscougar1

That means the pepole on my team decided it would be fun to party up with the suckiest friends they had lol.

*Sigh* even if what you say is true something about it still seems unfair.

I really don't think they should allow parties in RANKED matches, only in "Social" or "Player" matches depending on the game.

How does your rank really reflect your skill if you went prancing around with your General buddies to rank up easier?

Honestly you act like it's crazy but Epic had the same idea with Gears1, Player matches for friends and Ranked for competetive skill. Not "durr lets see how stacked me and my friends can make the teams."

[QUOTE="napalm44"]

[QUOTE="protoking"]

Ah I see then, you like it because it offers you ease of team stacking.

They really should make it so "groups" like yours are only matched against "groups" and never randoms.

Who honestly should win, A group of friends that all know eatch other and have mics etc. or some random group of randoms most of which won't have mics?

protoking

Why don't you read my post again, b/c you definitely don't understand any of it.

Nope. You still don't get it. Try reading it again. We can do this forever until you finaly get it right.