Poll: Matchmaking: Why?

[sgtshock]

I was recently playing Left 4 Dead when I decided to join a game. As usual, the little icon spins for a little while and I'm soon in a game. Or at least that's how it's supposed to go.

First time, it times out. Fair enough. Next time I try, it tells me that the server I'm attempting to join is full. What? If the server is full, why did you choose that server in the first place?! I let out a sigh, and try again. It tells me the server is full again. I retry a third time, same thing. Finally, I manage to get into a game. But the game has decided to place me in a server with a horrible connection, and I lag out shortly thereafter.

My question is this: why do developers think it is a good idea to place us at the mercy of a piece of code? How is it beneficial to deny the player the privelige of choosing what server they connect to when playing a multiplayer game? I've gathered a list of arguments for both server browsers and matchmaking systems:

Server Browser:
-You can choose what map, number of players, gamemode, etc. (to be fair, some matchmaking systems do this too.)
-Some game servers allow custom content, allowing additional entertainment.
-You know the server you're joining will have a decent ping.
-You can jump in/out of games, without waiting for the player slots to fill up.
-You don't have to look for another game when the match ends.

Matchmaking:
-Absolutely no thought required for finding a game. Press a button and you're in.

I simply don't see why anyone without crippling ADD wouldn't want a server browser. Or am I overlooking something? Does anyone here prefer matchmaking? If so, why?

 

[inkheart_artist]

Yeah I like server browsing although I'm not sure it would work for l4d simply because theres only 4 or 8 people per game. With most fps's the browsers way better; a game can play differently depending on how many are playing at once and just cause it caps at 24 players doesnt mean it will be the same experience for 10 and 22 people.

 

[Moonmover]

Wait wait wait, there's a difference? I've been referring to everything from Battle.net to XboxLIVE to Gamespy as matchmaking. Am I wrong?

Forgive my ignorance.

 

[starrman]

I've always said L4D needs more options on multiplayer game acquisition. I don't think it needs mods, I live it for what it is, but it would be nice to choose based on ping and to be able to return to servers you enjoy etc.

Lol, Freudian typo there: 'love' not 'live'...

 

[Anton P. Nym]

I simply don't see why anyone without crippling ADD wouldn't want a server browser. Or am I overlooking something? Does anyone here prefer matchmaking? If so, why?

I prefer matchmaking if it also includes rank matching; find me a challenging match quickly, where players aren't so far below me that I can snooze my way through or so far above me that I can't touch them. Trying to do that by eye in a server list takes far too much time (in my experience) when you just want to pop in for a quick game. Matchmaking also tends to start you in a new game, whereas (depending upon the game) a server list doesn't necessarily tell you the state of the game you're trying to join.

It's not a blanket, universal thing. Either will work well if executed well.

-- Steve

 

[Miles Tormani]

When you have user-created servers (I'm assuming that's what you mean) as opposed to matchmaking, there are some very serious issues, most of which have to do with the fact that servers have specific hosts.

-The host can cheat
Lag switches, switching the maps up to be unbalanced (naturally insuring he starts on the overpowered side), fucking with the rules to a point that only they can understand them are all a little too common for my tastes.

-Potential unreliability
Usually in a GOOD matchmaking system, if whoever is 'host' (if there is one) quits or disconnects, the game sets whoever has the best connection to be the new host. Generally in server browsing mode, if the host quits, game ends. Only exception I've seen so far is Super Street Fighter II Turbo HD Remix.

-Host douchebaggery
Okay, imagine for a second that you're the best damn Call of Duty player on the planet. Does that mean you should be kicked just because you don't have Ventrillo on your computer? No. But a lot of game hosts seem to think so.

-Host retardation
Start the fucking game already, d00d!

Obviously matchmaking has its fair share of issues when done poorly as well (why are all these matches cutting short five seconds into the round? Oh, because the game is setting someone with a shitty connection as host), but considering most of the issues outright disappear if the matchmaking is done well (like prioritizing games with optimal connection), the servers reliable, and the game played frequently, it's hard for me to complain about those. Also, the idea of having no control over your game type fails on account of most good matchmaking systems having multiple playlists for the sake of choosing just that.

That all having been said, games like Left 4 Dead should be done with server browsing, or at least a matchmaking service with all choices available. (Are there really that many? I could've sworn the three choices were mode, level, and difficulty, but I don't have the game...)

EDIT: You know what? Just read Anton P. Nym's post. He said it better with fewer words.

 

[bad rider]

I like both, server list if i want to play on my terms, and matchmaking for the fun of being thrown into an unknown situation.

 

[sgtshock]

Wait wait wait, there's a difference? I've been referring to everything from Battle.net to XboxLIVE to Gamespy as matchmaking. Am I wrong?

Forgive my ignorance.

As I understand it, matchmaking is when you simply select your gametype and hit go, and the game picks a server for you, and the game starts when the lobby is full. Most Xbox Live games do this. Server browsers let you pick your server, and the game keeps going regardless of how many people are in. Games like CS:S and TF2 do this.

I simply don't see why anyone without crippling ADD wouldn't want a server browser. Or am I overlooking something? Does anyone here prefer matchmaking? If so, why?

I prefer matchmaking if it also includes rank matching; find me a challenging match quickly, where players aren't so far below me that I can snooze my way through or so far above me that I can't touch them. Trying to do that by eye in a server list takes far too much time (in my experience) when you just want to pop in for a quick game. Matchmaking also tends to start you in a new game, whereas (depending upon the game) a server list doesn't necessarily tell you the state of the game you're trying to join.

It's not a blanket, universal thing. Either will work well if executed well.

-- Steve

Oh yeah, I forgot about rank systems, that is a decent advantage for matchmaking.

 

[Skizle]

I simply don't see why anyone without crippling ADD wouldn't want a server browser. Or am I overlooking something? Does anyone here prefer matchmaking? If so, why?

I prefer matchmaking if it also includes rank matching; find me a challenging match quickly, where players aren't so far below me that I can snooze my way through or so far above me that I can't touch them. Trying to do that by eye in a server list takes far too much time (in my experience) when you just want to pop in for a quick game. Matchmaking also tends to start you in a new game, whereas (depending upon the game) a server list doesn't necessarily tell you the state of the game you're trying to join.

It's not a blanket, universal thing. Either will work well if executed well.

-- Steve

thats almost exactly what i was going to say

 

[fix-the-spade]

Server browser everytime.

Matchmaking only applies to ranked console FPS matches, it has no place in a play for fun game like L4D. As such I always use the server browser console command to jump straight into a server on a map I want to play.

In a game like Halo or CoD where you have ranks it stops experienced players rocking up and ganking noobs (in theory). It also speeds things up f you have no mouse, but for PC players it's redundant.


BTW, loving the avatar, just remember not to go in the Damn!

 

[Onyx Oblivion]

I like accurate server selectors. Not the bullshit that I've seen where it says 14/16 and I join, only to have it say that the match is fucking full.

 

[Moonmover]

Okay then. Well, in that case, I like there to be both. Automatic matchmaking is good for games with ranks and scoreboards (since, with a browser, you can just stay away from gametypes you're not good at and whatnot). However, if you are just playing for fun, you can pick exactly what sort of game you want with a browser.

In other words: WarCraft III wins.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Matchmaking has it's perks, mostly from an ease of use standpoint. Since I don't play any XBL games with any seriousness, the ability to simply join the first server available meets my needs nicely most of the time.

 

[D_987]

Server browser allows boosting.

 

[zacaron]

I prefer server browsers like TF2 and supreme commander

 

[Flour]

Server browser is superior, but a choice would be great. Pick your own server or let the game pick one for you.

 

[Eipok Kruden]

Look at Halo 3's matchmaking system. It hardly ever fails me, and if it does, it hardly takes any time because it's so fast. Maybe a minute searching for a full lag-free game. And if there is lag, it rarely ruins the game. In fact, I've only had horrible game ruining lag five times since I first got Halo 3 when it came out. I think Left 4 Dead just needs a better matchmaking system. I prefer both though. I like how Warhawk and games on the PC let you choose your server, but that often takes longer to find a full lag-free game than it does with matchmaking so I think people should be given a choice. Either search for a server yourself or press a button and go into matchmaking/quick match.

 

[experiment0789]

I was recently playing Left 4 Dead when I decided to join a game. As usual, the little icon spins for a little while and I'm soon in a game. Or at least that's how it's supposed to go.

First time, it times out. Fair enough. Next time I try, it tells me that the server I'm attempting to join is full. What? If the server is full, why did you choose that server in the first place?! I let out a sigh, and try again. It tells me the server is full again. I retry a third time, same thing. Finally, I manage to get into a game. But the game has decided to place me in a server with a horrible connection, and I lag out shortly thereafter.

My question is this: why do developers think it is a good idea to place us at the mercy of a piece of code? How is it beneficial to deny the player the privelige of choosing what server they connect to when playing a multiplayer game? I've gathered a list of arguments for both server browsers and matchmaking systems:

Server Browser:
-You can choose what map, number of players, gamemode, etc. (to be fair, some matchmaking systems do this too.)
-Some game servers allow custom content, allowing additional entertainment.
-You know the server you're joining will have a decent ping.
-You can jump in/out of games, without waiting for the player slots to fill up.
-You don't have to look for another game when the match ends.

Matchmaking:
-Absolutely no thought required for finding a game. Press a button and you're in.

I simply don't see why anyone without crippling ADD wouldn't want a server browser. Or am I overlooking something? Does anyone here prefer matchmaking? If so, why?

I feel your pain!
Why the @#$%%^$# does Matchmaking Allow you to try to join a full match?!?!?
Also if you are more then likely to lag out of the match why does it put you there in the first place?!?!?
Because of the lagging out my win lose ratio,and other things, in many of my multilayer games (especially the ones with the quit early penalty) are so screwed up I'm better off not playing them again.
To answer your question,I'll chose Server Browsers over Matchmaking any day!

 

[willard3]

I prefer matchmaking more, except I don't understand the reason that games are so pissy about not being able to join ranked free-for-alls as a party.

All right, if there's a party of 5 and one lone wolf, the party COULD technically team up on the one guy, but where's the fun in that? Why are you playing FFA as a team? Also, you should be able to party up in Halo 3's ranked FFA matches.

Also systems *cough*FAR CRY 2*cough* that kick you to the main menu after playing a ranked game. What the hell?

 

[darthzew]

I like servers for PC games, but matchmaking is better for consoles.