Although I've been bad about posting with any sense of regularity, this is an issue that I've been mulling over for some time - Matchmaking.
In the advent of online, competitive/cooperative gaming, the word 'matchmaking' has become a pretty regular work in the gamer's vocabulary. Games used to be judged solely on their own merit, but more often than not, games are how well they play with others. I don't think this is a fair expectation. Often times good matchmaking systems are broken by players who aren't fitting into the system deliberately. Players who hop online to team-kill, or players who buy new gamertags or create new accounts so their levels reset pop into mind. I'm not here to debate the role of online functionality in games, just their player matching systems... the other topic could be a whole book of rhetoric.
Every game basically needs a good matchmaking system, but every matchmaking system has, at least while in the moment, some pretty big flaws. At the end of the day, I bet most gamers use a "less of the two evils" sort of approach when evaluating player hook-up systems, i.e. which system gives me favorable results most of the time?
I know I'm gonna take some heat for this one, but the less of two evils for me has got to be Halo Reach's. Although you have limits to what games you can play at one time, there are a multitude of playlists to choose from. Hopefully any player can find a playlist that they can find enjoyable, but also some success in. My big pet peeve with Halo's system has to be it's voting. The player can choose 1 of 3 maps, or select a 'none of these' option that will prompt 3 new options of gametypes and maps. My big frustration is in how a tie is decided... it's always whatever is on top. Although it's a logical thought, the gametype/map order on the voting screen is always in the same order, generally with slayer based gametypes on the top. It's frustrating to be a player who loves objective gameplay modes, but never getting the option to play them since the general online population only understands one primary objective - shoot anything that moves.
I think a great deal of the "peer pressure" mentality in voting for a map could be removed entirely if the results of the voting was anonymous until the results were finalized. Players are often verbally chastised for not voting for another player's preferred gameplay mode, and not knowing how the vote is swinging would make each vote a little bit more honest.
Anyone else have any big pet peeves, or a system that truly rules? I remember the days of early xbox live, and Unreal Championship... the matchmaking was all run through dedicated servers, and the chat was run through private channels that anyone, friend or foe, could chat on. It made the experience truly social. I do take it all with a grain of salt... at that time most of the folks on xbox live were cool, collected adults who were serious gamers, not the typical racial expletive shouting pre-pubescent kids who think they've got something to prove to an online community who really doesn't give a crap.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Again, I can't stress enough the beauty and delight in the dedicated server option in games, whether for the consoles or for PC. The ability to choose where you play, with what rules, under what conditions and with what type of people is awesome! It can be a pain to find a decent server but once you find a handful and they are added to your history/favorites/whatever, just jump in whenever you start the game up. I frequently join off of my clan buddies since they find decent servers all the time. I.E. Bad Company 2 Silver servers that aren't quite hardcore but don't have the killcam so if you are sniping or whatever, some nub can't easily find you using a killcam (because they can't do it using skill or landmarks). Matchmaking has some benefits but they are far outweighed by the negatives and drawbacks. Feel like playing a certain map? Find a server that plays that map 24/7. Sick of noob tubes? Find a server that kicks/bans for it. Martyrdom ticking you off? Find a server that kick/bans for it.
ReplyDeleteAs far as chatting goes, with all the communication options on the PC, I feel there are much fewer people who chat in-game since they are typically on their clan's Teamspeak, Ventrillo, Mohawk, etc., etc. It is also easy to mute people so the few who do talk (the prepubescent children that you speak of) get shut off quick.
I don't really have a favorite or anything, but one thing I wish more games would do (at least the console ones) is divide the playlists up even further. For example, in Reach, I wish that within the "Team Objective" playlist they divided it up into Capture the Flag, Oddball, Stockpile, etc. I think they do pretty well to give you a variety, but not good enough. Since I downloaded the Defiant Map pack, I think I've only played Stockpile once, and the only reason I know that is because there was a new achievement that you can only get in Stockpile. I know that talk of achievements hardly seems appropriate, but I'm just using that example to illustrate that some gametypes get left out in the cold when it comes to Matchmaking as it stands now. More customization!
ReplyDeleteI don't there is a lack of customization because custom games can always scratch that itch... so much is just left in the hands of the game developers that it does feel though, that we have the illusion of choice.
ReplyDeleteI do like the main goal though, which is to get people into things that they wouldn't normally play. I have a friend who's been playing Halo with us every now and then, and as a result, he's started to see the thrill and the fun of an intense CTF game, whereas in the past, he'd mostly been a swat/slayer only type of guy. Sometimes the developers come of as a sort paternal force (momma knows best...) but sometimes they really do a great job.
Yo, long time reader, first time blogger.
ReplyDeletei gotta say i Reach or Halo in general has kinda been my go-to-game if i want a good multiplayer experience. Couldn't agree more about the flaws in Matchmaking systems. I've also puzzled at the idea of more specific playlist for Reach; just recently it's suck out more as an issue where the tie goes to to the option on top of the list. That might be ok if they didn't order the list so the game type i want is always on bottom. It's a real punch in the crotch and i'd really wish companies could see flaws or issues like that and do something about it.
Also a side note about the integrity of today's online community (that is should probably be another thread) is the question is there a way to fix them? I'm in much anticipation to play the revamped Halo: CE, and pissed that there isn't an online multi, but even if there was one could the douche-baggery be toned down or was the fair play just a localized occurrence between the people i played sitting next to(if that makes sense)?
I agree that matchmaking isn't the best way to do things. As already stated by the OP Unreal Championship did it best and it was one of the first games on LIVE years ago. There was only a handful of seconds between matches and you would move from match to match with the same people. I played that exclusively well before we all started playing HALO back in school.
ReplyDeleteIt was HALO 2 that truly (as far as consoles are concerned) ushered in the party system and matchmaking as we know it today. I argued that they are breaking what worked, but I digress because it's in every game now.
I think CoD and Bad Company 2 use matchmaking well because it's pretty bare. Want to play Rush or Conquest? TDM or Objective?
I complain because BC2 will keep you stuck in maps you don't like for a long time and in CoD there are a handful of maps I never play because, for some reason, they get no rotation! I'm tired of Firing Range!
Juniper is right....PC wins huge here and there's really no fully fixing it on consoles unless they go the more PC route. Not everyone will be happy with the results.
I think I have the most to say, not about the actual matchmaking, but about the mechanics of online multiplayer in general. Prepubescent angst aside (which is pretty bad but curable with a little bit of mute), the one thing I can't tolerate is getting absolutely hammered when I start playing a multiplayer game. I know with time I could be as good as those people performing headshots in the middle of a triple salchow, but I don't think I should be playing against those lifeless punks in the first place. Perhaps if I could afford to purchase a game while it is still $60 and not when it's a Game of the Year Edition, I wouldn't be so far behind the talent, but I doubt that would make much of a difference.
ReplyDeleteA possible solution that I haven't considered for very long (and may already be implemented as far as I know) is to take total time in gameplay as a ranking factor. If you can master anything within 10,000 hours, then where do I fall when Halo users log more than 2300 years?
Another solution would be to play a game that requires either proof of employment or a marriage certificate prior to logging on.
^^LOL! State ID might work since you have to be 16... or valid Driver's License...
ReplyDeleteAnother thing that seems to have disappeared from current games that would solve some issues is a legitimate ranking system. The best example i can come up with is Halo 3's which featured individual ranks for separate games type and it also used the Trueskill System that matched players of the same level- level based on games won and not hours played. No prestiging bull shit or valueless ranks like "Commander Grade 2" or "Eclipse".
ReplyDelete