5punk

Personally I prefer the matchmaking system on the console(s), which is one of the reasons I played there and not on the PC. It's certainly not the console control system I prefer. Other than the fact that I can jump straight in, I also seem to end up in a more casual game, ie. I don't end up on a server full of clan members or mostly very skilled players and just die, die, die.

I suspect this is partly down to consoles having a larger population of less skilled gamers, but also the matchmaking service mixes things up. So depending how you want to play and what type of gamer you are it can be beneficial. Obviously I can appreciate the down-sides for traditional players and I can see the benefits a single system for joining games across platforms. And also a system which is noob friendly. This is, after all, a very mainstream series now.

One problem which is bound to happen, and will cause drama the likes of which God has never seen, will be when IWnet can't cope on release day and thereafter.

spoodie wrote:And also a system which is noob friendly. This is, after all, a very mainstream series now.

You can't stop people from being noobs by mollycoddling them.

spoodie wrote:Personally I prefer the matchmaking system on the console(s), which is one of the reasons I played there and not on the PC. It's certainly not the console control system I prefer. Other than the fact that I can jump straight in, I also seem to end up in a more casual game, ie. I don't end up on a server full of clan members or mostly very skilled players and just die, die, die.

I suspect this is partly down to consoles having a larger population of less skilled gamers, but also the matchmaking service mixes things up. So depending how you want to play and what type of gamer you are it can be beneficial. Obviously I can appreciate the down-sides for traditional players and I can see the benefits a single system for joining games across platforms. And also a system which is noob friendly. This is, after all, a very mainstream series now.

One problem which is bound to happen, and will cause drama the likes of which God has never seen, will be when IWnet can't cope on release day and thereafter.

Matchmaking definitely has it's place, it works in L4D after all, but I don't see why developers think there's this mutual exclusivity with matchmaking and server browsers/dedicated servers.

Probably because of Battlefield 2's Play Now button, come to think of it.

.

Am I being unfair? Yeah, probably.

amblin wrote: If they were really looking out for the gamers as customers, that's the option to take, not horse everyone down one route which is clearly unpalatable and will seriously affect sales.

Thing is, why would they deliberately piss their customers off? That's not good business. I can only think that they've somehow come to the conclusion that there's a far larger market of casual players who can't fathom how to use a server browser out there, one on the scale of the Sims crowd. On top of that they seem to be under the impression that this vast casual player market is currently being driven away by a small hardcore elite, so by bringing in a quick join option and getting rid of servers they're pulling in the former group and pushing out the latter. In which case this petition is probably making them rub their hands with glee.

What they've doing is removing choice.

I'm all for matchmaking, if it works and mostly uses dedicated servers (see: L4D)

But I don't like being forced into using matchmaking with no hope of playing on a DS.

BF2 had it right.

Ranked servers (so stuff was always reasonably close settings wise) usually run by clans, so well moderated/cheat free. and a big happy play now button, if you just wanted to jump into any old game.

Dr. kitteny berk wrote:BF2 had it right.

It's amazing that despite how awful BF2 could be it still wasn't <i>this</i> bad, good job IW.

The ideas and setup of BF2 was right, the execution was fucking terrible

A truly hideous server browser system. But at least we had choice.

Well if the whole bullshit going on wouldn't be enough to sway european casual steam-fan customers, the 60 euros price should.

Baliame wrote:Well if the whole bullshit going on wouldn't be enough to sway european casual steam-fan customers, the 60 euros price should.

This, it's fucking ridiculous.

More: It's now been revealed to be limited to 16 players, 8v8 at most.

And that's now killed off more people that were buying it for multi.

8v8? Fuck that.

deject wrote:More: It's now been revealed to be limited to 16 players, 8v8 at most.

not 10v6?

Some of my favourite COD has been 25v25 on a friendly uk server. Man, imma installing UO tomorrow.

Also: http://www.fpsadmin.com/forum/showthread.php?p=77731

Dr. kitteny berk wrote:
not 10v6?

YOUR MOM VS 15

We're probably going to see a book coming out in half a year titled "Infinity Ward: How to lose a million customers in just over a week".

I happened to be in Game yesterday and got chatting to one of the drones about MW:2. They are opening up at midnight so people can get their mitts on the game straight away, when I laughed and said that surely nobody would turn up he said that they had hundreds of preorders, mostly x-box. Which seems right to me, IW are aiming squarely for the console market with little or no regard for us PC gamers who want to be able to select our own servers and not have to host games on our own machines in order to play online with our mates. It is a dangerous precedent though.