Condense public and ranked into one playlist?

[bbsmth933]

Before you shoot me down and vote before you read the post, please just take a look at what i have to say. First of all, gears is going to be the same game no matter which playlist you play in, ranked or public. With what i'm proposing, it's not like i'm taking anyone's playlist or game away. I know there's people who like quick match over ranked and visa versa but in the end the game is the same and i believe condensing ranked and public into a single playlist can benefit matchmaking very much.

To start off let's look at the differences and similarities between the playlists.

Ranked
More exp
Longer matchmaking/less population
Able to vote for map
Teams are pre-determined and supposedly balanced
Quitters are penalized

Public
Less exp
Not able to vote for map
May join/leave a game in progress (Joining a game in progress may not be desirable but the ability to leave a game without penalty is a positive)
No wait time in between matches

Similarities
Medals, ribbons, exp, achievements are able to be earned
Stats are tracked
Leaderboard rankings
All settings are the same

IMO there are just too many similarities between ranked and public to justify having two separate playlists for each gametype. All this does is split up population and truthfully speaking, give ranked the short end of the stick. If you look at the positives and negatives of both public and ranked you will see ranked clearly has more positives... Then why is everyone playing public? Because there just isn't enough incentive to play ranked. Not only that but if we assume that for the most part, better players are playing ranked, then most players are going to want to play against generally less-skilled opponents in public.

Now let's take a look at the benefits of condensing these playlists and having a larger player pool for matchmaking.

Faster matchmaking speeds
More balanced teams
Better connections
More opponent variety

With the benefits of having a larger player pool i just don't see how this isn't a win-win situation. Public and ranked are just too similar to justify the division. Ranked population is well, pathetic. At some times of the day, you simply can't even find a match in ranked.

Given that having a larger player pool equals faster matchmaking we can assume one of the only benefits of public (quicker matchmaking, less time in between matches) will also carry over into a single main playlist. Splitting up gametypes would be fine if we had a game with more than enough population to handle such a split, but with gears 3 the truth is the population isn't large enough to have 14 different playlists and expect to have decent matchmaking in each.

[ShadowsEnclosed]

The only reason why I play Quick Match is because I'd rather stay in a lobby cycling through maps than having to research for another lobby after every match.

[Dark Borrelnoot]

Ranked is pointless nowadays since public is also being tracked.

[Cush e Goblin]

I only play Rank when I have enough friends 4 or 5 (depending on play list) online. One of the drawbacks I have with Public (although I do play it the most) is that it seems I spend just as much time playing bots as I do players. The stats in quick match to me are irrelevant because of all the stat padding that happens while you are playing the bots.

I think rank would be better if you could keep playing the same team until players quit. And once a player quit and the match was over it would go back and search again. For me I prefer to play real players. I vote for rematch option for rank.

I also vote for the ability to get friends on both sides for quick match. This is simply because of the dedicated servers. We try playing private but it is just not the same.

[Melonfrog]

Ranked isn't ranked. Here is an example of one of many games i had few hours ago:
Cog:
Me 72
Guylemons:15
Norman Bean:52
Mushroom fish:21
Camelcake:11

Locust:
Dudemonkey: 100
Pineapplebee:89
Durpeldump: 100
Smogglebeansack:99
Stickbottom:87

I made the names up, but this is why i HATE ranked...and prefer quickmatch.

[TAO Devil]

Read it.


No.

[MeberOfTheOldGuard]

Ranked isn't ranked. Here is an example of one of many games i had few hours ago:
Cog:
Me 72
Guylemons:15
Norman Bean:52
Mushroom fish:21
Camelcake:11

Locust:
Dudemonkey: 100
Pineapplebee:89
Durpeldump: 100
Smogglebeansack:99
Stickbottom:87

I made the names up, but this is why i HATE ranked...and prefer quickmatch.

ok i see you made the names up, but then i look at your screen name and see melonfrog...lmao then the post had camelcake wtf mushroom fish? lol too funny

[bbsmth933]

Read it.


No.

Care to share why you came to this conclusion?

[KC Anthony]

I don't know, I'm pretty split on it honestly. In a way it sounds great cause of the benefits. However, I hate playing with bots and don't want people dropping in and out whenever they please with no penalty. So how would that be handled? I personally don't think we need bots in the game but that is just my opinion, others may like them.

Then a big complaint I see on the forums regarding ranked is that people don't want to wait in-between matches and search. Maybe a rematch vote at the end of the game for whoever would want to stay in room.

At the end the larger pool of players would really solve a ton of issues. Team balance and lag would benefit especially. Good idea just don't know if it would work.

[bbsmth933]

I don't know, I'm pretty split on it honestly. In a way it sounds great cause of the benefits. However, I hate playing with bots and don't want people dropping in and out whenever they please with no penalty. So how would that be handled? I personally don't think we need bots in the game but that is just my opinion, others may like them.

Then a big complaint I see on the forums regarding ranked is that people don't want to wait in-between matches and search. Maybe a rematch vote at the end of the game for whoever would want to stay in room.

At the end the larger pool of players would really solve a ton of issues. Team balance and lag would benefit especially. Good idea just don't know if it would work.

To answer your first question, i'm a strong advocate for making the penalty for quitters MUCH harsher. As of now the minor exp penalty not nearly enough incentive to stay in a game. There are much better systems out there that will punish repeat quitter while just giving a warning to someone who has to get off for an emergency. I hate the fact that every other game i play, half my team quits and in turn my team loses. I really don't think Epic cares about this issue, seriously it's like they love quitters for some reason. If you don't have enough time for a game, don't start one. There really just is no excuse for quitting a game other than the occasional time you have to for some reason or another. But just because you don't like the way a game is going doesn't give you the right to quit and leave your teammates out to dry.

Anyway i'm done with my rant on quitters... i really like your idea of asking for a rematch. Not only do i think the majority of players would go for a rematch, but the truly unbalanced and unfair games will not be voted for a rematch. These unfair matches would be the games you would quit out of public and search for a different match anyway. But i really do like this idea, great way to keep games rolling and a perfect mesh of the public match to match transition and the "balanced" teams of ranked.

[bbsmth933]

bump........ takes so long to find an execution game and almost every game it's not even close one way or the other

[sooooo]

no thanks i like leaving games when im getting prison sexed