Matchmaking : Playlists : (Excruciatingly slow) Discussion

[GCODE]

"Ranked weapon achievements" like in Gears 1 Imo would really help rank and give the player more of an incentive to play.... For example: get 500 torque bow kills in any versus ranked match-"the Nuge 2.0"


Ranked Re Up

[TAO Devil]

I'd like to know, what is the logical reason to keep stats in quickmatch when we have a ranked playlist? Ranked is just that, ranked. It implies stats, leaderboards, the whole nine yards. Quick only implies faster games.

As far as a logical reason to remove stats from quick, it would improve the mode by encouraging those who treat it like ranked to go play ranked. Currently the only distinction between ranked and quickmatch is that quickmatch is the same thing but faster. Ranked needs to provide something more on par with quickmatch. You could try to add stuff to ranked, but I can't think of anything that would balance out the problems both groups are having. You'd have to remove something from quick and give it to ranked, and leaderboard/stats are the most logical as it is implied by the playlist names.

Or, of course, you could just change the name from 'ranked to 'competitive' but I don't think that would really solve anything.

Quick Match is ranked. The only change is the XP bonus and the fact you rotate maps and have penalty for dropping out. Its not a casual playlist.

Some excellent points have been raised on both sides, and I now thing the best compromise is adding incentive to ranked, as well as enough of an xp boost to AT LEAST give Ranked an equal earning potential, if not more.

The other incentive I would suggest is an extra progression feature similar to the rankings in Halo Reach, or your skill level in Halo 3. Everyone gets access to normal progression, so QM'ers cannot complain, but Ranked players get something else to compete for, a rating in each playlist, possibly with unlockable medals to display by their names. I am honestly convinced this is the easiest and best fix for being fair to everyone. I'm probably going to make a thread exploring this idea more soon.

I dont know. That caused a LOT of issues, but as long as it just showed progression and not true skill we should be fine. Halo had the unfprtunate problem of people manipulating the system.

[SharkBait]

i did actually like the way it showed your True Skill in Gears 2, before they changed the rankings to "this is how much i play" rankings. i know people conned their True Skill rankings by quitting but surely Epic could fix that?

TAO : yeah QM is ranked, technically. but i'm never a fan of leaderboards that focus more on how much time you can put into a game rather how much skill you have. also, in QM you can end up fighting a lot of bots. so while it is Ranked, it's not very representative of skill.

yeah that's all i want, some way of seeing/showing my skill via stats that can't be manipulated!

[TAO Devil]

The trueskill wasnt just affected by quitters, it caused the most cheating any Gears game has seen.

Also, QM and ranked stats are completely separate. We end up playing bots in ranked because people quit a lot. So whats the difference other than nonjoin in?

[KILL3R II UK]

Quick Match is ranked. The only change is the XP bonus and the fact you rotate maps and have penalty for dropping out. Its not a casual playlist.


I dont know. That caused a LOT of issues, but as long as it just showed progression and not true skill we should be fine. Halo had the unfprtunate problem of people manipulating the system.

True, it was a problem with boosters, but it was a great system. Ask yourself, did you play a lot of Halo 3, how many Generals did you see? I literally saw them very rarely, and not once did I see one who wasn't an excellent player. It had a lot of problems like everything, but I still would consider Halo 3 to have one of the best and most accurate systems, it did the job, despite a few derankers and what have you.

and yeah I agree with the problem proposed by quantifying "skill", but I reckon Epic could reach an acceptable method

[TAO Devil]

True, it was a problem with boosters, but it was a great system. Ask yourself, did you play a lot of Halo 3, how many Generals did you see? I literally saw them very rarely, and not once did I see one who wasn't an excellent player. It had a lot of problems like everything, but I still would consider Halo 3 to have one of the best and most accurate systems, it did the job, despite a few derankers and what have you.

and yeah I agree with the problem proposed by quantifying "skill", but I reckon Epic could reach an acceptable method

I'm sure they could, it just makes me a little... iffy.

Gears 2 did the trueskill thing and it was some of the worst months of Gears I've ever seen.

[KILL3R II UK]

I reckon if done right it could be awesome though, if it depended on score I think it would be pretty accurate as well, due to the way Gears gives points for assists, generally skill is proportional to your score in this game.

[the_suicide_fox]

Quick Match is ranked. The only change is the XP bonus and the fact you rotate maps and have penalty for dropping out. Its not a casual playlist.

I'm not asking for a casual playlist, I asked for a playlist with no leaderboards or stats. Quick match IS ranked right now with a better experience, which is why it is more popular. Ranked needs something significant to differentiate it from quickmatch. Leaderboards are not necessary for quickmatch to thrive, and it makes sense if we have a 'ranked' playlist that it be the only playlist with leaderboards.

[NP473L]

I'm not asking for a casual playlist, I asked for a playlist with no leaderboards or stats. Quick match IS ranked right now with a better experience, which is why it is more popular. Ranked needs something significant to differentiate it from quickmatch. Leaderboards are not necessary for quickmatch to thrive, and it makes sense if we have a 'ranked' playlist that it be the only playlist with leaderboards.

This.

If we want to have two clear playlists, there is no point in them being the same. There's no point pretending like Ranked will have any kind of chance to succeed without major improvement.

Else, consolidate.

[TAO Devil]

I'm not asking for a casual playlist, I asked for a playlist with no leaderboards or stats. Quick match IS ranked right now with a better experience, which is why it is more popular. Ranked needs something significant to differentiate it from quickmatch. Leaderboards are not necessary for quickmatch to thrive, and it makes sense if we have a 'ranked' playlist that it be the only playlist with leaderboards.

even Private has stats and leaderboards. Private Beast and Horde have leaderboards. They aren't going to remove that. Incentive to play ranked more than just XP bonus I agree, but they don't need to, and shouldn't remove stats and leaderboards for separate playlist choices.

[NP473L]

They dug themselves into a hole by having ranked and quickmatch set up as they are in Gears 3. I made a point in the other thread that player matches had no stat tracking or leaderboards, and there were tons of people who still played. But then it was removed entirely in Gears 2 and brought back half assed as Social later on. I'm not saying bring back player matches, but the system was designed to fall apart from the beginning.

If this wasn't too long, I'd quote it.

Nobody disagrees with the premise of Quick/Social, but the fact that it was executed the way it was means that there is no option available regarding a cohabitation of the two, given that we accept what can/cannot and what will/will not happen.

Either Ranked is dead weight, or we have a unified option. That's a shame, because it's basically the opposite of what I would like, but it's pointless to fight a dead point.

[jellosnake]

To be honest, even though no one here likes the CoD word, I think they've got matchmaking nailed. Why make getting into a game such a focus? If you want to play TDM, join it. If you want to rage quit mid match, do it, just have the game constantly ready to dump another player when needed. Keep the number of playlists down since the community is noticeably smaller than CoD.

If people really want a match of 5 v 5, they will scrim each other. There's no detrimental effect, in my opinion, to leaving them in the same playlist as everyone else.

Now, the big hole I see in my argument is match types like Execution and Warzone. Those can really carry on for a long time, and if a spot is empty it can wreck a match. Those spots would need to be filled either very quickly or with bots...but I for one do not like the idea of bots in online matches.

[NP473L]

^ The bots would function in the same way as Quick Match in that regard. The only difference to Quick is that stagnant lobbies are given a chance to regroup from the beginning of a new game, in the sense that everybody is put back into a lobby after the game.

[the_suicide_fox]

even Private has stats and leaderboards. Private Beast and Horde have leaderboards. They aren't going to remove that. Incentive to play ranked more than just XP bonus I agree, but they don't need to, and shouldn't remove stats and leaderboards for separate playlist choices.

When has anyone cared about their private match leaderboard stats? Or Horde leaderboard stats? No Knotsense is (or was) top 100 in QM Wingman, but guess what people would say when he tells them that? "So what, it's just QM." Ranked stats and leaderboards are the only ones people take seriously. Just because everything has leaderboards and stats in Gears 2/3 doesn't mean it should continue that way for Judgement.

[SirLancerALot]

Just because everything has leaderboards and stats in Gears 2/3 doesn't mean it should continue that way for Judgement.

Agreed. The greatest thing about Epic making a new GOW game is that they can correct mistakes that couldn't be fixed in GOW3. (ie. removal of weapons, etc. that just can't be done w/o a new game)

[NP473L]

Agreed. The greatest thing about Epic making a new GOW game is that they can correct mistakes that couldn't be fixed in GOW3. (ie. removal of weapons, etc. that just can't be done w/o a new game)

Even if that were desired, it's sometimes difficult to redact what was once given without risking outrage of those that are on the end of the redaction, even if the decision made may technically be the 'right' one.

[SirLancerALot]

Even if that were desired, it's sometimes difficult to redact what was once given without risking outrage of those that are on the end of the redaction, even if the decision made may technically be the 'right' one.

That's the bad thing about adding things in the first place. If something is added, someone will like it, even if it's not you. I do thing that the QM/Ranked Epic has was meant to fail. I'm neutral on the leaderboards. I don't think that private leaderboards are necessary though. I don't use them, so I don't know how they're used. If someone who does use them explained how they used it, I might change my opinion.

[MIST GHILLIE]

Even if that were desired, it's sometimes difficult to redact what was once given without risking outrage of those that are on the end of the redaction, even if the decision made may technically be the 'right' one.

I totally agree, its the reason why the famas wasnt nerfed in black ops untill MW3 was almost out, it was the most popular gun, I think. Thats why when something is popular it is basically immune from revoval. It is what Ifear for certain weapons in gears 3 that shall remain unnamed.

[NP473L]

I totally agree, its the reason why the famas wasnt nerfed in black ops untill MW3 was almost out, it was the most popular gun, I think. Thats why when something is popular it is basically immune from revoval. It is what Ifear for certain weapons in gears 3 that shall remain unnamed.

In all fairness to said weapon (the Retro), the Gnasher is currently (and sadly) under that protection too.

[NP473L]

Bumping as ever

[MIST GHILLIE]

In all fairness to said weapon (the Retro), the Gnasher is currently (and sadly) under that protection too.

TU5 gnasher, I miss that little guy.

[NeillMcAttack]

The poll is very evenly spread, it will be incredibly interesting to see what the solution to this on going arguement will be, that is, if any is implemented!!
Personally i am a fan of solution 2. But i wouldn't liken the format to call of duty so much as halo 3 having been thinking about it.

Halo 3 offered both ranked and social playlists much in the way suicide fox appears to have nailed it above.

[SirLancerALot]

The poll is very evenly spread, it will be incredibly interesting to see what the solution to this on going arguement will be, that is, if any is implemented!!
Personally i am a fan of solution 2. But i wouldn't liken the format to call of duty so much as halo 3 having been thinking about it.

Halo 3 offered both ranked and social playlists much in the way suicide fox appears to have nailed it above.

I like the analogy to H3. H3 was one of the few games to get matchmaking right. I'm also interested to see what Epic does. I'm not really happy with the current matchmaking process.

[NP473L]

I'm not really happy with the current matchmaking process.

Definitely. I hope we see change.

[MIST GHILLIE]

Definitely. I hope we see change.

@NP473L

Haven't had a debate with you for a while, so I am saying going to say hello.
Your almost at 40 pages now, congrats on the succesful thread.
I haven't voted yet I am leaning towards either 1 or 4. You voted yet?

[NP473L]

@NP473L

Haven't had a debate with you for a while, so I am saying going to say hello.
Your almost at 40 pages now, congrats on the succesful thread.
I haven't voted yet I am leaning towards either 1 or 4. You voted yet?

In the OP, the 'quote' from that thread we were all a part of is my opinion really. I would love Solution 1 in that sense. However, I went with Solution 2 in the poll, simply because from what I've seen, the community are extremely unwilling to go beyond what they're accustomed to, without being rude to the opposite party and misunderstanding its intentions, spewing the same (already addressed) arguments back, and Solution 2 is the best compromise. I wish I could see Solutions 3 or 4 working, but they won't. They won't achieve anything.

In an ideal world : Solution 1
In the real world : Solution 2

And hi.

[MIST GHILLIE]

Definitely. I hope we see change.

@NP473L
I think the biggest problem with that is stacked teams have to put up with rampant dashboarding as the opposition can leave pre match without penalty. As is the way with COD. I see 2 at as the most feasable (due to the state of the commounity)to have slick matchmaking by virtue of the fact that its unified. I am still aprehensive about it though.

[SirLancerALot]

In the OP, the 'quote' from that thread we were all a part of is my opinion really. I would love Solution 1 in that sense. However, I went with Solution 2 in the poll, simply because from what I've seen, the community are extremely unwilling to go beyond what they're accustomed to, without being rude to the opposite party and misunderstanding its intentions, spewing the same (already addressed) arguments back, and Solution 2 is the best compromise. I wish I could see Solutions 3 or 4 working, but they won't. They won't achieve anything.

I think renaming "Quick Match" to something like "Standard" that doesn't carry the stigma of that population of players being cannon fodder might alleviate the problem a little bit. I think that if Ranked matchmaking was improved so that the promise of equally skilled players was actually worth the wait times would help Ranked get rid of the stigma of it being filled with 5 man parties of tryhards. Sorry for that abomination of a sentence. I can't think of a better way to phrase it. Overall, the best solution may be a combination of all 4 options.

[NP473L]

I think renaming "Quick Match" to something like "Standard" that doesn't carry the stigma of that population of players being cannon fodder might alleviate the problem a little bit. I think that if Ranked matchmaking was improved so that the promise of equally skilled players was actually worth the wait times would help Ranked get rid of the stigma of it being filled with 5 man parties of tryhards. Sorry for that abomination of a sentence. I can't think of a better way to phrase it. Overall, the best solution may be a combination of all 4 options.

Did you mean Ranked?

Well, I know 'Standard' would be how I'd personally prefer to play the game, and from what I saw in Gears 2 matchmaking, the TrueSkill was not a total abomination because it was forced upon everybody from the start.

Now that 'Ranked' has been stereotyped and abandoned, it's left to the 'sweaty 5 mans' because of the option for others to avoid it (thus making TrueSkill or the like all but useless), and I don't feel the implementation of Social was 100% necessary with the growing online populations that were 'obviously' coming. *shrugs*

However, it falls down because there have already been countless people in this thread saying that they would 'leave Multiplayer' if Quick were removed, which is folly, but a clear representation of 'many'.

2 separate systems cannot work if they provide identical features and benefits, and a single system has to compromise (which is hard to come by).

[SirLancerALot]

Did you mean Ranked?

Well, I know 'Standard' would be how I'd personally prefer to play the game, and from what I saw in Gears 2 matchmaking, the TrueSkill was not a total abomination because it was forced upon everybody from the start.

Now that 'Ranked' has been stereotyped and abandoned, it's left to the 'sweaty 5 mans' because of the option for others to avoid it (thus making TrueSkill or the like all but useless), and I don't feel the implementation of Social was 100% necessary with the growing online populations that were 'obviously' coming. *shrugs*

However, it falls down because there have already been countless people in this thread saying that they would 'leave Multiplayer' if Quick were removed, which is folly, but a clear representation of 'many'.

2 separate systems cannot work if they provide identical features and benefits, and a single system has to compromise (which is hard to come by).

Removal of QM may be for the best, but I don't think it'll be possible to remove it at this point. I suggested a name change to avoid its current stigma (of bad players) Personally, I wouldn't mind the removal of QM, if Ranked was changed to allow quitting without penalty. A punishment for quitting is the only tangible difference between Ranked and QM. Slightly random, but I'd also like to see an MLG / Gamebattles mode (in the same menu where Ranked, QM and Casual are now), where non-pro players could play with competitive settings.

Why Epic does some of the things it does, I'll never understand. Adding Social was one of them, considering it was built to fail.

[the_suicide_fox]

Why Epic does some of the things it does, I'll never understand. Adding Social was one of them, considering it was built to fail.

They removed player matches and people complained so we got social. If anything player matches should return, no leaderboards or stats and less control of the host to boot a player.

[RoboSeal1]

Wow poll results

[SirLancerALot]

They removed player matches and people complained so we got social. If anything player matches should return, no leaderboards or stats and less control of the host to boot a player.

I absolutely agree. The part that I don't understand is why didn't they just reintroduce player matches?

[SirLancerALot]

bump for more responses.

[NP473L]

Time to bump?

[LoD FENIX]

I absolutely agree. The part that I don't understand is why didn't they just reintroduce player matches?

Apparently people didn't like the "randomness" of player matches.

By that I mean people didn't like not knowing what the weapon swaps of the game would be. That's how I heard it.

I wasn't on these forums back then so I could be wrong.

[Eridanis Nadir]

I'm sorry but go by your own (Like me) to Ranked could be a nightmare, its easy to say to ppl with a stacked team/clan the remove of Quick Match like most of ppl in the forums, I'm part of the Onyx Guard and EGFC and even with that I always play by own.

The solution? There is nothing to solve

[the_suicide_fox]

Apparently people didn't like the "randomness" of player matches.

By that I mean people didn't like not knowing what the weapon swaps of the game would be. That's how I heard it.

I wasn't on these forums back then so I could be wrong.

The real complaint was that host had too much power (host advantage, ability to kick people, starting games).

I don't want player matches back I just want there to be a way to play with AND against your friends while random players can join. Which is why I suggested to remove stats from QM and allow you to invite friends to the other team.

[SirLancerALot]

The real complaint was that host had too much power (host advantage, ability to kick people, starting games).

I don't want player matches back I just want there to be a way to play with AND against your friends while random players can join. Which is why I suggested to remove stats from QM and allow you to invite friends to the other team.

With CSHD, I think that host advantage would go away, but this is still a good idea. QM is cannibalizing Ranked's population. There needs to be a difference between them, or they both suffer.

[NP473L]

I'm sorry but go by your own (Like me) to Ranked could be a nightmare, its easy to say to ppl with a stacked team/clan the remove of Quick Match like most of ppl in the forums, I'm part of the Onyx Guard and EGFC and even with that I always play by own.

The solution? There is nothing to solve

Ranked in its current state does not exist. It is pointless. If that is how the playlist setup was intended, then scrap it and stop pretending it ever had a chance after introducing a playlist that offers the exact same benefits without any drawbacks.

Something has to change...if it doesn't, then Ranked will stay broken. If 'nothing' changes, Ranked will remain broken; I thought people were against broken things.