Sever Browser vs. Match Making Systems | Forums

[hoak]

Match Making Systems as the sole means to start, find, and join/connect to games even in those rare cases where they are virtually without bugs or issues; always make for PC games dramatically less accessible and popular then even less compelling games that offer Server Browsers.

Match Making Systems suffers the same functional dissonance and ergonomic limitations on PC that the notion of putting full feature level design and mod tools on Consoles to be operated solely with the thumb controller would create with that audience.

PC Gamers choose the PC as a gaming platform for the freedom, flexibility, control, and choice the platform affords them -- and game Publishers insistence on trying to foist top-down, console derivative Nanny features not only goes against the very grain of the platform -- it's objectively dysfunctional as all parties concerned suffer.

Essential capabilities that Server Browsers offer that Match Making Systems can NEVER match is it allows a Player to see ALL connectible games, see them concurrently, and make an immediate, educated choice based on his or her preferences of:

· tolerable latency
· map being played
· game mode
· game size
· friends that are playing

Many Players are willing to tolerate higher pings, unpopular maps, and even prefer smaller games just to be able to play with a friend, or join and play a game quickly, or even just to be able to play at all, and not wait for five minutes for someone else's contrived notion of what his/her priorities of game to join should be.

Even the slowest, most inexperienced, and cautious Players are able to make a decision and connect to a game or multiple game(s) faster using a Server Browser then even the most efficient MMS (and GR:O's MMS is far from being the most efficient or efficacious) -- and Server Browsers offer the only reliable means to connect to and start games when game traffic/play-share is low -- sustaining game-play when it's most critical.

That literally every financially successful P4F/P4C MMOFPS hit the market either initially with a conventional Server Browser, or went to market with an MMS and later rolled out a Server Browser and without exception saw play-share more then double should (one would think) make the case that MMS are inimical to not only the preference of PC Gamers, but the play-share required for revenue success.

[cracked247]

I would love to be able to pick and choose which game mode and/or map I play on. Being forced to play on the maps they push us into is not fun at all. Not everyone is going to like every map they offer and want to play the ones they like best. I would also like to see a TDM option in this game. Don't get me wrong I like the game, but both game modes are basically the same. Lets capture point blah blah blah over and over. it's fun and all, but lets mix it up a little. CTF would be a nice addition too.

[FaLleNx_]

+1

[LiquidX74]

I would also like to see a server browser functionality over match making, but I think the reason we will never see a server browser is due to the "on demand" nature of how many game servers (in fact most servers online) are working now.

they do not run in a standard dedicated 24/7 kind of way, but rather a certain number run 24/7 - but based on the number of available players in the queue (demand), new servers will be dynamically spawned. This saves companies truckloads of money as they no longer have to buy and support huge rooms full of servers (many of which may sit idle for 70%+ of the time), and is a nearly ideal solution for F2P games.

With that being said, matchmaking rules could definitely be greatly improved.

I mean, the current system will still stack teams on a regular basis in a variety of ways.
- I have seen games start 8v5 (why? can't it count and balance the # of clients per team?)
- I have seen games start 8v5 where the 8 person team clearly has a fireteam, and the 5 do not
- I have seen games start 8v5 where the 8 person team consists of high level accounts, and the 5 player team is all low levels
- I have seen games start with 8 of one class vs a team with zero of that class.

I mean it's not rocket surgery here. balance should be established in the following order:
fireteam > level > class and it should strive to put the same number of players per team, or as close as it can.

Currently it obviously fails to do this on every level, which is why it is so broken.

[hoak]

What's so confounding about the shockingly bad MMS is that like so many Developers before them, Ubisoft's GR:O Developers obviously do not understand basic statistical limitations of an MMS, and that sans a larger audience then any F2P/P4C PC game has ever sustained, Match Making Systems mathematically can not work.

To wit, you'd need a constellation of approximately 50,000 players joining per minute not actually playing, but constantly joining the game, with 5x that in games with open slots for an MMS with the most simplistic five parameter (5! or five factorial) MMS, and the more selective you make your MMS, the more players joining per minute are required to keep wait latency and the end result in game balance from being ridiculous.

Even with magical mathematically ideal (and impossible) circumstances, with an MMS of over a quarter million heuristic parameters that magically could sort this for a million players and games with zero latency, with the over a million players joining per second -- the MMS will still fail in performance, selection quality, and balance compared to what people do intuitively with a Server Browser instantly.

I guess we'll just have to wait for Ubisoft to rediscover the wheel, and for their 'Aha!' moment so they can give themselves credit for discovering it... Until then the GR:O MMS is and will continue to be an epic abortion just like every other MMS -- you can't beat the laws of math and physics even under the ideal circumstances and good intentions of 'wish and pretend'...