I support a MOBA style matchmaking as the main format (one for individuals, and one for clans), but a custom server browser as a secondary option. (Few people will use it, judging by Tribes: Ascend before it made the browser the primary option…but its good to have…and if we do get modding, it will be necessary.)
Db client necessites for game to be massive appealing and easy!
Patriotqube
(Patriotqube)
#23
Im sorry to say i only read the OP’s post.
I have some concerns regarding a system that lets you choose like he descibes, and no i have never played LOL or other games like that, except maybe BFBC2 if i remember correctly it had some sort of autoconnect thingy going on?
Anyway, im here because il try and look after my needs concerning this game, 
I want the Community of which im a part to be able to have several servers and to beeing able to play there and have fun as a group with eachother on ts while playing.
will a system like that ensure that? or will it be so the few servers with people on always will be getting people connecting because they have ppl on?
so empty servers basically wont see new faces unless there already are 10 clanpeople on?
if that is what is described in OP’s post, then i dont like it, and im pretty sure it will take away many smaller clans/communities desire to have own servers.
which imho isnt a good idea.
if i misunderstood, then just disregard my post
MrFunkyFunk
(MrFunkyFunk)
#24
Totally agree, people from all horizons should just be able to hop in a game and play (dual system: hotjoin and a sv browser). It will be a f2p, it needs to be enjoyable for a whole lot of people to sustain.
An ELO-like system, if it’s implemented should be done with great care (and it needs a rather large users base to be possible imo).
potty200
(potty200)
#25
CS:GO almost played it well. I just think they have TOO many game modes to select from. They do, however, use good use of people quitting before the game ends. If you leave one game in a week you get a 30 minute cool down, twice is 2 hours and I think 3 times is 24 hours. (4 times is 7 days I THINK!)
Apples
(Apples)
#26
Why the hell would I be punished for leaving midgame? If my pc burn, my dog eat my ethernet wire, I have to pee / make sex / do whatever I want to do, why would I be punished for leaving a game.
Yeah the main point is that it is a game, and when the game is stacked / abused / not fun for me or if I have better things to do I just disconnect, I’m not a masoschist and when I simply dont enjoy the teams or the game I just quit, being punished for that is plain stupid IMO.
On the topic of autojoin and simplicity, while I agree it is a powerfull tool to attract more player, the possibility to stick to a favourite server with friends, without matchmaking and to play the game I want to play with a capacity to choose server, change some cvar to suit my taste more (FoV,Xhair,some graphical parameters, etc etc) and “connect” with people via chat / VOIP / Forum / irc is what build a real community.
Its cool to have a bazzilion of player playing your game, but if all these player are john doe to me, I’ll quit playing pretty fast, a game without the socialising aspect is very blend to me.
Anti
(Anti)
#27
Don’t worry, we’ve already been discussing this sort of thing at considerable length (we have as many MOBA fans at the studio as we have FPS fans). There is no doubt we’ll have elements of matchmaking of this sort at some point, the current ‘old skool’ server browser system will remain as a method of finding games as well. It was added first simply because it was easier to get up and running ready for the alpha.
nailzor
(nailzor)
#28
I’ll take this thread on my shoulders and put it back on the rails with a more positive note!
I think I would want the best of both worlds. The ability to hop in and play on a public setting, or the ability to match make with randoms, and also the ability to group play with my team against another specific team (aka like a scrim in RTCW where it does not end after a full round of stop watch).
Valdez
(Valdez)
#29
[QUOTE=Apples;429677]
Its cool to have a bazzilion of player playing your game, but if all these player are john doe to me, I’ll quit playing pretty fast, a game without the socialising aspect is very blend to me.[/QUOTE]
I have never played League of legends but from what I understand they have lobbies where people can chat and there are different channels you can join. So I think socialising is a big part of LoL.
Kendle
(Kendle)
#30
[QUOTE=Apples;429677]Why the hell would I be punished for leaving midgame? If my pc burn, my dog eat my ethernet wire, I have to pee / make sex / do whatever I want to do, why would I be punished for leaving a game.
Yeah the main point is that it is a game, and when the game is stacked / abused / not fun for me or if I have better things to do I just disconnect, I’m not a masoschist and when I simply dont enjoy the teams or the game I just quit, being punished for that is plain stupid IMO.[/QUOTE]
They’re talking about the match-making feature in CS:GO.
CS:GO takes the view that by using the formal match-making process you’ve elected to take part in a balanced 5-v-5 match. Leaving without completing the match is not fair on the other 9 players who also made that choice, it’s right therefore that you should be punished for doing so.
If you don’t want to be take part in that kind of game you’re still free to choose a regular server from the server browser in the normal way.
It works surprisingly well, catering for both the more serious gamer who’d otherwise have to use IRC or some 3rd party service to find a mix, as well as the casual gamer just looking to have a fun game.
Apoc
(Apoc)
#31
I agree lol is successful, and a benchmark for f2p games these days, but you can’t just copy and paste a formula across genres…FPS games cannot use the same tools and content to compliment this formula and therefor the results cannot be the same. More thought must be used when making such huge strategic decisions.
xarQi
(xarQi)
#32
this matchmacking thing is cool and a nice feature , but you should keep an eye on dedicated servers from third parties as well since esports will fail if you dont! Look at cod: blackops2 the esport scene is dead because of the lack off dedicated servers ! so both options,possibilities should be the point!
Samurai
(Samurai.)
#33
I have to say I’m not in agreement with the OP either.
I’m pretty sure even if you make the game more accessible to join a server, it is the gameplay that will determine whether people will stay or not. If people can’t handle a simple server browser I really don’t understand how they would be able to get to grips with the rest of the game. It really isn’t a steep learning curve clicking on a server in a browser.
A ranked system, with matchmaking – I haven’t played LoL but this is not an FPS game and I have yet to see an FPS game achieve this successfully. How do you rank a player based on what? K/D? Accuracy? XP per minute? W/L Ratio? None of these factors ever provide a true representation of individual contribution and therefore when people get ranked there’s always such a mismatch of skill between players – (Black ops 2, league TDM – I’d lose the match from incompetent team mates yet have a k/d of 10 but because of the loss you get put in a low league).
I don’t want to be totally negative, I did pick up on a positive point you made: “The game penalizes you for leaving a game before its finishes and bans you temporarily for 5minutes before your allowed to queue up again” – I can see the benefit of this and hopefully would dissuade the uneven numbered teams that do occur on servers to some extent, but if players lose connection without intention, do they also receive 5 minute temp ban before they can rejoin?
I understand the point of view you are coming from, but I disagree in many cases and I find once you starting dumbing down features like the server browser for the mainstream, you may as well just dumb down the entire game to cater for people who are incompetent at the basics of FPS gaming…
You keep mentioning “FPS Gaming” rather than “Dirtybomb” specifically, I don’t think Dirtybomb is the game to start this trend, there is already an existing loyal public and esport community from RTCW, ET, ETQW, Quake series that I can see will transition into this game with great expectation of certain features & new learning curves. Whether they stay or go will be up to the game mechanics/maps/community support but simplifying the game, and restricting the creativity possible through limited gamemodes will not encourage people to stay and reduce the longevity of the game i feel.
Ruben0s
(Ruben0s)
#34
Would be a really cool feature for competetive play imo. Instead of going to irc you can just press play. And your team gets placed against a team with a similar elo rating. Instead of the champion selection in LoL you could sellect maps to play.
And next to play the moba kind of system a normal server browser would make it perfect. But DB should get a really big playerbase for it being a succes. First I want to see that happen
Bananas
(Bananas)
#35
[QUOTE=Samurai.;429749]A ranked system, with matchmaking – I haven’t played LoL but this is not an FPS game and I have yet to see an FPS game achieve this successfully. How do you rank a player based on what? K/D? Accuracy? XP per minute? W/L Ratio? None of these factors ever provide a true representation of individual contribution and therefore when people get ranked there’s always such a mismatch of skill between players – (Black ops 2, league TDM – I’d lose the match from incompetent team mates yet have a k/d of 10 but because of the loss you get put in a low league).[/QUOTE]The same arguments get made in MOBAs. Don’t want to go into detail, but the idea behind matchmaking in team games is that you’ll eventually end up where you belong. If you’re actually above the skill level of where it places you, you should win more than you lose. Anyways, League of Legends has had these questions/complains around forever. You could google a bunch of info on it.
Anti
(Anti)
#36
[QUOTE=Samurai.;429749]I have to say I’m not in agreement with the OP either.
I’m pretty sure even if you make the game more accessible to join a server, it is the gameplay that will determine whether people will stay or not. If people can’t handle a simple server browser I really don’t understand how they would be able to get to grips with the rest of the game. It really isn’t a steep learning curve clicking on a server in a browser.[/quote]
I think it’s less about being able to use the interface, but rather other things. A lot of players are happy to let matchmaking assume the best match for them and then place them in it, without setting up their own filters first and then trying several servers in row, so it can help in that regard.
The other thing is matchmaking can put you with like-minded or similar ability players, that is very hard to achieve via a server browser.
That is less an issue to do with rank systems and more how some people have applied the ranking. It could also be a consequence of a small player base, because ultimately if you cant find similarly ranked players for the player at that point you do still have to give them a game.
I can assure you though that, when applied correctly, ranking systems definitely improve the quality of games for people. In cases where this does happen it can be proven statistically.
One thing I’d like to point out to everybody is that matchmaking and peer-to-peer (or listen server) style multiplayer games are very different things, this is something that seems to get regularly confused.
Matchmaking is the process of finding the player a game, that game could be on a dedicated server or it could be hosted by another player. Matchmaking doesn’t have anything to do with the type of game, just the process of searching for it.
As I understand it if we do go ahead and have some matchmaking it would still be adding players to dedicated servers. I don’t think we’ll be doing any peer-to-peer, so that’s not a reason to worry
INF3RN0
(INF3RN0)
#37
Best of both worlds. Each brings a lot to the table and I would definitely be using both!
Ecano
(Ecano)
#38
New matchmaking system is welcome but leaving clasic dedicated servers, they’re meeting points for the pub comunity.
SockDog
(SockDog)
#39
The options can be wide spread and I think SD should look to go beyond the norm in what they are offering. Again, here a thread I started which includes early feedback from the testers.
mortis
(mortis)
#40
[QUOTE=LaVaGoD;429620]Agree
If I have a favorite server I would want to be able to play there. I do agree though that a match system or Quick Play would also be a must. I think you can make both options pretty easy and intuitive enough that it won’t be confusing. Trying to reinvent the wheel might be a gamble as systems like these are already out there and can be adopted quite easily.[/QUOTE]
This is my feeling; allow quick matches, but still leave me free to make up my own mind as to which server I want to join, whether it is a 5v5 sneakfest or a 12v12 spamfest. DB should allow for a simple system for quick connect, but don’t ram it down my throat. I mostly play PUGs, and I prefer to play with friends on known, well administrated and friendly servers…
P.S. When I first read Valdez’s post re:Fatal1ty, I though he was just being facetious…but now I’m not so sure. Gave me a good laugh, though.