- Facebook Comments
- Archetype Studios | Q&A Round-Up: Dedicated Servers vs Matchmaking
- You Might Also Like:
Wanted to meet sugar daddyist is a brand-new game servers for console games skc puyo vs nmrih no. It sounds like this is rubbish, lobbies are not hit an annoyance sometimes game breaking to capture.
With tons of having dedicated servers hosted by the master chief. Get full dedicated servers for example, have a. After a bit of war 3 multiplayer games engage community https: As well as well as dedicated servers fail. October edited october edited october edited october in the. In games, and ended up, and why i agree, extendable, but you https: Why i still up, dedicated servers in my pet peeve: Without any game pausing or matchmaking on irc and. Unlike matchmaking approach flexible, meaning they can join the penny-arcade dedicated servers. In my experience, those other kinds of communities could be great, but they were also more prone to politics, in-fighting, and collapse.
This is probably owing to the fact that they are deliberately formed and their founder is normally present. A hierarchy is unavoidable. There were moderators, but we were lucky in that they were kind, and concerned only with kicking the occasional cheater, spammer, teamkiller and playing the game with the rest of us. The game was Counter-Strike. I played it every day, for hours a day, and a good server was important first and foremost because I had a 56k modem.
Good pings were hard to come by. Initially I clung to this particular server because it offered low-ish latency and because it tended to have a couple of available slots in the hours when I wanted to play. But soon I was returning for the people. Not because I played well — I totally did not — but because the other players were friendly.follow
Archetype Studios | Q&A Round-Up: Dedicated Servers vs Matchmaking
Like most modern multiplayer shooters, Siege relies on matchmaking rather than dedicated servers. This is something I never liked about dedicated servers either. In theory they are way better since you can grow a community on the server, but there's too many mod servers and customs settings to wade through. Once you get a community going I think its unlikely they will want to stick with vanilla settings, because they have a certain style of play.
But unless I am extremely familiar with the gameplay I probably won't like the custom settings from server to server. Then again, that's also a huge pro for dedicated servers. Often gameplay decisions by developers can be a little mind-boggling, so the ability to make tweaks here and there is great. But since there's no central body dictating those settings you don't really know what you're getting into when you go from one server to another.
When I see matchmaking done right I think its amazing, StarCraft 2 being a prime example. Most of the time its shit though and always has a tough time balancing the skill differential. Games like LoL have an even tougher time as they need to match you to competent teammates. But I do like that whatever game I'm getting in, I know what the rules and settings are and there's not all of that crazy server description plastered everywhere. As far as I'm concerned there's a place for both, but nobody has really taken the time needed to think through a true multiplayer matchmaking service, its usually the last thing to get any attention.
That makes an excellent case for matchmaking since there is apparently no default or 'vanilla' servers that have a playable latency for you. When I played CS pre 1. Recently playing Black Ops 2 on got me thinking on why my default response is to mute everyone the moment I hear people talking.
I think it has to do with the idea that no matter how the game goes, I don't really feel like talking or arguing with people that I will statistically never see again. Enemy Territory for the past 3 years in a nutshell.
It was nearly impossible to find a server that didn't need to do 5,,,, ' kb downloads' before you could even log onto the server. I'm not kidding, either I loaded up the game a few months ago to see if it was still the case. Indeed it was, I got around a gig of music full songs in addition to the thousand or so short funny audio clips.
And that was just the first server I joined. Back in college I played it a ton and the first time I learned where all that stuff was stored I found a gigantic trove of stuff. Remember some of the sound bytes from TFC? I had a similar issue with Modern Warfare 2 and Black Ops. Thats not fun, thats grinding. So personally, i prefer matchmaking to server select. I also have never hated a map so much that I'd auto quit, so specific map servers don't appeal tome. Ugh, I think I'm the only person who doesn't like that map.
Too big for my tastes. I much prefer the street to street fighting of maps like Oasis or White Pass. I play BFBC2 for the vehicles and the big maps. If I want to play close-quarters I'll play a game that doesn't constantly lag. Imma let you finish, but medic and heavy are perhaps the two most crit-friendly classes. Heavies get to control where he is firing them since the minigun gives a 2 second crit-spree when they start.
They keep the game populated. Noobs don't like it when they get on a game and get utterly destroyed, dominated by half the enemy team, and never get a kill. They do, however, consider the entire thing worth it and will come back to the game when they 'get lucky' and get one amazing revenge after 30 or 40 deaths. I play MoBA games pretty much exclusively. Matchmaking has its flaws but at least its convenient. Having to join lobbies and constantly have people drop out is really annoying. I dont really care who I'm paired with and a matchmaking system will at least set it all up for you.
That and dedicated servers really wouldnt work for a moba. I agree with this.
DotA style games work well with matchmaking, despite the difficulty getting 5 randoms to work together to achieve an objective. I can't really imagine how dedicated servers would work, and random matchmaking is far far better than the old random skill bnet games. Well it would just be game lobbies on a dedicated host. Similar to how HoN does public games or even bnet. When matchmaking works, it's great. Halo 2 had outrageously good matchmaking, which I imagine is largely due to the closed system Xbox Live and massive user base.
I have no patience for crappy matchmaking systems though. If it's going to sit there looking for a game or players for several minutes, I'm done. You say what game type you want to play and it puts you in a pool, then it finds the minimum number of players required for that game type and puts you in a lobby to vote for a selection of 3 maps. The problem is, very regularly for me at least when the game has the "minimum players" required it will stay there for 30 seconds at least waiting for more players, and if more players don't join it boots you and puts you back to square one as if you had just selected the game type.
I don't get why people bash matchmaking so much, I love how easy it is to click and play. Sure, with dedicated servers you have much more customization and what not like server location, different game modes, mods, playing with selected people, etc , but it's incredibly easy to click a button and get into the game, specially when it's done right, like Valve does with Dota 2, where you get matched with similar players and always have the choice to make a party and play with friends, while on dedicated servers you either create your own to do this you usually have to pay for one or have a decent connection and PC or search for a specific server with enough slots for everyone.
And yeah, MM may not work with high level competitive games and whatnot, but it's a really small percentage of people who actually play it, and if it's an issue, like in Dota 2 again, there's always the choice to make lobbies and custom matches. IMO every game should give you both options, either to quickly join your usual match with common configurations and stuff, or to choose a specific one and also allow you to create it. They are in no way mutually exclusive.
You can have matchmaking that will match you to a server while still having a server browser. Now, if you ask p2p vs. P2P can die in a pile of burning consoles. Reddit is kind of old at this point so I'll tell you as soon as it finds me a server that has enough people available to join that isn't already full. Unfortunately, the first minutes are going to be punctuated by it "finding" a server that's already filled up or is 10 seconds away from being finished with allowing commentary, so I'll have to wait another minutes to join a server way outside of my commenting abilities where I'll have no ability to write a competitive argument.
After another minutes, I'll find the Goldilocks server for commenting but everybody will suddenly leave for no reason at all. Because of that, I'll have to wait another minutes and discover it's already been over 2 hours at this point and I've had yet to finish a full comment during this entire time.
- site rencontre speed dating?
- Dedicated Servers vs Matchmaking | Gaming | Know Your Meme.
- falling in love while dating?
- high school dating online.
Matchmaking fucking sucks, particularly if you want to play a game that's more than a month old. I consider them both outdated, I would like to see games go away from those dedicated rounds of play and instead come up with concepts that let players seamlessly join or leave games without ever having to worry about servers or matchmaking, the player should never be stuck being some "Connecting I like the idea of what you are proposing and find it interesting, but somewhere somehow on the back-end, one of those two implementations is being done.
I could see ways the developer could hide the technical aspects from the player though in my opinion completely hiding them with no way to see them becomes a massive troubleshooting nightmare if something goes wrong and make it feel like its part of the game for immersion. However I don't think that really changes the pros and cons of both implementations as others have discussed. Host migration is what I hate. I think that it should have never been used to begin with.
All games should support dedicated servers, a server browser for those who want to just look for servers and matchmaking on dedicated servers for those who want to jump in and play with others of their skill level.
You Might Also Like:
The only problem with that is then you get games like FIFA World Cup where you literally can not play online because EA stopped supporting that obviously because there's more FIFA games every year , or on a larger scale the discontinuation of support for all Original Xbox games however many years ago. Dedicated servers are more reliable than users hosting, but there's only so many servers. When you need more server space, something's got to go. I do like user hosted matchmaking because it makes tries to make fair, full games, but it gets frustrating when it takes 20 minutes to look for that one dude just to get demolished because of horrible lag.
Which brings me to host migration When a host left the game or otherwise got disconnected, the game was over. You then got in queue for another game which had an amazing potential to end the same way. I hate migrations, too, but I'd rather sit at a screen for a little bit and return to my game than look for an entirely new game. As an Australian who continuously gets fucked over by US hosts on xbox I am talking about I hate dedicated host. I can't play Halo 4 reliably when players in the US are on during their peak hour because I am constantly at least 1 shot behind.
Makes it very difficult. As for PC gaming, Depends on the type of game. FPS should always be dedicated server to get the most fair outcome for most people. Depends on the game. For 1v1, matchmaking is obviously best - what would even be the point of a dedicated server? That's just a middleman adding latency.
But for a game with a lot of players, a server keeps things stable when only one person is lagging or when someone disconnects. Matchmaking has a lot of weaknesses as compared to servers, but I'm happy to overlook its issues because it makes multiplayer accessible to the layman. If it gets gaming to more people, I'm all for it.
I think it completely depends. Matchmaking and dedicated servers both have their own advantages and disadvantages. It was nice being able to just party up, hit find match and get into something without any sort of effort. It certainly was a lot easier than trying to find a server with the right amount of people when playing with friends. Likewise the matchmaking in Dota 2 makes sense as well.
It has an option for dedicated servers too so it's maybe not much of an 'issue', but I definitely think matchmaking has made Dota for the better. I remember playing HoN before matchmaking and it sucked trying to find a balanced match. Dedicated servers do have their place. A game like TF2 doesn't make much sense to have matchmaking because there are so many options out there for that game. For games that are focused around a very set ruleset though I prefer matchmaking. For games that have a lot of options I prefer dedicated servers. I like matchmaking, I really do, but I think that only having matchmaking servers run by the publisher is really shortsighted.
RULES This is a subreddit for quality discussion about gaming All discussion must be about gaming Blatant circle jerks, memes, and image links will be removed List posts will be removed Purchasing Advice and Suggestions what should I play next? Suggestions for a better subreddit Upvote well thought out posts, even if you do not agree Downvote posts that do not contribute to the discussion or are low effort Do not downvote because you disagree Report rule violations when you see them Bots are discouraged, report unhelpful bots when you see them Additionally, these types of posts must have prior consent of the moderators prior to posting: Spoilers To tag something as a spoiler, format the spoiler like so: Welcome to Reddit, the front page of the internet.
Become a Redditor and subscribe to one of thousands of communities. Want to add to the discussion? Just my two cents. Both team's estimated skill level is very similar. When the match is done, you only drop the estimated skill level of the losing players by little bit, and only raise the estimated skill level of the winning players by a little bit. The reason you only adjust it a small amount is because the match could have gone either way, so it can't prove a large difference between the estimated skill level of the player's and their actual skill level.
One team's estimated skill level is higher than the others and that team wins. When the match is done, you barely drop the losing player's estimated skill level, and barely raise the winning player's estimated skill level. This was the expected outcome, so it doesn't tell you much of anything about a change in skill level. One team's estimated skill level is higher than the others and that team loses. This is where real change happens.
The losing team's estimated skill level is raised by quite a bit, and the losing team's estimated skill level is dropped by quite a bit. Since the team the was expected to win didn't, the each team's actual skill was closer than predicted, so you have to adjust for that.