Noooo this thread has been necro'd! I still hate this idea though and stand by my opinion that new players will just play a different server if someone is owning everyone.
Do you people really think this game is that hard to learn?
That's laughable. Learning the very basics doesn't mean there isn't much more left to learn. NS2 is a deep game, and just knowing the basics can get you through a pub game, but you'd fail miserably in organized play.
So you propose a parallel server system, and that if a friend is in a 'matchmade' game that I won't be able to join it?
Why would you expect to be able to join midgame if it's an organized game? If you want to play with friends, then group up and join matchmaking together, or play in pubs.
Otherwise it's just another way for people to stroke their epeens, and frankly I don't see the need for it.
Having matchmaking would mean some people would choose not to play in pubs, because they want to play better games. It's segregation in a sense, but the people preferring matchmaking would still be playing the same game with the same rules. Having game modes with different rules would be much more like segregation because it'd be more like different games.
The point of matchmaking would be that many people, me including, just choose not to play pubs. I want to play as a team, and finding decent teamplay in pubs is too hit-and-miss. I haven't been in any pubs in months, I don't plan to, and not making it easier to have organized matches will just mean I stop playing. The issue isn't about newbies, having a newbie in your team should be fine if the teams are balanced.
edit: Just had another thought: Imagine how many disgruntled trolls will grief you in the command chair. This would be unacceptable in a matchmaking game where an even game is essential. If one player refuses to participate, it ruins EVERYONE's game.
That's why there needs to be a reputation system, where griefers can get reported and punished. The risk of having a ruined game is worth it if the alternative is pub lameness.
Having matchmaking would mean some people would choose not to play in pubs, because they want to play better games. It's segregation in a sense, but the people preferring matchmaking would still be playing the same game with the same rules. Having game modes with different rules would be much more like segregation because it'd be more like different games.
You've got to be kidding me.... You're trying to split semantic hairs here. Matchmaking would be no different than having alternate rulesets. You're creating two player groups. You can't have it both ways.
-It would emphasize gameplay aspects (like kills and deaths) that are not necessarily indicative of a skilled player. In short, you can't put a 'rank' on teamwork, and teamwork is the bedrock of this game
That's only true if you use things like kills and deaths as the basis for your ranking. So don't do that. Use Elo instead. Elo-based ranking would emphasize the skills that are needed to be on a winning team... skills like teamwork.
The basic idea behind Elo-style ranking systems is:
* When you win, your score goes up
* When you lose, your score goes down
* How much your score goes up or down depends on how strong your opponent was. Beating someone much worse than you barely changes your score at all. Beating someone much better than you raises your score quite a bit.
Elo was invented for individual rankings in Chess, but it can be extended to apply to team games as well.
Matchmaking based on Elo (or a similar algorithm, like TrueSkill) would not be perfect, but as ScardyBob said, it doesn't have to be perfect. It would still be a huge improvement over random matches, in that it would lead to many more games being close to even and many fewer games being one-sided stomps.
What I'm getting at here is that a matchmaking system is not going to address the fact that there are bad players that will remain bad.
Matchmaking isn't intended to address that. It's intended to produce more games that are more fun for everyone playing in them, by having more people playing against others with similar skill. Bad players can play against other bad players and they'll still have fun.
You've got to be kidding me.... You're trying to split semantic hairs here. Matchmaking would be no different than having alternate rulesets. You're creating two player groups. You can't have it both ways.
Matchmaking players would be playing the same game but in different servers. Alternate rules would be more like having different games.
There's tons of games that are betting on appeal to casuals, and most of them fail and fade into obscurity. Many of the titles that succeed do so just because of big marketing budgets. What options does NS2 have? You think just dumbing it down would make the player numbers stop shrinking? NS2 could be a popular niche game, but it needs good word of mouth and a competitive scene for that. I don't see how not supporting players who want to play better matches than in pubs helps. Low level play in pubs gets old, and there's few teams a player with only pub experience could join, and few teams to play against because the NS2 competitive scene is anemic. Playing organized matches (PUGs or gathers) could be the middle step to get experience before joining a team, but it takes time and effort due to the lack of support from UWE. I actually often feel surprised that many of the good players I've met are still active despite the tedious process of getting to a game.
I don't think nor would want NS2 to be dumbed down, but I do think there needs to be a better method to match people of similar skill in a game. Much of the difficulty curve in NS2 is related to playing against people of different skill (e.g. you have to change your play style/tactics/strat between a skulk who walks in straight lines across the floor as opposed to one that frequently wallhops/jumps). The most effective method to deal with this is to start new players against equally unskilled ones and then slowly ramp their opponent skill up as they improve. In RPG-terms, you wouldn't expect to pit a lvl1 warrior-class character against a lvl100 boss and expect them not to get frustrated after being stomped numerous times.
SC2's league system is a good example of this in practice. It greatly reduces the number of Diamond-level skilled vs Bronze-level skilled matchups that are all too common in NS2. The system certainly has its flaws, but I haven't seen a good reason why a similar approach couldn't be done in NS2. As I've stated before, the criteria for the value of a NS2 matchmaking system isn't 'it should be perfect', but 'is it better than the current approach'.
So you propose a parallel server system, and that if a friend is in a 'matchmade' game that I won't be able to join it?
That's one way to do it, but it probably wouldn't work well for NS2. It's not the only way.
Here's a different way it could work. I'm just writing this off the top of my head - I'm not necessarily recommending it, I'm just trying to show that there's lots of ways to crack this nut, and if UWE puts their mind to it they could come up with something that would work really well. Anyway, consider this:
* Players get ranked on a 1-to-5 scale using Elo, which basically translates into a measurement of how much their being on a team will increase that team's chance of winning. Keep the individual rankings hidden from the players so it doesn't turn into an e-peen contest (it can't actually be that, but most people will think that it can, so let's keep it hidden to keep the issue from even appearing to come up).
* In the server browser, display the joint rating of the players currently in the server. The joint rating is sort of like the average of all the players' individual ratings, but since Elo ratings in team games may combine in unusual ways, the algorithm for specifying the "average" of several players may be a little more complicated than just a simple arithmetic average.
* In the game and ready room, show the joint rating of each of the two teams.
No other matchmaking infrastructure would be needed, besides tweaking the server browser filters and the quick-join algorithm.
With a system like this, players could see how "hard" a particular server is and take that into consideration when picking games to join, but would still be free to join any game they wanted. It would be just like now, but with better information. And once in a particular server, everyone on that server can see how evenly balanced (or badly stacked) the two teams are. If the team ratings are Marines-3 vs Aliens-5, then everyone can yell at the high-skill players to stop stacking Aliens so you can have a fair match, or everyone can shrug their shoulders and say "well, okay, Marines are badly outmatched, but maybe it will be fun to play as the underdogs so let's give it our best shot". Or throw up their hands in disgust and switch servers. Whatever. It would be their choice. Anyone could play any game they wanted, they'd just have better information about a) how to make a good matchup and b) how good the current matchup is.
Just one possible way to do it. There's lots of others, still.
No, NS2 is not a deep game. Although I wasn't even talking about comp play because most of the population of NS2 isn't that familiar with it. You can easily learn the basics to this game within an hour, and help your team in some way. Try doing that in Dota or CS. You will not succeed in learning enough, and you will not be any help. Being a deeper game than COD =/= deep game. Hell, COD is actually about as deep as NS2. Still fun though.
No, bad players will NOT have fun playing with other bad players. Marines NEED a good commander to even have a game worthy of playing. You're not going to find bad players playing commander(not willingly anyway). Besides that fact, there's still not even close to enough people to have a matchmaking system.
Word sixtywatts, there's quite a few players but after spreading them over, say, a modest 3 categories of experience? 3 times less players? That's gonna be felt.
Word sixtywatts, there's quite a few players but after spreading them over, say, a modest 3 categories of experience? 3 times less players? That's gonna be felt.
The way matchmaking can work even with a small player pool is if you first can't match players in the same skill bracket, you expand the criteria and match them with other brackets. There wouldn't be 3 times less players in this case. The only real issue is that it could take a long time to find a match, but that's fine, no one would be forced to wait because they could play in pubs instead.
No, NS2 is not a deep game. Although I wasn't even talking about comp play because most of the population of NS2 isn't that familiar with it. You can easily learn the basics to this game within an hour, and help your team in some way. Try doing that in Dota or CS. You will not succeed in learning enough, and you will not be any help. Being a deeper game than COD =/= deep game. Hell, COD is actually about as deep as NS2. Still fun though.
That's like saying Chess is not a deep game because you can learn the rules in 5 min. NS2 is actually quite deep, but that depth only comes out when the FPS skill difference between the teams is not too large.
No, NS2 is not a deep game. Although I wasn't even talking about comp play because most of the population of NS2 isn't that familiar with it. You can easily learn the basics to this game within an hour, and help your team in some way. Try doing that in Dota or CS. You will not succeed in learning enough, and you will not be any help. Being a deeper game than COD =/= deep game. Hell, COD is actually about as deep as NS2. Still fun though.
That's like saying Chess is not a deep game because you can learn the rules in 5 min. NS2 is actually quite deep, but that depth only comes out when the FPS skill difference between the teams is not too large.
I get what you're saying, but you're not really correct in saying that. Chess is a deep game because there are countless strategies and technical moves you can make. There are names for a lot of these if you care to take a gander at wikipedia or something. NS2 is in no way close to being a Chess-type game. You do not have an arsenal of strategies in NS2. Personally, I've been playing since build 221 or before. Although that may not be as long as you, I've played long enough to fully understand the game. Granted, the game may build upon itself and become an extremely dynamic game, but since it's been in the works for ~6 years I'm not very hopeful.
Generally, each map has one or 2 strategies depending where you spawn. That's not deep. RNG =/= deep. The economy is not deep: You stay alive and hold a room, get some upgrades. It's all quite simple. It becomes even more simplistic when you make games 6v6. In these 6v6 matchmaking games(that would be) you will not see all players of equal skill level. There will most likely be an extreme difference in skill until you look at the top 1% of players, which are already playing in competitive games anyway(pugs or team matches). So, thanks for kind of proving my point there...
I enjoy a competitive game as much as the next guy, and I enjoy playing NS2 as much as the next guy. That said, this is just not the game that matchmaking works in. Apparently most of the population agrees just judging by the server list. You see all those 24 slot servers full? Yes? How many 12 slot servers are full? Last I checked they're all empty. What do we get from this? Personally, I see this as concrete evidence that this game just isn't a desirable competitive game at the moment, and there are a lot of underlying problems that are causing this.
Also, please don't give me the "Well, it's an indie game" argument. Unless of course you like eating crow.
No, NS2 is not a deep game. Although I wasn't even talking about comp play because most of the population of NS2 isn't that familiar with it.
So only low level pub play counts because most people aren't familiar with anything else? You should judge the game by how it's played correctly.
Who are you to say what is correct or not correct in terms of playing this game? You on the dev team? Didn't think so. I personally have played in numerous pugs as well as pubs. I have seen how simple this game is on both sides of the court. I was simply referring to public games because thats essentially what you're advocating. Public games with a player cap of 12 which is automatically set up for you via the system.
Just because you fucking implement a matchmaking system doesn't mean you're going to get high quality competitive games. Especially when the skill pool is extremely shallow.
If you want a highly competitive game with its own matchmaking system, and a cut throat community, go play Dota 2. The playerbase there is MUCH larger than NS2's, and the matchmaking system still leaves something to be desired. It still can't even get a completely even team put together with its massive playerbase. Do you really think NS2 can do it? Rofl. You must be running a fever, bro.
Have you ever played SC2 4v4 or 3v3?
I think we can agree on SC2 having both more players and more ressources to implement a MM system.
I have played quite a few SC2 4v4 games for a while and the system really does not work AT ALL. Probably it's because not enough people are playing 4v4. I not once could see any reasoning as to why we got matched with certain people. Sometimes they are way out of your league just to be replaced by total noobs the next match.
Just think about how many players you'd need to make sure you can get a game in your region within a say 5 min waiting time. Take into consideration that some people want to play 6v6 while others want to play 12v12 so you'd at least have to do 3 or 4 game sizes to match peoples preferences.
so lets say you have 6v6 9v9 and 12v12 and the average match takes 20 minutes.
In order to be able to start a game every 5 minutes youd need
4*(12+18+24) = 216
Seems not too much but there has been no distinction between skilllevel yet. So even if there are only 3 games of each playercount (noob, average, skilled) you'd need 648 players PER REGION.
With daily peak playercounts of about 2,5k it is quite obvious that this cant work. It might kind of work in EU and NA but all other regions are far off the needed playercounts. And even in EU and NA it would only work during the peak times.
So overall I think the pure numbers speak against a MM system even without taking into account all the other problems mentioned in this thread.
I enjoy a competitive game as much as the next guy, and I enjoy playing NS2 as much as the next guy. That said, this is just not the game that matchmaking works in. Apparently most of the population agrees just judging by the server list. You see all those 24 slot servers full? Yes? How many 12 slot servers are full? Last I checked they're all empty. What do we get from this? Personally, I see this as concrete evidence that this game just isn't a desirable competitive game at the moment, and there are a lot of underlying problems that are causing this.
Oh yes, because 6v6 pubs are exactly like organized matches. (/sarcasm) 12v12 is just a workaround for 6v6 not working very well in the context of pubs, because pub games are less focused so they benefit from more players. Matchmaking is about more than just 6v6, it's about making it easier to play organized matches like PUGs. People who currently play in PUGs do so despite the huge tedium of getting to a game, and the experience being anything but streamlined must be a large factor for why it's not more popular. UWE is basically leaving the players who don't enjoy the crapshoot of finding a good match in pubs out in the cold.
Who are you to say what is correct or not correct in terms of playing this game? You on the dev team? Didn't think so. I personally have played in numerous pugs as well as pubs. I have seen how simple this game is on both sides of the court. I was simply referring to public games because thats essentially what you're advocating. Public games with a player cap of 12 which is automatically set up for you via the system.
So only devs can know how to play correctly? You talk about differences in skill, but these wouldn't really be noticeable if the game was shallow. NS2 isn't as deep as chess or Dota, but there's enough room for players to grow, and pubs aren't very conductive for this beyond the basics. Playing wrong means making mistakes that further your team from victory. There's lots of non-obvious things players can do wrong, such as turtling as marines, moving too slow when shooting, running on the floors and facehugging while autoattacking as a skulk, not using the fastest routes around the map, etc. It's easier to persist making these mistakes in pubs, but less so in organized matches, since there's a more distinct role for a single player to fill in the team. It's just more obvious if the game is 5v6 because one player is dragging the team down instead of it being 11v12, so there's more pressure to improve. You also can't just take advantage of the larger number of players to get a good score in 6v6, you can't depend that there will be someone else to take care of your team's objectives, and the broader dynamics of the game aren't as obscured when there's less chaotic action in the map. This is discounting the complexity of commanding marines; I personally don't feel comfortable commanding anywhere but in pubs even after hundreds of hours in NS2. I even used to think I was a decent comm, but that was before I had tried anything but pubs.
Just because you fucking implement a matchmaking system doesn't mean you're going to get high quality competitive games. Especially when the skill pool is extremely shallow.
The point is not that you would magically get great games, but that the chance for games being good would be increased. It's not like playing a PUG would guarantee that the game will be good either.
If you want a highly competitive game with its own matchmaking system, and a cut throat community, go play Dota 2. The playerbase there is MUCH larger than NS2's, and the matchmaking system still leaves something to be desired. It still can't even get a completely even team put together with its massive playerbase. Do you really think NS2 can do it? Rofl. You must be running a fever, bro.
Who are you to tell me what to play? NS has been one of my favorite team games for almost a decade, and I want NS2 to do better by supporting the type of play where it shines the most. Good for you if you enjoy the status quo, but I don't get a kick out of being good in pubs, it just feels cheap and not worthwhile for me.
No one is saying that NS2 could achieve the same millions of players as Dota 2, but that matchmaking would be an improvement over the current pub-only system. The waiting times for a match could be long, but it'd still be better than wasting time in pubs or wasting time trying to organize PUGs through 3rd party sites and workarounds.
Have you ever played SC2 4v4 or 3v3?
I think we can agree on SC2 having both more players and more ressources to implement a MM system.
I have played quite a few SC2 4v4 games for a while and the system really does not work AT ALL. Probably it's because not enough people are playing 4v4. I not once could see any reasoning as to why we got matched with certain people. Sometimes they are way out of your league just to be replaced by total noobs the next match.
I don't think RTS is a good comparison to NS2 which is mostly FPS, it's harder to be useless in NS2.
Just think about how many players you'd need to make sure you can get a game in your region within a say 5 min waiting time. Take into consideration that some people want to play 6v6 while others want to play 12v12 so you'd at least have to do 3 or 4 game sizes to match peoples preferences.
The people wanting to play 12v12 could still go to pubs, matchmaking could just use the standard competitive 6v6.
So overall I think the pure numbers speak against a MM system even without taking into account all the other problems mentioned in this thread.
Once again, it doesn't need to be pefrect, the waiting times could be much longer than 5m, it just needs to be good enough. Also, most of the problems mentioned in this thread are based on assuming a flawed implementation of matchmaking.
I enjoy a competitive game as much as the next guy, and I enjoy playing NS2 as much as the next guy. That said, this is just not the game that matchmaking works in. Apparently most of the population agrees just judging by the server list. You see all those 24 slot servers full? Yes? How many 12 slot servers are full? Last I checked they're all empty. What do we get from this? Personally, I see this as concrete evidence that this game just isn't a desirable competitive game at the moment, and there are a lot of underlying problems that are causing this.
You do realize that most comp NS2 play is done on servers with more than 12 slots right? Also (at least according to ns2stats) there are roughly a couple dozen rounds of competitive NS2 played each day (there are some issues with this data, but I think its in the ballpark). And lets not talk about ENSL, which is hosting an upcoming tourny and a second season, both with several dozen teams signed up already.
However, I will agree that the strategic depth of public NS2 is pretty shallow (e.g. few viable build orders, repetitive structure placement on maps). That's largely because you have to master the FPS basics first and ensure that the FPS skill between the teams isn't terribly different; conditions that rarely occur in public NS2 play.
However, I've seen a variety of non-standard strats become viable in comp play due to their abilities to organize and execute more complex actions. Some good examples are All-In's camo rush against Nexzil in the ENSL NA D1 finals or Archaea's nano ARC rush strat against Hg on veil in the ENSL EU D1 semi-finals. Both we're high-risk/high-reward strats that became viable because of the higher skill and organization of the players involved.
Oh wow, this is complicated. So can someone explain me how CS is "deeper" than NS2, and why the same kind of depth is not possible in NS2? I can't wait.
That said, this is just not the game that matchmaking works in. Apparently most of the population agrees just judging by the server list. You see all those 24 slot servers full? Yes? How many 12 slot servers are full? Last I checked they're all empty. What do we get from this? Personally, I see this as concrete evidence that this game just isn't a desirable competitive game at the moment, and there are a lot of underlying problems that are causing this.
Matchmaking isn't just for competitive games. The 24-slot servers would benefit from matchmaking as well. Matchmaking just means facilitating games where the two sides are more likely to be similar in skill. That's a good thing even for pub play, because close games are more fun.
I enjoy a competitive game as much as the next guy, and I enjoy playing NS2 as much as the next guy. That said, this is just not the game that matchmaking works in. Apparently most of the population agrees just judging by the server list. You see all those 24 slot servers full? Yes? How many 12 slot servers are full? Last I checked they're all empty. What do we get from this? Personally, I see this as concrete evidence that this game just isn't a desirable competitive game at the moment, and there are a lot of underlying problems that are causing this.
You do realize that most comp NS2 play is done on servers with more than 12 slots right? Also (at least according to ns2stats) there are roughly a couple dozen rounds of competitive NS2 played each day (there are some issues with this data, but I think its in the ballpark). And lets not talk about ENSL, which is hosting an upcoming tourny and a second season, both with several dozen teams signed up already.
However, I will agree that the strategic depth of public NS2 is pretty shallow (e.g. few viable build orders, repetitive structure placement on maps). That's largely because you have to master the FPS basics first and ensure that the FPS skill between the teams isn't terribly different; conditions that rarely occur in public NS2 play.
However, I've seen a variety of non-standard strats become viable in comp play due to their abilities to organize and execute more complex actions. Some good examples are All-In's camo rush against Nexzil in the ENSL NA D1 finals or Archaea's nano ARC rush strat against Hg on veil in the ENSL EU D1 semi-finals. Both we're high-risk/high-reward strats that became viable because of the higher skill and organization of the players involved.
You do realize that most comp NS2 games being played on servers with more than 12 slots is irrelevant, right? Of course in a competitive game there will be more than 12 slots as you need casters, spectators, etc.... I am aware of ENSL, that's partially why we don't need matchmaking. Why are we arguing if you agree with me?
Also, you must realize that ARC rushing has been around at least since I've been playing, and I've been playing since like build 221 in beta. Camo rushing is not an outlandish idea, especially when you're not playing in a 12v12 pub. Camo in and of itself is completely different in competitive play and pub play anyway.
To address the CrazyEddie implying that pub servers that are up right now would be used in matchmaking; wtf are you talking about, man? There is already a "Quick Play" option in the server browser, which is exactly what you just described. An official matchmaking system would use official servers like every game that has used a matchmaking system in the past. You will not be playing on community servers, and they would most likely be limited to 12 people, as that is what the limit is for competitive play. You could look at CS:GO for example since it has a "Community servers" option and a "Competitive Matchmaking" option. True, it does have Casual Matchmaking, but NS2 doesn't have near the playerbase to warrant that option.
I am aware there have been competitive matches in the past that were like 7v7 or 8v8 instead, but before you cry wolf here, I'd just like to say that I'll only use this as an example of why this game just isn't ready for highly competitive play. We already have casual play in pubs, and there would be no need to implement a separate system that would take away from the community servers. That would be disrespectful to the community servers that make this game tick.
A community mod may be an option, but good luck getting every server to implement it.
I enjoy a competitive game as much as the next guy, and I enjoy playing NS2 as much as the next guy. That said, this is just not the game that matchmaking works in. Apparently most of the population agrees just judging by the server list. You see all those 24 slot servers full? Yes? How many 12 slot servers are full? Last I checked they're all empty. What do we get from this? Personally, I see this as concrete evidence that this game just isn't a desirable competitive game at the moment, and there are a lot of underlying problems that are causing this.
Oh yes, because 6v6 pubs are exactly like organized matches. (/sarcasm) 12v12 is just a workaround for 6v6 not working very well in the context of pubs, because pub games are less focused so they benefit from more players. Matchmaking is about more than just 6v6, it's about making it easier to play organized matches like PUGs. People who currently play in PUGs do so despite the huge tedium of getting to a game, and the experience being anything but streamlined must be a large factor for why it's not more popular. UWE is basically leaving the players who don't enjoy the crapshoot of finding a good match in pubs out in the cold.
Who are you to say what is correct or not correct in terms of playing this game? You on the dev team? Didn't think so. I personally have played in numerous pugs as well as pubs. I have seen how simple this game is on both sides of the court. I was simply referring to public games because thats essentially what you're advocating. Public games with a player cap of 12 which is automatically set up for you via the system.
So only devs can know how to play correctly? You talk about differences in skill, but these wouldn't really be noticeable if the game was shallow. NS2 isn't as deep as chess or Dota, but there's enough room for players to grow, and pubs aren't very conductive for this beyond the basics. Playing wrong means making mistakes that further your team from victory. There's lots of non-obvious things players can do wrong, such as turtling as marines, moving too slow when shooting, running on the floors and facehugging while autoattacking as a skulk, not using the fastest routes around the map, etc. It's easier to persist making these mistakes in pubs, but less so in organized matches, since there's a more distinct role for a single player to fill in the team. It's just more obvious if the game is 5v6 because one player is dragging the team down instead of it being 11v12, so there's more pressure to improve. You also can't just take advantage of the larger number of players to get a good score in 6v6, you can't depend that there will be someone else to take care of your team's objectives, and the broader dynamics of the game aren't as obscured when there's less chaotic action in the map. This is discounting the complexity of commanding marines; I personally don't feel comfortable commanding anywhere but in pubs even after hundreds of hours in NS2. I even used to think I was a decent comm, but that was before I had tried anything but pubs.
Just because you fucking implement a matchmaking system doesn't mean you're going to get high quality competitive games. Especially when the skill pool is extremely shallow.
The point is not that you would magically get great games, but that the chance for games being good would be increased. It's not like playing a PUG would guarantee that the game will be good either.
If you want a highly competitive game with its own matchmaking system, and a cut throat community, go play Dota 2. The playerbase there is MUCH larger than NS2's, and the matchmaking system still leaves something to be desired. It still can't even get a completely even team put together with its massive playerbase. Do you really think NS2 can do it? Rofl. You must be running a fever, bro.
Who are you to tell me what to play? NS has been one of my favorite team games for almost a decade, and I want NS2 to do better by supporting the type of play where it shines the most. Good for you if you enjoy the status quo, but I don't get a kick out of being good in pubs, it just feels cheap and not worthwhile for me.
No one is saying that NS2 could achieve the same millions of players as Dota 2, but that matchmaking would be an improvement over the current pub-only system. The waiting times for a match could be long, but it'd still be better than wasting time in pubs or wasting time trying to organize PUGs through 3rd party sites and workarounds.
Don't be so damn ignorant. You're the fool talking about how to play correctly, I was simply pointing out that YOU have no right to tell people how to play correctly. I just used "Dev" as an example because they have more weight than you to do so, as they CREATED THE GAME. Let me know if I need to highlight what you said, I'd gladly do so. I'm well aware some people have trouble with their reading comprehension. I'm here for you man. I'm not telling you to play Dota either, I'm suggesting a different game for you because you're obviously too lazy to find a good server in NS2. I'm also using its matchmaking system as proof that matchmaking systems do not = better games, nor do they increase the odds.
This community is small enough for many people to know one another. People who would like to play a pickup game can join any of the 12-16 slot servers and play. Having most of these servers empty just speaks volumes as to what people want. They want 24 player pub games, for the most part.
Skill difference is MORE noticeable BECAUSE the game is so shallow. Some people are really good at aiming, others tend to be more tricky and try to outsmart their opponent. When in a shallow game, you have little choice, but to just physically overpower your enemy. This is what happens in NS2.
I'm also not saying that NS2 could achieve the same playercount as Dota. What I was getting at is that in order for people to get a match on a timely basis, the players will NOT be of the same skill level. This means the game is NOT going to be as high quality as you suspect. If you want to wait 30 minutes for a game, then I ask you why you're complaining about having to take extra time to set up a pug? You're clearly just lazy. I suggest you get some friends, and add them on your steam friendslist. That's what I've begun doing, and it doesn't take long to set up a pug at all. Alternatively, check out the KKG servers, and register on their forums. They've been having pugs on the weekends lately.
Did I forget to address any of your other mindless drivel?
Oh wow, this is complicated. So can someone explain me how CS is "deeper" than NS2, and why the same kind of depth is not possible in NS2? I can't wait.
CS is deeper than NS2 because the economy is more complex, the weapons are more complex, the maps are more complex, the sound quality is better, etc. I could go on and on, but you're clearly not very good at CS(and wouldn't understand) if you couldn't have answered your own question. I'll just spare you the details. I never said the same kind of depth is not possible, I said that as it stands, CS is much deeper. I'm not referring to fraudulent CS:(source).
There are already plans for the future that might make NS2 a much deeper game, but the weaponry itself is a big thing. NS2 only has 3 legit weapons if you include jetpacks. Exos are relatively useless outside pubs, Flamethrowers are trash, Nades are average at best, and you're left with the Shotgun, JP, and default LMG/Pistol. There is relatively no reason to buy anything besides a shotgun as it stands. Mines are always good, but hardly deepen the game. They're boring as hell, in other words.
As for aliens, Vortex is trash, Xenocide is either useless or op(there is no delicacy here), Stomp is pretty op(but tolerable), Bile Bomb is op. Basically, Lerk is the only class I see as balanced and complex. 1 out of 5 isn't so bad though right? I still have hope though. If we could get this game on par with CS in terms of complexity, this game would definitely be a game headlining tournaments. It's just not there yet, and I am fully aware of how one can think that this game is extremely deep and complex. Those players are called new players, and haven't put a lot of time into playing.
Well, thanks, I suppose that covers everything. See you!
I wasn't meaning any offense. I just said I would spare you the details because you wouldn't understand what I'm saying without actually experiencing it, and judging by your sarcastic remarks earlier you have no desire to.
Jeez, people and their fragile egos... can't handle being bad at something. You'll never be good at something if you don't play it. I mean, it's pretty obvious you don't play it, otherwise you wouldn't have asked the question, right?
If you do play it, I apologize, and suggest you do some homework on your own time. I'm not here to teach you how to play CS at an in depth level. The game's been out for over a decade, there's a lot of information for you to digest.
Don't be so damn ignorant. You're the fool talking about how to play correctly, I was simply pointing out that YOU have no right to tell people how to play correctly. I just used "Dev" as an example because they have more weight than you to do so, as they CREATED THE GAME.
Don't worry about my reading comprehension, I get it that you used devs as an example, and I also get that devs created the game (nice of you to capitalize that important part, though). The question is, who else besides devs should be allowed to speak about correct gameplay? I've been playing for hundreds of hours and systematically researching the game, so my opinion should be reasonably well informed, and I think that pub play tends to be characterized by simple mistakes. It's just common sense that pub players would make more basic mistakes than people who really know the game, so why should you judge the game by what goes on in pubs?
I'm also using its matchmaking system as proof that matchmaking systems do not = better games, nor do they increase the odds.
You've just mentioned some problems with matchmaking in Dota 2, that's far from proving that it doesn't improve games, and saying that Dota 2 wouldn't have worse matches without matchmaking is actually pretty ridiculous.
This community is small enough for many people to know one another. People who would like to play a pickup game can join any of the 12-16 slot servers and play.
Oh yes, people can just get 11 others who want to play at the same time because the community is small, and if there were more players then it would be somehow harder. Genius.
Skill difference is MORE noticeable BECAUSE the game is so shallow. Some people are really good at aiming, others tend to be more tricky and try to outsmart their opponent. When in a shallow game, you have little choice, but to just physically overpower your enemy. This is what happens in NS2.
Dota or chess must be even shallower than NS2 then, because skill differences in those games are more pronounced. Please tell us more of these deep insights.
I'm also not saying that NS2 could achieve the same playercount as Dota. What I was getting at is that in order for people to get a match on a timely basis, the players will NOT be of the same skill level. This means the game is NOT going to be as high quality as you suspect.
Once again, I'm not saying that all matchmaking games will be great, just that there's a better chance of it than in pubs. Also, balanced games can still be good despite different skill levels.
If you want to wait 30 minutes for a game, then I ask you why you're complaining about having to take extra time to set up a pug? You're clearly just lazy. I suggest you get some friends, and add them on your steam friendslist. That's what I've begun doing, and it doesn't take long to set up a pug at all. Alternatively, check out the KKG servers, and register on their forums. They've been having pugs on the weekends lately.
I don't need your tips to find a game, I have enough friends to get invites to PUGs constantly, the problems are with captains having trouble picking balanced teams, with players not showing up for a game (this is more ENSL gather specific), and generally with getting everyone to join a server. Just one person having problems can delay the game greatly, and there's also random issues like missing NS2Stats, people may decide to switch servers because of pings, getting mercs may unbalance the teams etc. Matchmaking done right would streamline this whole process, and not wanting to waste time on it doesn't necessarily make me lazy, especially since I've wasted a lot of time on it already.
Jeez, people and their fragile egos... can't handle being bad at something. You'll never be good at something if you don't play it. I mean, it's pretty obvious you don't play it, otherwise you wouldn't have asked the question, right?
If you do play it, I apologize, and suggest you do some homework on your own time. I'm not here to teach you how to play CS at an in depth level. The game's been out for over a decade, there's a lot of information for you to digest.
You know what's funny, I started playing CS at beta 6.2, I've played all its different versions for thousands of hours during these 12 years, and I've avoided touching on how ridiculous your comparison is just because I didn't want to provoke more snide stupidity.
Don't be so damn ignorant. You're the fool talking about how to play correctly, I was simply pointing out that YOU have no right to tell people how to play correctly. I just used "Dev" as an example because they have more weight than you to do so, as they CREATED THE GAME.
Don't worry about my reading comprehension, I get it that you used devs as an example, and I also get that devs created the game (nice of you to capitalize that important part, though). The question is, who else besides devs should be allowed to speak about correct gameplay? I've been playing for hundreds of hours and systematically researching the game, so my opinion should be reasonably well informed, and I think that pub play tends to be characterized by simple mistakes. It's just common sense that pub players would make more basic mistakes than people who really know the game, so why should you judge the game by what goes on in pubs? Essentially, no one without credentials should be allowed to tell other players how to play their game. You win some tournaments, league matches, etc, then go ahead. They might listen, they might not. You've systematically researched NS2? Haha, so that's why you're advocating that NS2 is oh so complex; because you wasted a lot of your personal time. Understandable. I'm judging the game by what goes on in pubs as well as scrims and pugs, personally.
If you want a highly competitive game with its own matchmaking system, and a cut throat community, go play Dota 2.
So the question stands, who are you to tell me what to play? I told you that "If you want.... then play dota" That's called advice. A suggestion. An Idea.
I'm also using its matchmaking system as proof that matchmaking systems do not = better games, nor do they increase the odds.
You've just mentioned some problems with matchmaking in Dota 2, that's far from proving that it doesn't improve games, and saying that Dota 2 wouldn't have worse matches without matchmaking is actually pretty ridiculous.
It actually doesn't improve games. The most balanced and fun games of Dota I've ever played came with using 3rd party programs, not matchmaking.(garena, DXD League, dotalicious, etc.)
This community is small enough for many people to know one another. People who would like to play a pickup game can join any of the 12-16 slot servers and play.
Oh yes, people can just get 11 others who want to play at the same time because the community is small, and if there were more players then it would be somehow harder. Genius.
Is it easier to talk to a lecture hall full of people, or a small group of people? Pretty self-explanatory.
Skill difference is MORE noticeable BECAUSE the game is so shallow. Some people are really good at aiming, others tend to be more tricky and try to outsmart their opponent. When in a shallow game, you have little choice, but to just physically overpower your enemy. This is what happens in NS2.
Dota or chess must be even shallower than NS2 then, because skill differences in those games are more pronounced. Please tell us more of these deep insights.
Clearly you've not played either game. You can win games without having to use brute force. This means there are multiple strategies, and some people are better at certain ones than others. This is deep and complex. This is not NS2. I'll use Dota as an example. Generally you send your most talented player to Mid, and your least talented player as support. Both play different games essentially, and have a chance to win. There are limitless strategies in Dota. There's jungling, trilaning, suicide laning, etc, etc. Even when you're losing pretty hard, instead of bashing your head against a wall, you can bait tps to one side of the map and counter-tp to the other side to take towers.
I'm also not saying that NS2 could achieve the same playercount as Dota. What I was getting at is that in order for people to get a match on a timely basis, the players will NOT be of the same skill level. This means the game is NOT going to be as high quality as you suspect.
Once again, I'm not saying that all matchmaking games will be great, just that there's a better chance of it than in pubs. Also, balanced games can still be good despite different skill levels.
I'm gonna have to disagree with you here. I can count on one hand the amount of bad pub games I've played in. My team has almost always had a shot, and the game was pretty fun. Maybe you really should take my advice about trying a different server.
If you want to wait 30 minutes for a game, then I ask you why you're complaining about having to take extra time to set up a pug? You're clearly just lazy. I suggest you get some friends, and add them on your steam friendslist. That's what I've begun doing, and it doesn't take long to set up a pug at all. Alternatively, check out the KKG servers, and register on their forums. They've been having pugs on the weekends lately.
I don't need your tips to find a game, I have enough friends to get invites to PUGs constantly, the problems are with captains having trouble picking balanced teams, with players not showing up for a game (this is more ENSL gather specific), and generally with getting everyone to join a server. Just one person having problems can delay the game greatly, and there's also random issues like missing NS2Stats, people may decide to switch servers because of pings, getting mercs may unbalance the teams etc. Matchmaking done right would streamline this whole process, and not wanting to waste time on it doesn't necessarily make me lazy, especially since I've wasted a lot of time on it already.
Have you used Matchmaking in any other game? Half the time you're sent back to the "waiting room" because someone failed to validate that the game has been found. Now toss that in with a 30 minute matchmaking que. You could easily be waiting for an hour just for an NS2 game that lasts 30 minutes. I fail to see how this is an improvement. Like you said, one person messing it up for everyone is more prevalent in matchmaking. Believe it. Especially since you're usually punished for leaving a matchmaking game early. There's a reason for that.
Jeez, people and their fragile egos... can't handle being bad at something. You'll never be good at something if you don't play it. I mean, it's pretty obvious you don't play it, otherwise you wouldn't have asked the question, right?
If you do play it, I apologize, and suggest you do some homework on your own time. I'm not here to teach you how to play CS at an in depth level. The game's been out for over a decade, there's a lot of information for you to digest.
You know what's funny, I started playing CS at beta 6.2, I've played all its different versions for thousands of hours during these 12 years, and I've avoided touching on how ridiculous your comparison is just because I didn't want to provoke more snide stupidity.
So basically you played strictly pubs in those 12 years of CS, or you just didn't understand the game fully? I'm sorry you didn't gather information which was smacking you in the forehead throughout those 12 years. Since you've played for 12 years I can elaborate for you, and you'd probably get the gist of what I'm saying. If you'd like to hear it I'll PM you. If not, it's probably best you never bring it up again. Playing for 12 years and not seeing the delicate complexity within CS???? I definitely won't be responding to you any longer on this thread until you actually post something intelligent. I'm sorry, but if I did anything for 12 years I'd know it inside and out, which you must not. I already touched on things that make CS a deeper game, and instead of debunking that you simply say: "LOL NOPE I PLAYED FOR 12 YEARS AND HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOURE SAYING." You must not want everyone to think you're trash at CS... delicate egos indeed.
Comments
It doesn't need to be perfect to be good enough.
Having matchmaking would mean some people would choose not to play in pubs, because they want to play better games. It's segregation in a sense, but the people preferring matchmaking would still be playing the same game with the same rules. Having game modes with different rules would be much more like segregation because it'd be more like different games.
The point of matchmaking would be that many people, me including, just choose not to play pubs. I want to play as a team, and finding decent teamplay in pubs is too hit-and-miss. I haven't been in any pubs in months, I don't plan to, and not making it easier to have organized matches will just mean I stop playing. The issue isn't about newbies, having a newbie in your team should be fine if the teams are balanced.
That's why there needs to be a reputation system, where griefers can get reported and punished. The risk of having a ruined game is worth it if the alternative is pub lameness.
That's only true if you use things like kills and deaths as the basis for your ranking. So don't do that. Use Elo instead. Elo-based ranking would emphasize the skills that are needed to be on a winning team... skills like teamwork.
The basic idea behind Elo-style ranking systems is:
* When you win, your score goes up
* When you lose, your score goes down
* How much your score goes up or down depends on how strong your opponent was. Beating someone much worse than you barely changes your score at all. Beating someone much better than you raises your score quite a bit.
Elo was invented for individual rankings in Chess, but it can be extended to apply to team games as well.
Matchmaking based on Elo (or a similar algorithm, like TrueSkill) would not be perfect, but as ScardyBob said, it doesn't have to be perfect. It would still be a huge improvement over random matches, in that it would lead to many more games being close to even and many fewer games being one-sided stomps.
Matchmaking isn't intended to address that. It's intended to produce more games that are more fun for everyone playing in them, by having more people playing against others with similar skill. Bad players can play against other bad players and they'll still have fun.
Getting owned doesn't improve your skill. When you get killed before even having a chance to respond you're not learning anything.
Works the other way around too - owning doesn't improve your skill. You're not trying harder. You're just performing mechanically.
SC2's league system is a good example of this in practice. It greatly reduces the number of Diamond-level skilled vs Bronze-level skilled matchups that are all too common in NS2. The system certainly has its flaws, but I haven't seen a good reason why a similar approach couldn't be done in NS2. As I've stated before, the criteria for the value of a NS2 matchmaking system isn't 'it should be perfect', but 'is it better than the current approach'.
That's one way to do it, but it probably wouldn't work well for NS2. It's not the only way.
Here's a different way it could work. I'm just writing this off the top of my head - I'm not necessarily recommending it, I'm just trying to show that there's lots of ways to crack this nut, and if UWE puts their mind to it they could come up with something that would work really well. Anyway, consider this:
* Players get ranked on a 1-to-5 scale using Elo, which basically translates into a measurement of how much their being on a team will increase that team's chance of winning. Keep the individual rankings hidden from the players so it doesn't turn into an e-peen contest (it can't actually be that, but most people will think that it can, so let's keep it hidden to keep the issue from even appearing to come up).
* In the server browser, display the joint rating of the players currently in the server. The joint rating is sort of like the average of all the players' individual ratings, but since Elo ratings in team games may combine in unusual ways, the algorithm for specifying the "average" of several players may be a little more complicated than just a simple arithmetic average.
* In the game and ready room, show the joint rating of each of the two teams.
No other matchmaking infrastructure would be needed, besides tweaking the server browser filters and the quick-join algorithm.
With a system like this, players could see how "hard" a particular server is and take that into consideration when picking games to join, but would still be free to join any game they wanted. It would be just like now, but with better information. And once in a particular server, everyone on that server can see how evenly balanced (or badly stacked) the two teams are. If the team ratings are Marines-3 vs Aliens-5, then everyone can yell at the high-skill players to stop stacking Aliens so you can have a fair match, or everyone can shrug their shoulders and say "well, okay, Marines are badly outmatched, but maybe it will be fun to play as the underdogs so let's give it our best shot". Or throw up their hands in disgust and switch servers. Whatever. It would be their choice. Anyone could play any game they wanted, they'd just have better information about a) how to make a good matchup and b) how good the current matchup is.
Just one possible way to do it. There's lots of others, still.
No, bad players will NOT have fun playing with other bad players. Marines NEED a good commander to even have a game worthy of playing. You're not going to find bad players playing commander(not willingly anyway). Besides that fact, there's still not even close to enough people to have a matchmaking system.
The way matchmaking can work even with a small player pool is if you first can't match players in the same skill bracket, you expand the criteria and match them with other brackets. There wouldn't be 3 times less players in this case. The only real issue is that it could take a long time to find a match, but that's fine, no one would be forced to wait because they could play in pubs instead.
I get what you're saying, but you're not really correct in saying that. Chess is a deep game because there are countless strategies and technical moves you can make. There are names for a lot of these if you care to take a gander at wikipedia or something. NS2 is in no way close to being a Chess-type game. You do not have an arsenal of strategies in NS2. Personally, I've been playing since build 221 or before. Although that may not be as long as you, I've played long enough to fully understand the game. Granted, the game may build upon itself and become an extremely dynamic game, but since it's been in the works for ~6 years I'm not very hopeful.
Generally, each map has one or 2 strategies depending where you spawn. That's not deep. RNG =/= deep. The economy is not deep: You stay alive and hold a room, get some upgrades. It's all quite simple. It becomes even more simplistic when you make games 6v6. In these 6v6 matchmaking games(that would be) you will not see all players of equal skill level. There will most likely be an extreme difference in skill until you look at the top 1% of players, which are already playing in competitive games anyway(pugs or team matches). So, thanks for kind of proving my point there...
I enjoy a competitive game as much as the next guy, and I enjoy playing NS2 as much as the next guy. That said, this is just not the game that matchmaking works in. Apparently most of the population agrees just judging by the server list. You see all those 24 slot servers full? Yes? How many 12 slot servers are full? Last I checked they're all empty. What do we get from this? Personally, I see this as concrete evidence that this game just isn't a desirable competitive game at the moment, and there are a lot of underlying problems that are causing this.
Also, please don't give me the "Well, it's an indie game" argument. Unless of course you like eating crow.
I think we can agree on SC2 having both more players and more ressources to implement a MM system.
I have played quite a few SC2 4v4 games for a while and the system really does not work AT ALL. Probably it's because not enough people are playing 4v4. I not once could see any reasoning as to why we got matched with certain people. Sometimes they are way out of your league just to be replaced by total noobs the next match.
Just think about how many players you'd need to make sure you can get a game in your region within a say 5 min waiting time. Take into consideration that some people want to play 6v6 while others want to play 12v12 so you'd at least have to do 3 or 4 game sizes to match peoples preferences.
so lets say you have 6v6 9v9 and 12v12 and the average match takes 20 minutes.
In order to be able to start a game every 5 minutes youd need
4*(12+18+24) = 216
Seems not too much but there has been no distinction between skilllevel yet. So even if there are only 3 games of each playercount (noob, average, skilled) you'd need 648 players PER REGION.
With daily peak playercounts of about 2,5k it is quite obvious that this cant work. It might kind of work in EU and NA but all other regions are far off the needed playercounts. And even in EU and NA it would only work during the peak times.
So overall I think the pure numbers speak against a MM system even without taking into account all the other problems mentioned in this thread.
So only devs can know how to play correctly? You talk about differences in skill, but these wouldn't really be noticeable if the game was shallow. NS2 isn't as deep as chess or Dota, but there's enough room for players to grow, and pubs aren't very conductive for this beyond the basics. Playing wrong means making mistakes that further your team from victory. There's lots of non-obvious things players can do wrong, such as turtling as marines, moving too slow when shooting, running on the floors and facehugging while autoattacking as a skulk, not using the fastest routes around the map, etc. It's easier to persist making these mistakes in pubs, but less so in organized matches, since there's a more distinct role for a single player to fill in the team. It's just more obvious if the game is 5v6 because one player is dragging the team down instead of it being 11v12, so there's more pressure to improve. You also can't just take advantage of the larger number of players to get a good score in 6v6, you can't depend that there will be someone else to take care of your team's objectives, and the broader dynamics of the game aren't as obscured when there's less chaotic action in the map. This is discounting the complexity of commanding marines; I personally don't feel comfortable commanding anywhere but in pubs even after hundreds of hours in NS2. I even used to think I was a decent comm, but that was before I had tried anything but pubs.
The point is not that you would magically get great games, but that the chance for games being good would be increased. It's not like playing a PUG would guarantee that the game will be good either.
Who are you to tell me what to play? NS has been one of my favorite team games for almost a decade, and I want NS2 to do better by supporting the type of play where it shines the most. Good for you if you enjoy the status quo, but I don't get a kick out of being good in pubs, it just feels cheap and not worthwhile for me.
No one is saying that NS2 could achieve the same millions of players as Dota 2, but that matchmaking would be an improvement over the current pub-only system. The waiting times for a match could be long, but it'd still be better than wasting time in pubs or wasting time trying to organize PUGs through 3rd party sites and workarounds.
I don't think RTS is a good comparison to NS2 which is mostly FPS, it's harder to be useless in NS2.
The people wanting to play 12v12 could still go to pubs, matchmaking could just use the standard competitive 6v6.
Once again, it doesn't need to be pefrect, the waiting times could be much longer than 5m, it just needs to be good enough. Also, most of the problems mentioned in this thread are based on assuming a flawed implementation of matchmaking.
However, I will agree that the strategic depth of public NS2 is pretty shallow (e.g. few viable build orders, repetitive structure placement on maps). That's largely because you have to master the FPS basics first and ensure that the FPS skill between the teams isn't terribly different; conditions that rarely occur in public NS2 play.
However, I've seen a variety of non-standard strats become viable in comp play due to their abilities to organize and execute more complex actions. Some good examples are All-In's camo rush against Nexzil in the ENSL NA D1 finals or Archaea's nano ARC rush strat against Hg on veil in the ENSL EU D1 semi-finals. Both we're high-risk/high-reward strats that became viable because of the higher skill and organization of the players involved.
Matchmaking isn't just for competitive games. The 24-slot servers would benefit from matchmaking as well. Matchmaking just means facilitating games where the two sides are more likely to be similar in skill. That's a good thing even for pub play, because close games are more fun.
You do realize that most comp NS2 games being played on servers with more than 12 slots is irrelevant, right? Of course in a competitive game there will be more than 12 slots as you need casters, spectators, etc.... I am aware of ENSL, that's partially why we don't need matchmaking. Why are we arguing if you agree with me?
Also, you must realize that ARC rushing has been around at least since I've been playing, and I've been playing since like build 221 in beta. Camo rushing is not an outlandish idea, especially when you're not playing in a 12v12 pub. Camo in and of itself is completely different in competitive play and pub play anyway.
To address the CrazyEddie implying that pub servers that are up right now would be used in matchmaking; wtf are you talking about, man? There is already a "Quick Play" option in the server browser, which is exactly what you just described. An official matchmaking system would use official servers like every game that has used a matchmaking system in the past. You will not be playing on community servers, and they would most likely be limited to 12 people, as that is what the limit is for competitive play. You could look at CS:GO for example since it has a "Community servers" option and a "Competitive Matchmaking" option. True, it does have Casual Matchmaking, but NS2 doesn't have near the playerbase to warrant that option.
I am aware there have been competitive matches in the past that were like 7v7 or 8v8 instead, but before you cry wolf here, I'd just like to say that I'll only use this as an example of why this game just isn't ready for highly competitive play. We already have casual play in pubs, and there would be no need to implement a separate system that would take away from the community servers. That would be disrespectful to the community servers that make this game tick.
A community mod may be an option, but good luck getting every server to implement it.
Don't be so damn ignorant. You're the fool talking about how to play correctly, I was simply pointing out that YOU have no right to tell people how to play correctly. I just used "Dev" as an example because they have more weight than you to do so, as they CREATED THE GAME. Let me know if I need to highlight what you said, I'd gladly do so. I'm well aware some people have trouble with their reading comprehension. I'm here for you man. I'm not telling you to play Dota either, I'm suggesting a different game for you because you're obviously too lazy to find a good server in NS2. I'm also using its matchmaking system as proof that matchmaking systems do not = better games, nor do they increase the odds.
This community is small enough for many people to know one another. People who would like to play a pickup game can join any of the 12-16 slot servers and play. Having most of these servers empty just speaks volumes as to what people want. They want 24 player pub games, for the most part.
Skill difference is MORE noticeable BECAUSE the game is so shallow. Some people are really good at aiming, others tend to be more tricky and try to outsmart their opponent. When in a shallow game, you have little choice, but to just physically overpower your enemy. This is what happens in NS2.
I'm also not saying that NS2 could achieve the same playercount as Dota. What I was getting at is that in order for people to get a match on a timely basis, the players will NOT be of the same skill level. This means the game is NOT going to be as high quality as you suspect. If you want to wait 30 minutes for a game, then I ask you why you're complaining about having to take extra time to set up a pug? You're clearly just lazy. I suggest you get some friends, and add them on your steam friendslist. That's what I've begun doing, and it doesn't take long to set up a pug at all. Alternatively, check out the KKG servers, and register on their forums. They've been having pugs on the weekends lately.
Did I forget to address any of your other mindless drivel?
CS is deeper than NS2 because the economy is more complex, the weapons are more complex, the maps are more complex, the sound quality is better, etc. I could go on and on, but you're clearly not very good at CS(and wouldn't understand) if you couldn't have answered your own question. I'll just spare you the details. I never said the same kind of depth is not possible, I said that as it stands, CS is much deeper. I'm not referring to fraudulent CS:(source).
There are already plans for the future that might make NS2 a much deeper game, but the weaponry itself is a big thing. NS2 only has 3 legit weapons if you include jetpacks. Exos are relatively useless outside pubs, Flamethrowers are trash, Nades are average at best, and you're left with the Shotgun, JP, and default LMG/Pistol. There is relatively no reason to buy anything besides a shotgun as it stands. Mines are always good, but hardly deepen the game. They're boring as hell, in other words.
As for aliens, Vortex is trash, Xenocide is either useless or op(there is no delicacy here), Stomp is pretty op(but tolerable), Bile Bomb is op. Basically, Lerk is the only class I see as balanced and complex. 1 out of 5 isn't so bad though right? I still have hope though. If we could get this game on par with CS in terms of complexity, this game would definitely be a game headlining tournaments. It's just not there yet, and I am fully aware of how one can think that this game is extremely deep and complex. Those players are called new players, and haven't put a lot of time into playing.
Well, thanks, I suppose that covers everything. See you!
I wasn't meaning any offense. I just said I would spare you the details because you wouldn't understand what I'm saying without actually experiencing it, and judging by your sarcastic remarks earlier you have no desire to.
Jeez, people and their fragile egos... can't handle being bad at something. You'll never be good at something if you don't play it. I mean, it's pretty obvious you don't play it, otherwise you wouldn't have asked the question, right?
If you do play it, I apologize, and suggest you do some homework on your own time. I'm not here to teach you how to play CS at an in depth level. The game's been out for over a decade, there's a lot of information for you to digest.
Could you please point out who exactly I'm supposed to have been telling how to play? I actually just mentioned correct gameplay.
Except you did tell me to play Dota 2: So the question stands, who are you to tell me what to play?
You've just mentioned some problems with matchmaking in Dota 2, that's far from proving that it doesn't improve games, and saying that Dota 2 wouldn't have worse matches without matchmaking is actually pretty ridiculous.
Oh yes, people can just get 11 others who want to play at the same time because the community is small, and if there were more players then it would be somehow harder. Genius.
PUGs currently aren't a very meaningful choice, and 12v12 is only suitable for pubs anyway.
Dota or chess must be even shallower than NS2 then, because skill differences in those games are more pronounced. Please tell us more of these deep insights.
Once again, I'm not saying that all matchmaking games will be great, just that there's a better chance of it than in pubs. Also, balanced games can still be good despite different skill levels.
I don't need your tips to find a game, I have enough friends to get invites to PUGs constantly, the problems are with captains having trouble picking balanced teams, with players not showing up for a game (this is more ENSL gather specific), and generally with getting everyone to join a server. Just one person having problems can delay the game greatly, and there's also random issues like missing NS2Stats, people may decide to switch servers because of pings, getting mercs may unbalance the teams etc. Matchmaking done right would streamline this whole process, and not wanting to waste time on it doesn't necessarily make me lazy, especially since I've wasted a lot of time on it already.
You know what's funny, I started playing CS at beta 6.2, I've played all its different versions for thousands of hours during these 12 years, and I've avoided touching on how ridiculous your comparison is just because I didn't want to provoke more snide stupidity.
So basically you played strictly pubs in those 12 years of CS, or you just didn't understand the game fully? I'm sorry you didn't gather information which was smacking you in the forehead throughout those 12 years. Since you've played for 12 years I can elaborate for you, and you'd probably get the gist of what I'm saying. If you'd like to hear it I'll PM you. If not, it's probably best you never bring it up again. Playing for 12 years and not seeing the delicate complexity within CS???? I definitely won't be responding to you any longer on this thread until you actually post something intelligent. I'm sorry, but if I did anything for 12 years I'd know it inside and out, which you must not. I already touched on things that make CS a deeper game, and instead of debunking that you simply say: "LOL NOPE I PLAYED FOR 12 YEARS AND HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOURE SAYING." You must not want everyone to think you're trash at CS... delicate egos indeed.