Official Gears of War 2 Discussion Thread

[quote name='turls']Reck, if the matchmaking actually worked fast, isn't there something to be said for playing with a group of TruSkill matched players? Not everybody is a pro gamer.

I think you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater a little.[/QUOTE]

Re-read my post.. where did I say matchmaking actually worked fast? I said the complete opposite.

About the Trueskill shit.. oh come on, what do PC gamers do? If you joined a server in Gears 1 that was full of "elites", you could just quit the game and join another server. T
 
[quote name='Reck_Havoc']Re-read my post.. where did I say matchmaking actually worked fast? I said the complete opposite.[/quote]

I said IF. Just because matchmaking is slow in this attempt, doesn't mean it is completely bad does it? It seems to work well in Halo 3, at least compared to GoW2.
 
[quote name='Reck_Havoc']Re-read my post.. where did I say matchmaking actually worked fast? I said the complete opposite.

About the Trueskill shit.. oh come on, what do PC gamers do? If you joined a server in Gears 1 that was full of "elites", you could just quit the game and join another server. T[/quote]

But then that wouldn't seem to save much time if you do that a few times before you find noobs/normals to play with.
 
[quote name='turls']I said IF. Just because matchmaking is slow in this attempt, doesn't mean it is completely bad does it? It seems to work well in Halo 3, at least compared to GoW2.[/QUOTE]

All I'm basically saying is we all want choice. Matchmaking is fine for some, but it'd be nice to at least have an option to see a server list.

[quote name='turls']But then that wouldn't seem to save much time if you do that a few times before you find noobs/normals to play with.[/QUOTE]

It's not about speed, that was just one example I posted, it's mainly about having choice, which matchmaking limits..
 
I have no problems with having matchmaking--I like the simplicity.

They just need to tweak it to make it more like Gears 1's player's lists or like CoD4. Get into games quickly, have players replaced when people drop out (also helps get into games quick as you can get put in a match in progress.

But their really needs to be a non-ranked play list so us sucky players can avoid the competitive playes.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I have no problems with having matchmaking--I like the simplicity.

They just need to tweak it to make it more like Gears 1's player's lists or like CoD4. Get into games quickly, have players replaced when people drop out (also helps get into games quick as you can get put in a match in progress.

But their really needs to be a non-ranked play list so us sucky players can avoid the competitive playes.[/QUOTE]

I understand matchmakings supposed to be simple.. but honestly, how hard is it to refresh the server list, choose a server, then join it like in the first Gears..?
 
[quote name='Reck_Havoc']Fixed a few key words for yeah.

Ughh.. all PC games still use the "out-dated" system as of today.. it may be outdated to you, but for us real gamers it's the only way to join a server, but answer this, how is it outdated..? It's basically a box with 6-7 servers listed, the way it's been done since the start of online gaming. Matchmaking takes an average of 2-3 minutes, while joining a server with the "out-dated" system will take you a whole 5-10 seconds. So in actuallity, the "out-dated" system will actually get you into a game faster.. but oh man.. it's so unbearably hard to choose a server from a list, because GASP, you may actually have to think about it.

The reason Console games don't use the so called "out-dated system", is because it actually takes a bit of brain power to find a server, and considering thinking is a HUGE step for most Xbox owners, matchmaking has been the way to go. And of course your not going to get to "deep" into this, your opinion is that matchmaking is excellent and belongs in games.. that right there is more than enough to suggest you don't quite understand the difference.

Face it, matchmaking is for newbs, it does what PC gamers have done for years.. find a server. It's really sad when gamers can't even be bothered to find a server from a list, which is the way games have been and will always do it. You are right though, matchmaking fixed the ranked games, but screwed everything else up.

Matchmaking sounds perfect for you.. but us gamers who want a choice, and a REAL way to join servers, are out of luck, just yet another blow to the hardcore croud.[/quote]

Heh, you "real gamers" continue to use that system then. And no, it doesn't take any more brainpower to find a server. It was just more of an annoyance in Gears 1 because the host name was hidden and when everybody and their mother hosted a Gridlock game it was a bitch to find your friend's room.

Keep in mind that I'm talking strictly ranked here.
 
[quote name='Reck_Havoc']I understand matchmakings supposed to be simple.. but honestly, how hard is it to refresh the server list, choose a server, then join it like in the first Gears..?[/QUOTE]

It's not. Just the problem there was you tend to hit servers full of people playing with friends in a party etc. which can suck to join into when playing solo. So it got old sometimes having to bounce around a few servers to find a good match.

But that can happen in matchmaking too, and sometimes in CoD4 I'd have to back out and do matchmaking a few times to get a game not full of douches or clans. Guess I also want something like the Mercenaries play list in CoD4 which didn't allow parties.

Or again, I should probably just get my buddy motivated to go through the campaign on Insane, try to polish of Horde and then sell the game as I seem to have nothing but complaints about both the matchmaking and the gameplay of the multiplayer mode.
 
[quote name='Reck_Havoc']Fixed a few key words for yeah.

Ughh.. all PC games still use the "out-dated" system as of today.. it may be outdated to you, but for us real gamers it's the only way to join a server, but answer this, how is it outdated..? It's basically a box with 6-7 servers listed, the way it's been done since the start of online gaming. Matchmaking takes an average of 2-3 minutes, while joining a server with the "out-dated" system will take you a whole 5-10 seconds. So in actuallity, the "out-dated" system will actually get you into a game faster.. but oh man.. it's so unbearably hard to choose a server from a list, because GASP, you may actually have to think about it.

The reason Console games don't use the so called "out-dated system", is because it actually takes a bit of brain power to find a server, and considering thinking is a HUGE step for most Xbox owners, matchmaking has been the way to go. And of course your not going to get to "deep" into this, your opinion is that matchmaking is excellent and belongs in games.. that right there is more than enough to suggest you don't quite understand the difference.

Face it, matchmaking is for newbs, it does what PC gamers have done for years.. find a server. It's really sad when gamers can't even be bothered to find a server from a list, which is the way games have been and will always do it. You are right though, matchmaking fixed the ranked games, but screwed everything else up.

Matchmaking sounds perfect for you.. but us gamers who want a choice, and a REAL way to join servers, are out of luck, just yet another blow to the hardcore croud.[/QUOTE]
Damn you are a complete dick the way you just dismiss everything but your opinion as being right and then call other people who disagree with you "not real gamers". In reality matchmaking is not for "noobs" but probably the best option for everybody. Finding games with other people within your range of skill, rather then just looking at a name/settings and trying to decide if that group of people within the game are going to make a good game for you. Of course you could find friends that hosts games that are around your skill level, but this way it matches you up against other teams without the week/month long search of trying to find rooms/friends that host games that fit your style.
 
Honestly, I prefer the whole server system or whatever you want to call it. I used to join matches that would have first to 7-12 rounds and now I'm forced to play first to 5 rounds. Servers offerd much variety (weapons, map selection, etc.) and there was no problem with them EXCEPT when it came to ranked games. Ranked games were horrendous and I'd put the blame on achievement-whoring and host advantage (also trying to find matches with your friends, but thats a different story).

I have had no problem with matchmaking though, so I can't really say anything bad about it. There is an occasionally a laggy match, but not deemed unplayable. Finding a match quickly has been fixed for me since the patch. I guess the only complaint I have is that everyone uses the party system thats integrated in the dashboard, so no one really talks in matches anymore. That's a reach though and not really Gears' fault.

Matchmaking for noobs? Servers for hardcore gamers? Haha wtf, where did this observation come from?
 
It seems that everyone is describing different solutions to different problems with matchmaking.

It really isn't that hard.

Trakan and Zewone, and those like them, WANT to be able to play ranked games, with hidden host, that can't be joined by others mid-game so they can climb leaderboards and brag. That's totally fine. Gears 1 sucked at that, Gears 2 fixed it.

But the rest of us, who may not be nearly as competitive, and just want to play for fun and maximize our playing time by cycling maps eternally instead of loading menus and searching for new opponents each match for fresh meat to destroy, want the unranked system in Gears 1 to be in Gears 2.

It's really lame that they fixed one issue with Gears 1 in Gears 2, meanwhile completely forgot to include the aspect of Gears 1 many of us loved.
 
Matchmaking is just fucking stupid. I'm 1 badge/star/whatever you wanna call it, and I get matched up with people with 2, and everyone is 3 and 4 on the other team and this game honestly expects me to rank up, let alone pay for 3 maps.
 
Well if you really want to rank up the best way is to play vs better players. Playing and losing to them should help give you some strategy tips on how to play that map better, and then when you do beat them you gain a lot more then if you just beat people that were your rank...
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']It seems that everyone is describing different solutions to different problems with matchmaking.

It really isn't that hard.

Trakan and Zewone, and those like them, WANT to be able to play ranked games, with hidden host, that can't be joined by others mid-game so they can climb leaderboards and brag. That's totally fine. Gears 1 sucked at that, Gears 2 fixed it.[/quote]

Eh, that's partly true, but I really like being able to track my stats and play people who play at a more competitive level. I'd actually love for people to be able to join mid game because of the quitters, but that's not fair to the people who would be joining.

This game's bullshit is pissing me off more and more though. Be its laggy connections, the vacuum chainsaw or the ridiculous host advantage. It almost makes me want to stop playing the game.
 
[quote name='Trakan']Eh, that's partly true, but I really like being able to track my stats and play people who play at a more competitive level. I'd actually love for people to be able to join mid game because of the quitters, but that's not fair to the people who would be joining.

This game's bullshit is pissing me off more and more though. Be its laggy connections, the vacuum chainsaw or the ridiculous host advantage. It almost makes me want to stop playing the game.[/QUOTE]

There is no reason to force yourself to play it online. Most people who bought gears 2 stopped playing it online, it was the third game played on live last week, due to all the insane bs. I logged hundreds of hours on gears 1 online and gears 2 online is a disgrace in every way possible. Its just absolute garbage. Its so comical to offer a map pack for a broken online game. Shows how epic thinks their crap doesnt stink. They need to get over themselves.
 
[quote name='blitz6speed']There is no reason to force yourself to play it online. Most people who bought gears 2 stopped playing it online, it was the third game played on live last week, due to all the insane bs. I logged hundreds of hours on gears 1 online and gears 2 online is a disgrace in every way possible. Its just absolute garbage. Its so comical to offer a map pack for a broken online game. Shows how epic thinks their crap doesnt stink. They need to get over themselves.[/quote]

Trust me, I'm playing it a lot less that I was when it launched, but that's really not the reason why. I don't think the game is a disgrace nor do I think that Epic did anything wrong. There are plenty of people who do enjoy Gears as is, or will (myself included) once the major bugs are fixed. I like that they offered new maps. I don't think it's reasonable to expect them to fix every bug/glitch in 5 weeks time. I know they're working on it, and they need to get that shit out ASAP, but it's just not going to happen that fast. I'm surprised as all hell that the matchmaking was fixed that fast. We should be lucky for that. The maps were already done, that's why they were released. It's not like they took these 5 weeks after launch using all their resources doing so and completely ignored the complaints. That's not the case.
 
[quote name='Trakan']Trust me, I'm playing it a lot less that I was when it launched, but that's really not the reason why. I don't think the game is a disgrace nor do I think that Epic did anything wrong. There are plenty of people who do enjoy Gears as is, or will (myself included) once the major bugs are fixed. I like that they offered new maps. I don't think it's reasonable to expect them to fix every bug/glitch in 5 weeks time. I know they're working on it, and they need to get that shit out ASAP, but it's just not going to happen that fast. I'm surprised as all hell that the matchmaking was fixed that fast. We should be lucky for that. The maps were already done, that's why they were released. It's not like they took these 5 weeks after launch using all their resources doing so and completely ignored the complaints. That's not the case.[/QUOTE]

Gears 2 is now the 4th played game on live now. Halo 3 is first, COD5 is second, COD4 is third. Most of the gears players are abandoning ship. Its a insult to gears 1's online dominance.
 
[quote name='blitz6speed']Gears 2 is now the 4th played game on live now. Halo 3 is first, COD5 is second, COD4 is third. Most of the gears players are abandoning ship. Its a insult to gears 1's online dominance.[/quote]

Gears 1 had absolutely no competition for a long time. I'm sure these glitches aren't helping, but there's a lot of big name games out now. I'm sure it will fluctuate with the top 3 just like Halo and COD. Halo was dethroned pretty early on as well, and it continues to be in the top 3.
 
damn i just read this page, whatever happened to playing the game if you liked it, and if you didn't you would stop playing :p


edit: btw i beat gow2 on insane and then i haven't really played it since. horde mode is fun tho
 
Wow Gears did drop to 4th... yea halo dropped off #1 quickly but not past #3 for LONG time and this is pretty sad... Gears 1 was top 3 for YEARS and Gears 2 is already @ 4... and it's not because of all the games out seeing as the only other blockbuster out is COD5

Like many have said matchmaking is really crappy because of glitches and stupid crap the epic felt they had to change... i hope Gears 3 is more like Gears 1, til then I'll enjoy Hoarde mode (which is amazing)
 
Once I read (and was reminded) the new maps could be played in Horde, I went ahead and got them. I know some people quit playing Horde after they get the achievements, but I'll still play it.
 
I've barely played this game multiplayer because everybody always destroys me, but I still think it's too soon for a new map pack.

I haven't really been paying attention to how the multiplayer community is in this game, but I bet this map pack was pushed through a little bit early to try to grab more players that have since drifted away for GOW 2 due to the massive amount of games that have come out recently.

But 800 points to me is too much for only three maps. Four maps, maybe.
 
[quote name='Trakan']Heh, you "real gamers" continue to use that system then. And no, it doesn't take any more brainpower to find a server. It was just more of an annoyance in Gears 1 because the host name was hidden and when everybody and their mother hosted a Gridlock game it was a bitch to find your friend's room.

Keep in mind that I'm talking strictly ranked here.[/quote]


Yeah, I am not a fan of the lobby system and prefer matchmaking primarily because matchmaking allows better variety in maps. My dislike of the lobby system is one reason why I disliked the multiplayer in the Rainbow Six: Vegas games. Every single server played one map, and those hosts knew every aspect of the map. That's neither fun nor skillful. The ability to play any map and do well is a true testament of skill.
 
[quote name='depascal22']Did anyone download the new maps? And if so, are they worth 800 points?[/quote]


I suppose if you play this game a ton and are bored with the normal/flashback maps already. Probably not worth 800 points.
 
[quote name='BackInBlack']I suppose if you play this game a ton and are bored with the normal/flashback maps already. Probably not worth 800 points.[/quote]

Thanks. I'm still liking the maps that they shipped. I guess I'll just wait until they become free like they did for the first game.
 
Matchmaking in this game is a piece of shit. I hate when i finally get into a lobby and see that it is me and two other guys versus a full team. The worst was when I had a full team versus one guy. What a waste of time. So many design errors. They need to hurry and patch the game while people still care about it.
 
Yeah, the matchmaking does suck. Quitters are the big problem for me. I always end up on the team with 2 guys before the game starts. I also hate it when host quits because I get kicked to the main menu, especially when I was winning. And getting an evenly matched team is a joke. I'm a rank 3 and I always get paired up with a bunch of rank 1s, while the other team is full of rank 3s. Going into matchmaking without a party is suicide. I thought online on GOW2 would be more fun than GOW1 because the weapon achievements were gone and no one would be stealing kills going for the seriously achievement. I was wrong. The ranking system is much worse in comparison. People are quitting before the game starts, constantly using glitches and standbying/using a lag switch just to rank up. If ranks were not introduced, I think the games would go a lot smoother and be more fun. I think I might stop playing GOW2 and go back to GOW1 because I could choose a NONLAGGY LOBBY and people wouldn't quit as much.
 
Matchmaking worked great for me tonight. Less than a minute for the 5 or 6 matches I played, and only had one match with quitters and unbalanced teams. I played a bit better than usual as well, until the last game where I had no kills going into the 9th round of execution. But at least I got the final two kills in that one when it was down to 2 on 2 to win the match so I could at least call it a night on a positive note. :D
 
In my session tonight I came to realize that nearly all rank 4's quit just before losing. From what I'm told, that's really the only way you can maintain rank 4.

Seriously, when playing against rank 4's, 9/10 if there are quitters it's them.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']In my session tonight I came to realize that nearly all rank 4's quit just before losing. From what I'm told, that's really the only way you can maintain rank 4.

Seriously, when playing against rank 4's, 9/10 if there are quitters it's them.[/quote]

When you quit you lose a ton of XP.
 
[quote name='genfuyung']When you quit you lose a ton of XP.[/QUOTE]

That's how it's suppose to work, but you only lose XP if you are the host. And it seems you lose XP if the host quits and you are on his team. Otherwise you don't lose anything.

There is a reason most of the highest ranks quit all the time. If they really did lose XP they wouldn't be high rank.

Besides, it's very inaccurate to call it XP. It's more like win/loss ratio combined with live guessing if you can win or not.

Anyway, if what you say is true, watch very carefully who quits matches and what their ranks are, and explain it.
 
I only play Horde and have found that most of the people playing are into teamwork, with very immature talk (swearing, racism, homophobia, ... etc.). I do get annoyed when people quit after playing 4 or 5 waves. I am not saying you have to play all 50 waves, but you have to commit yourself to at least 30 minutes of game play if you join a Horde game.
 
[quote name='Chase']Yeah, I am not a fan of the lobby system and prefer matchmaking primarily because matchmaking allows better variety in maps. My dislike of the lobby system is one reason why I disliked the multiplayer in the Rainbow Six: Vegas games. Every single server played one map, and those hosts knew every aspect of the map. That's neither fun nor skillful. The ability to play any map and do well is a true testament of skill.[/quote]
Really, better variety? It's weird because I've gotten more variety in Gears 1 because of the rotation of maps, rather than the voting in matchmaking of Gears 2. I've gotten a handful of River and Blood Drive. Every now and then, there's a different one, but maps like Stasis, Hail, Subway, and Tyro Station never ever get played. Whereas almost every map is played through in Gears 1. Unless you're talking about ranked, then you're right.
 
Yeah, the voting should just be a Veto like in Call of Duty 4 rather than choosing between 2 maps. That way you have a lot of randomness since a lot of maps get vetoed and the computer pick one randomly. Rather than having 2 and having a few favorites all get voted for, and not all that many ties.

Though honestly I'd rather just have no voting on maps and just have to take what you get. But I guess then the ass hats that only know/want to play a couple maps would just quit lobbies until they got the map they wanted so you can never win. The online gaming community just sucks.
 
[quote name='-BigC-']Not being able to vote on the map would force people to actually play Subway and Hail....[/QUOTE]

Ideally. But like I said what would happen is people who didn't want to play them would quit the lobby and you'd end up with smaller teams, unbalance teams etc. Unless they make it like Call of Duty 4 where if people quit the lobby it waits again until it brings in someone to balance the teams.
 
I dont know if you realized that, but I meant that as a horrible thing. Those two maps are unbalanced and nearly impossible to win if your on the team with the bad spawn...
 
Ah, I didn't catch it. I suck at all maps, in all online games so I usually don't have much complaints about any maps. I just don't play enough to learn where spawns are, where good weapons are etc. as I'm mainly a single player gamer.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Would anyone else love a feature that lets you have matches without chainsaws and shotguns?[/QUOTE]

Not really. It would just lead to even more whoring of power weapons since the assault rifles are so useless. Which sucks for me as I'll probably never play enough to get all the weapon locations memorized.
 
Its only two power weapons + grenade spawns to remember usually, right? Maybe it would be better if they gave the AR's more stopping power and or damage increase.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top