Gears of War's ranked matches smell rank
Despite being considered a tactical, team-centric game, Gears of War will not allow you choose who you play with in ranked matches. Epic Games programmer Joe Graf confirmed as much on the official forums recently, citing Microsoft certification as the reason. Graf, through a long series of discussion, explains that Microsoft would not allow the game to be shipped unless ranked match-ups were randomized (based on skill level, of course), though non-ranked games will still allow you to play with friends, privatize games, and send/accept invites.From Graf's tone, we get the feeling Epic would prefer a more clan-friendly online system, and we're inclined to agree. Microsoft's theory, according to Graf, is that randomized ranked matches "prevent collaborative cheating (I kill you ten times, now you me, etc.)." However, this move will breed loner behavior -- why should I help a fellow teammate out when I now have less competition against my kill count?
A potential solution would be to reward players who heal their down-but-not-out brethren, thus promoting brotherly love. But might one also abuse this reward if friendly fire is enabled?
Halo 2 is cited by several forum members as having a matchmaking system that promotes teamwork, allowing you to play with a party of people. Halo 2 is an original Xbox title, however, and is therefore not bounded by MS's new policy. Will Halo 3 follow the same suit as Gears of War?
[Thanks, Sanchinos]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Digital Death @ Oct 6th 2006 6:12PM
"Halo 2 is cited by several forum members as having a matchmaking system that promotes teamwork"
The Halo 2 matchmaking system IS THE reason Microsoft has made this move. Anyone who is upset by this should thank your local circle-boosters, modders, griefers, and general cheaters. 'Legit' lvl 50 in Halo...this is for you.
Thanks for screwing up the system!
DiscoGodfather @ Oct 6th 2006 6:16PM
Having a ranking system is pointless if players can exploit the bejebus out of it (which is exactly what randomized ranked matches attempt to achieve). While playing with pals in ranked matches would have been fun, I'd much rather have balanced rank and a non-ranked method of playing with friends.
footlong! @ Oct 6th 2006 6:22PM
This is what happens because of STUPID F*CKING CHEATERS! this isn't microsoft's fault or epic's or anyone's but these pathetic, social recluses. i hate them. i want them to press their pimply faces onto a hot griddle with their hands that have never touched a woman. they're ruining videogames for the rest of us. halo 3 won't be anywhere near what it could be if its forced to have randomized matchmaking.
Uberplum @ Oct 6th 2006 6:23PM
This is really awful news. One of the things I loved about Halo 2 is the way I could sit down and play some team-slayer with 3 of my mates, but if MS policy no forbids this, I think that it will be a very serious blow to Halo 3 matchmaking. In Gears of War, I'm not too fussed, as it's a completely new game, but Halo 3 wouldn't be the same without it.
manxor @ Oct 6th 2006 6:23PM
Microsoft's theory, according to Graf, is that randomized ranked matches "prevent collaborative cheating (I kill you ten times, now you me, etc.)."
UH.... It's a team-game, that can't happen when your friends are all on YOUR team. Jeez... how can this concept be so difficult to grasp?????
azn_RFconnector @ Oct 6th 2006 6:30PM
This is why this game should have been made for the PS3. The Cell allows clan support, better framerates, and no iffy controls. The BluRay would allow for TrueHD as well. Resistance FTW!
Blink @ Oct 6th 2006 6:33PM
Does Microsoft say any specifics about this to the public? Maybe we could have casual ranking, which included friends, and hardcore ranking, where it was totally solo.
Yadneb @ Oct 6th 2006 6:40PM
I have to admit, I am a little bummed out about this. I just had some friends pick up 360's recently and was really looking forward to moving up in rank with them in Gears.
OMahagtp @ Oct 6th 2006 6:48PM
Oh no, I can't have a 1 on 1 DM with my buddy, until we get all the achievements.
This isn't new to Gears of War. DOOM on XBLA comes to mind.
footlong! @ Oct 6th 2006 6:48PM
manxor,
you may have just made the worst argument for the ps3 i have ever heard in my life. i honestly think the sony heads would spit on you right now if they ran into you. you're trying to argue that the Cell is capable of allowing you to play with your allies of choice rather than being randomized, and that the 360 (or wii) isn't.
everybody, everybody, take that in. let the stupidity soak into your brains.
he says the Cell allows "clan support" "better framerates" and "no iffy controls"? are you mentally retarded?
im not even gonna explain why your an idiot for suggesting clan support as a feature of the cell.
higher framerates will most likely not affect a games ability to support teams-of-choice in matchmaking. i could be wrong, im not sure. ill have to read up on specs and stuff. jackass.
and 'iffy controls'? all you hear about 'sixaxis' is that it feels tacked on a the last minute and sluggish.
i know this comment is just gonna get a bunch of 'joystiq is full of stupid fanboys arguing and blah blah blah' but seriously people. this kid is an absolute moron. you know its true.
Sanchinos @ Oct 6th 2006 6:49PM
Obviously to lose such a great part of online multiplayer definitely sucks - playing and training hard with your friends so you can play competitively against other groups of friends is one of the best parts of tactical, TEAM based games - but it isn't the end of the world... But it isn't what concerns me most.
What concerns me the most is the implementation of MS's "trueskill" matchmaking system. Anyone who's played COD2 knows how limiting and, for lack of a better word, crappy that implimentation can be. And from the sounds of Epic's forums, Gears is proceeding in a similar direction. The developer talks about not allowing friends in ranked matches to try to stop cheating or boosting. Fine. (Although I'd rather take my chances with the occasional cheater and still be able to play competitively MOST of the time with my friends than to have this option removed altogether). But from the sounds of it, MS has very strict rules for their new matchmaking service:
For player matches, the person who makes the "room" (is the host) is able to set a certain number of slots to "friends only" and the rest are public. This is the only way to play with friends. Why is this a problem? I'll try to explain...
I start a game, set 3 slots to private (I want to play a 4vs4 game with some buddies on my team). I then invite those friends into my game while leaving the other 4 slots on "public". My friends join and we have a team of 4. That's great. What happens to the other 4 slots? People trickle in one at a time. None of them know eachother. So here we have a game where my friends and I play against a group of four guys who've likely never played the game together before... since my friends and I have played together, know eachother's tactics, etc, we start to dominate the game. The other players start quitting (and there's no reason for them not to because it's not ranked...)
See the problem?
Unless there's a party system ala Halo 2 (or Saints Row, etc) this is going to cause problems. How are two groups supposed to get matched together?
I sincerely hope that Epic has thought of this. I can deal without ranked games with my friends (although it does suck and the game loses its competitive edge)... but if I'm not at least able to play with my friends against other squads of friends then this game is going to be severely crippled from the start.
That's my $0.02 anyways.
And yes, you can blame the cheaters and the boosters. I agree - those people have ruined it for everyone else. But why should 97% of the population who plays properly be punished because of the actions of a few morons?
Scott @ Oct 6th 2006 6:49PM
I agree with the move but perhaps they should have a seperate clan match/ranking option?
manxor @ Oct 6th 2006 6:50PM
what?? Dude I didn't say that.
Comprehension FTW!
Jarrett @ Oct 6th 2006 6:51PM
Look at it this way...they are not preventing you from playing the game with friends.....just ranked matches.
I tend to agree with footlong. Cheaters ruin online games. I am a big SOCOM player....but I got turned off by it because you can't play a civilized match withou someone glitching and killing you. It's not right. If you want to cheat set up a room and the cheaters can go at it. Fine. Leave the rest of the legit game players play.
I just think when you pay that amount of money for a game you want to get the best possible online experience possible without having to go to 20 different matches to not find someone cheating.
footlong! @ Oct 6th 2006 6:56PM
whoa, manxor. my apologies. azn_rfconnector is the oblivious fool, not you.
seriosuly, my bad. your name was right above his comment
Hoffer @ Oct 6th 2006 6:56PM
How is this news??
You have never been able to play ranked matches with friends on the 360. That's what player matches are for. What's the point of having ranked matches if you can just cheat with your friends? The ranked and player matches are the way to go.
I rarely play ranked matches anyway. Who cares about your rank in a dumb game anyway.
manxor @ Oct 6th 2006 7:03PM
No problem footlong
"You have never been able to play ranked matches with friends on the 360. That's what player matches are for. What's the point of having ranked matches if you can just cheat with your friends? The ranked and player matches are the way to go.
I rarely play ranked matches anyway. Who cares about your rank in a dumb game anyway."
Without rank, there's no skill-matching. I like to play with people at my same skill level. IMO, all MP games should be ranked. Don't show me my rank, keep it hidden, but rank me so that I may be matched up with other players of equal skill. I mean, who wants a situation where the "I've been playing for 6 months" player goes up against the "It's my first time playing" player??
ALSO... if your friends are on YOUR SAME TEAM playing against another team of friends, where's the cheating??
azn_RFconnector @ Oct 6th 2006 7:11PM
"all you hear about 'sixaxis' is that it feels tacked on a the last minute and sluggish. "
I've never ever heard it was sluggish, but thanks for making that up. The only people who are saying it was tacked on at the last minute are Xbots like you who are scared of the impending PS3 dominance. There is no way you could just "tack on" such a revolutionary new technology like SIXAXIS. You keep playing your Xbox 1.5 with N64 rumble while I play the games of the future with Clan support.
Sanchinos @ Oct 6th 2006 7:12PM
Jarrett,
I don't think anyone is denying that cheaters ruin games. They do. BUT stopping friends from playing together isn't going to stop cheaters that use glitches to their advantage. Their reasoning is that it'll stop "circle boosting". However, it won't even do this! All they need to do is ensure that players can only play WITH their friends, not against them. Epic is claiming that you can still "boost" if players on on your team because of the way the points system works in GOW. Basically, you get points for curbstomping, etc. So the developer's arguement is, "I could take a guy down and call my buddy over to curbstomp him instead of doing it myself, hence boosting his stats". (How lame of an arguement is that?!)
Besides, aren't you supposed to be helping your teammates? What good does it do this game to make it so that every player on both teams is trying to get more kills than his teammates? (That is how Epic is rewarding players... you get rewarded for not being strategic, just for trying to get as many "points" as possible... via kills, curbstomps, dog tag collection, chainsaw kills, etc.)
I guess there really *IS* an "I" in "team"... at least in this game it appears there is. (How do you put individualized matchmaking in a game that is based on teamwork?!)
Omahagtp @ Oct 6th 2006 7:16PM
"I've never ever heard it was sluggish, but thanks for making that up. The only people who are saying it was tacked on at the last minute are Xbots like you who are scared of the impending PS3 dominance. There is no way you could just "tack on" such a revolutionary new technology like SIXAXIS. You keep playing your Xbox 1.5 with N64 rumble while I play the games of the future with Clan support."
Many journalists have reported that the PS3 feels tacked on. That you have to think about how it should be moved, rather than a natural feeling. Which the same journalists credit the Wii as having.
Considering many of the devleopers at E3 were just as shocked as the attendees at the addition of the SIXAXIS, it's clearly tacked on.
Take them fanboys goggles off. You sound like a complete idiot.
azn_RFconnector @ Oct 6th 2006 7:19PM
"Considering many of the devleopers at E3 were just as shocked as the attendees at the addition of the SIXAXIS, it's clearly tacked on"
Of course they were shocked. Sony had to keep it secret until a few months after the Xbox 1.5 launched so M$ wouldn't rip off yet another innovation from Sony.
Christopher @ Oct 6th 2006 7:22PM
How is this news?
Every ranked game on xbox live is now like this. If youre going to played ranked on xbox live, your stuck playing random games. This goes back to the start of the 360.
Not news at all.
Omahagtp @ Oct 6th 2006 7:24PM
"Of course they were shocked. Sony had to keep it secret until a few months after the Xbox 1.5 launched so M$ wouldn't rip off yet another innovation from Sony."
You mean why Nintendo waited so long to talk about the Revolution (later called Wii) so that a company (Sony) wouldn't copy their ideas?
Sony seemed fine with copying HDD's in their consoles. Or a comprehension online setup.
Sony only 'wishes' it's ideas were worth copying.
Jarrett @ Oct 6th 2006 7:29PM
@ Sanchoinos
Good point. I only wanted to point out that without cheating...this is not an issue. Would you agree?
Spartacus @ Oct 6th 2006 7:36PM
azn_RFconnector:
While "sluggish" may be a bit harsh and /or a matter of opinion, "tacked on" is definitely an appropriate description of Sony's "new" motion sensitive SIXAXIS pad. Sony, king of hype and lord of arrogance would have had the SIXAXIS listed as a bulletpoint long ago (ie: E3 '05, where they spewed forth many specs for their upcoming dreamstation 3, several of which were dropped soon after) if it was truly in the plans from the beginning. But the reality is that it was not after Nintendo revealed the Wiimote that Sony jumped on the bandwagon.
As far as your comment on "revolutionary new technology" regarding SIXAXIS, do your homework. Motion sensing controllers have been out for ages. Matel made the Power Glove for the NES for crying out loud. The PC has had pads like this for years (none of which sold very well by the way). SIXAXIS is not revolutionary, it's not even new. But it IS new to Sony, so if you've only played Sony branded consoles, it might put a smile on your face for a few moments. For the rest of us who have experienced a few other gaming consoles and input devices on the PC, we know the limitations and frustrations with this technology. But I'll give Sony the benefit of the doubt and wait to play with it myself before I say it sucks and is a pretty worthless feature. But don't say I didn't warn you...
Really, you are such a Sony tool it's not even funny. Please go troll somewhere else.
azn_RFconnector @ Oct 6th 2006 7:40PM
"You mean why Nintendo waited so long to talk about the Revolution (later called Wii) so that a company (Sony) wouldn't copy their ideas?"
How did Sony copy Nintendo? Sony has 6 degrees of detection whereas Nintendo has a full 360 degrees of detection. That is completely different. Who's ass are you talking out of anyways?
"Sony seemed fine with copying HDD's in their consoles. Or a comprehension online setup."
Um, Sony had a HDD bay in the PS2 before the Xbox was a gleam in someone's eye not to mention the Vaio uses HDDs. Puh-lease already!
KR @ Oct 6th 2006 7:46PM
This is fine.
"Um, Sony had a HDD bay in the PS2 before the Xbox was a gleam in someone's eye not to mention the Vaio uses HDDs."
No, they didn't. It wasn't a "hard drive bay." Idiot.
HoodOrnament @ Oct 6th 2006 7:50PM
Can you guys honestly not see his sarcasm? I mean most fan boys are of that intelligence making similar comments, but he is clearly, tee-hee, kidding.
Joe A. @ Oct 6th 2006 7:50PM
These random ranked matches should be implemented for any game.
GRAW lacking this feature is why I don't even play the multiplayer anymore, occassionally for co-op. Hosts stack their teams and give them the vantage spawnpoint in a map (Nowhere) every time with no rotation.
Meanwhile, when I actually kick ass in a round and on the losing team, I never rank up because of the stacking.
Random matchmaking would be a true test for players online to work together with strangers. Isn't that the point of online multiplayer anyway? Proven success, as pointed out by this article: HALO 2.
Omahagtp @ Oct 6th 2006 7:52PM
"Can you guys honestly not see his sarcasm? I mean most fan boys are of that intelligence making similar comments, but he is clearly, tee-hee, kidding."
I thought about it. Maybe he is kidding, but he's right on the edge of being just another Sony fanboy.
Sony could give you crap, literally, crap inside of a jewel case, and that kid would eat it, with a tear of joy coming down his face, and brag about the next gen crap he just ate.
azn_RFconnector @ Oct 6th 2006 7:53PM
"No, they didn't. It wasn't a "hard drive bay." Idiot."
READ. I said HDD bay. Bay. BAY.
LOL
Pretty Obvious @ Oct 6th 2006 7:54PM
Wow azn_RFconnector, your really sad. Heres what I see in my crystal ball. BluRay loses the format war to HDDVD, Sony which is already in debt goes bankrupt in 3 years, PS3 is Sonys last console, the next generation of systems have Nintendo, Microsoft and Apple competing against each other. Well see what happens but enjoy your Playstation while you can.
Miyamoto @ Oct 6th 2006 7:58PM
azn_RFconnector
Kaz Hirai, is that you?
shamrock @ Oct 6th 2006 8:05PM
Well the article you wrote is not really correct. Saints Row has a Halo 2 type Optimatch and came out 30 days ago. So it is not against MS policy.
shamrock @ Oct 6th 2006 8:10PM
Also to point out the fact that the Halo 2 type optimatch in fact is not illegal I asked a saints Row Developer about. He confirmed it here.
http://developer.saintsrow.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8071
random @ Oct 6th 2006 8:32PM
This all makes me so sad. The whole "fake wacko" thing is allways funny because of the first guy that falls for it. After a second catch, you think "wow, more stupid people here than I thought". When a third falls for it, you get worried. At the fourth, you start thinking, well, hoping, that they might all be joking between eachother. The fifth clearly disprooves that.
Pleas Mr. fake azn, there are already enough stupid people out there as for you to have them all spring out of the ground.
Ben Hollis @ Oct 6th 2006 8:48PM
Dang, my interest level has dropped to zero. If they can't do the party system like Halo 2 does, I don't see how I could have fun with it in multiplayer. I just don't play alone or on a team with strangers - the whole point of multiplayer for me is to team up with my buddies and fight other people.
IcebergSlim3000 @ Oct 6th 2006 8:49PM
So do Joystiq blogers just hover over the Gears forums looking for "news".
Richard @ Oct 6th 2006 8:59PM
THis is a smart move. If you allow friends to play ranked games the game will be overrun with little bitches, Thank You Epic!
C. Grant @ Oct 6th 2006 9:45PM
IcebergSlim3000:
Yup.
And wouldn't ya know, I think Mark Rein just farted. Better hurry up and post it!
Ross @ Oct 6th 2006 9:45PM
I'm blogging I'm blogging!
n8dogg @ Oct 6th 2006 9:50PM
Am I the only one who realized that azn_RFconnector is just fucking around with you guys? Wow.
Know the definition of SARCASM, people.
....even his goddamn NAME is a parody!
Turo @ Oct 6th 2006 11:03PM
i like how no one takes azn_rfconnector's side lol. wow what a complete moron and i dont have to explain myself b/c everyone else has clearly explained how idiotic his level of fanboyism is. its as if he works for sony and just wants a raise LOL.
S.A. @ Oct 6th 2006 11:08PM
I realize the reason for this policy as cheating was a rampant on Halo 2. But, it would really ruin the Xbox Live experience not being able to team up with your friends. Thats what I loved about Halo 2, me and my friends would just get in a Team match and have fun, we werent all that concerned about winning but we would just talk and have fun. The inability to team up with your friends on Halo 3 would be a big mistake on MS's part. I guess I might still buy the game, but I definitely would not play it as much. I guess that all works out for MS, they dont have as much use on XBL and it will cost them less.
random @ Oct 7th 2006 12:09AM
You can still play with your friends, just not for ranked matches, as in, appearing on some global scoreboard. Can't really see what the problem is, PC games don't have anything like that, and clan matches and tornaments work just fine.
And now seriously, I'm really saddened by how stupid some people are. It's like some people wouldn't recognize sarcasm even with the fake [sarcasm] tags all over the place.
Turo @ Oct 7th 2006 1:23AM
its not that the sarcasm can't be recognized, it's just plain immature, unnecessary, and annoying
Ben Hobbs @ Oct 7th 2006 1:28AM
I'm pretty sure it will be just that you can't invite your friends to ranked matches, much like it is for a variety of other 360 games.
goosedude @ Oct 7th 2006 1:42AM
I'm amazed at the faith the PS3 Fanboys have in Sony's Online System and matchmaking......
THey have shown ZERO to make me have faith that the PS3 Online will supercede the PS2 experience (save for a common login name).
Granted they are trying to emulate XBOX Live.....and in time they may match it.....but the blind faith that PS3 on launch day will match XBOX Live Online is foolhardy.
I already reserved RESISTANCE...as it is really the only PS3 game that looks like its Online Multiplayer won't be a complete fiasco or glitchy mess. At least I know SOCOM : COMBINED ASSAULT will provide an option.
Has anyone addressed how PS2 ONline games are supposed to work with PS3???
But I still cannot wait for HALO 3......Halo is still IMO the best utilization of XBOX LIVE with Matchmaking and Party Creating. To this day I can't help but play an hour or 2 a day....yes it overtook the hours I put into SOCOM 2 (which is still better than SOCOM 3).
n8dogg @ Oct 7th 2006 3:14AM
What's more immature and annoying, a guy making a point through sarcasm, or somebody actually taking that sarcasm seriously and arguing with him?
If you hate it so much, don't feed into it.
Ok? Ok.
SilverSlide @ Oct 7th 2006 7:53AM
We're talking about having you and up to 3 other players against random opponents (as per Halo 2). This form of optimatch is allowed and is featured in Saints Row.
Yes as per MS policy you can't have friends as opponents (so again no friends in Free for all games) only on YOUR team. That is not against MS policy.
Epic didn't want to/didn't understand/didn't have time to implement a full optimatch system that would allow for this.