Ppl in general are more moderate than you think. No one will lean to an extreme and opt out of a game because of one person. We all want a certain gauge that slightly lean to our favor, but if the matchmaking system is kind enough to give us a fullhouse, we´ll take it without question.
I guess we just have to agree to disagree but think of this. I’m not sure. How long you’ve been on these forums but I’ve been on and off since early in GoW 2’s lifecycle. I forget if it was moving from 2 to 3 or 3 to 4, but people were actually asking NOT to see ranks prior to ranked matches. Which by the way, you are not shown rank at the start of matches in GoW4, as I’m sure you know. That’s because people, myself included, would look at the ranks be like “well wtf we have no chance against this” and people would often quit. Or whether they quit or not, there was constant complaining about how you could see a team that just so heavily outranked and you just had a bad feeling before the match started. It was a small thing but people generally felt it hurt the overall experience. It affected the emotions you brought up before.
I think it would be the exact same thing if we were shown the wired or WiFi at the start of the match, and as I’ve said multiple times, my fear is that now with the option to quit as you’ve suggested (which didn’t exist in GoW2, you had to dashboard to get out of a game) then that feeling that we know exists will persist and people will bail more than ever.
Again, I guess we just agree to disagree but my stance is just I’ve seen this sight and felt this feeling and I just don’t see it helping the overall experience.
Doesn’t really matter what others are on - as long as their ping doesn’t fluctuate too much.
But anyway, I don’t get why people want to be special and think they know best when to back out and quit for some reason.
Could be 9 people on WiFi and you wired and the match runs fine.
So you’re hitting at one of the themes I have been discussing with my counterpart here, that if you empower players to leave, then they WILL leave. To give information with the intent of giving players the power to choose whether or not they want to play just makes it so some people won’t play. I don’t really see the counter to that logic.
What’s better is to have a robust online system and when it says it’s checking “connection quality” or doing so in the background, then it should do exactly that.
Then there’s no issue.
But having it subjective and you not liking the way it’s setup on bias is not the right way to go.
So I do agree with what you said.
Right. Exactly what I’m saying. And I echo the sentiment that the systems for evaluating match quality should be exclusively in the background. A smaller part of that is an earlier point I made about how we don’t see ranks before a match anymore. But yeah honestly the best overall experience is to have that happen in the background and trust that the algorithms in place do their job, while simultaneously accepting the fact that sometimes you do just get a bad match or a laggy match.
Gears 4 failed on those point, there was no real filter and lag comp is so generous that it’s exploited by some.
I agree with you. It is bad for the game and the vast majority of its users will feel excluded. Wi-Fi connectivity has recently been adopted by most gamers, especially the casual type. This is due to it being more covinient to gain internet access; wether you live in a dorm or a shared appartment; with family and you need access for in your bedroom. It took away all those bothersome wiring and in exchange the Xbox Live community had an exponential spike in its population. The more the better. But is gaming over wireless harmful? Few people that plays through Wi-Fi use robust quality of service routers that prioritize gaming traffic over streaming, bringing the gaming perfomance down substantially. Being in an environment where you can’t control how many devices are connected to one single router, will result in packet loss and increased ping that will make online gameplay experience inconsistent. This is what ruins it for a lot of gamers and most of them are uneducated about it, not knowing that they’re the cause of the issue.
I don’t want to give the impression that I’m dictating how gamers should be gaming, but having to deal with the abundance of lag spikes and delayed respond time makes it unpleasant to play video games that relies entirely on QTEs.
My solution to this matter is to find an incentive for Wi-Fi users to switch over to a direct wired connection. I want everyone to enjoy a better Xbox Live experience.
The incentive would be not having overly generous lag comp.
The game itself can reward bad connections so people don’t look to improve or change.
I’ll start by saying I’ve enjoyed the conversation. It difficult to have this extended a conversation on an anonymous forum without insulting people. I appreciate you.
So I do agree with your assessment of the problem, it’s just the solution I don’t agree with. I happen to be a 37 year old father and home owner so in terms of finances and gaming. I’m pretty set. But when I was a 20 year old college kid, going to purchase a 100+ ft fable (which I need in my home currently) might have been cost prohibitive for me. I don’t really want to be pigeon holed because of my own situation. And as a gaming company I wouldn’t want my paying customers to feel that way either. Your solution probably works in a perfect world but I don’t think it’s practical.
You’d suggested something earlier which makes way more sense, which is to allow a “preferred wired connection” option in matchmaking. Or to prioritize connection strength over speed, stuff like that. Those things make way more sense in the context of the entirety of a player base then limiting the access certain players have to the game.
As an aside, I think your assessment of how big a connectivity issue WiFi presents is overstated, though admittedly I don’t have any data to cite. My own personal experience though, I rarely feel like I’ve been cheated by someone else’s internet connection in GoW4. I think wifi tech is at a point where it’s indecipherably similar to wired.
I know as a 20 year old, I was spending more than you can as a 37 year old, but, a 100ft Ethernet Cable isn’t difficult to afford. At all.
In proper language, that’s only 30m.
I checked the price and it’s £9.79 - or about $12.
WiFi n and WiFi ac have nothing on a wired connection.
They are not similar at all in respects to performance where it matters the most - in gaming.
Although, you can get a relatively stable and good connection, wired is always the best choice and always noticeable.
I remember cables costing more than that. Maybe they’ve come down since I needed to buy one. My memory is that they were 40-50 bucks. Maybe I just don’t remember correctly
I don’t disagree that wired is better than WiFi, I’ve only been saying that I don’t think that those who play wirelessly should be pushed into wired connections, as qaaloods has suggested. I do agree that an option to prioritize connection strength in matchmaking would be a good option. My phrasing of “indecipherably different” was probably too strong, but I think generally speaking WiFi technology is good enough that you can be competitive.
Ethernet Cables have always been cheap and 30m is really excessive anyway.
No is saying force people to do it.
But then you should be filtered to play with others of a similar connection quality.
Also, doesn’t help that lag comp is generous to those with bad connections either.
So if this was the case, feel free to play on WiFi and any loss of quality of performance is felt by the player and not the whole lobby.
There are both good wired and WiFi connections and bad wired and WiFi connections. The issue is WiFi is more likely to have issues due to the possibility of interference where as wired won’t experience this. Add in the fact that many players who use WiFi do so due to the distance of a wire run being an issue and you’re opening up more issues. WiFi loses quality based on distance which will result in more connectivity issues.
I’d be all for the game doing some sort of stress test on a connection during the matchmaking process. Many times a players connection will be fine under minimal load but once the games load takes over their connection breaks. This can of course be on both wired or WiFi though.
A game should always know what the players skill and connection quality and match appropriately.
Xbox and the Xbox test literally have a built in test.
Especially in ranked.
Mandatory in Ranked.
WiFi with cable or fiber beats a solid dsl connection every time.
Only Gears rewards those with bad connections.
WiFi is not a dirty word. Constricted bandwidth and WiFi is though.
Not always true.
In the UK, you can get high quality DSL Internet where the ISP prioritise Gaming Traffic above all else all the way to the back end of their systems.
This makes its excellent for gaming.
It is known that routers provided for free by ISPs generally suck.
WiFi for mildy competitive ranked gameplay should always be avoided if possible.
Also, the bandwidth you need is very little indeed.
It’s the ping and jitter that’s key.
Mostly true but in the US most dsl is 1-5mbps. Doesn’t matter how little bandwidth gaming requires when the bandwidth is being sucked dry by Netflix and YouTube.
Dsl will always have more packet loss than fiber or cable.