While you say the game does this, I don't agree. I said you should be able to put your own limit on ping while the game has it's own limit on ping based on your search preference. Of course if you chose a ping that is too low then you'll never find a game, but that would be your fault. At that point you increase the max ping until you start finding a game.
I know in previous CoDs the lobby would show "searching for games of x ping" or something similar and as it didn't find games it would increase the ping. Probably this is similar to what happens now except without it showing what ping range it's searching for.
I don't know what the cap is for ping range on best setting, maybe they could just lower that and I'd be happy knowing that I'm not getting put in a game where my ping to host is above 65 ms or whatnot.
I actually get where you're comming from but again it's one of those decisions that from our point of view sounds like a good idea but from a dev point of view isn't.
if you give players the ability to chose their ping range you would basically cause a massive slow down in finding matches as everyone would automatically chose the lowest range each time.
Everyone would have thier own pre set idea of a cut off point and would keep defaulting back till they found a session with that range.
end result would be we'd lose the quickly into games system that we all want .
The other problem is parties, as they only go off the party leader you could still have potentially 5 people in a session that wouldnt have et the requirement so you'd be back to square one.
and before you say well limit the party.. you'd cause even more issues with matchmaking as a result.
I understand the party limitations. Definitely would be an issue. I rarely think of the party side of things due to the fact that I play solo 75% of the time or more. That's why I said I know it's not something that would make it into the game.
I'd definitely wait longer to get into a lobby if I could get into one that was more consistent connection wise. I'd stay in a lobby for more time if this were the case too. It's a trade off in my mind, wait longer for a lobby that I'll want to stay in or get into lobbies quickly and take my chances of getting a poor connection.
I actually did try playing battlefield but most games are on custom servers with 500% score and take forever to play. Also there is a lot more camping on that game than this one in my experience, of course not everyone has the same experience as I did. While I don't think bf is a bad game, it's just not comparable to CoD.
it isnt comparable to COD, cod is a rushing game, made for SMGs and shottys, whereas BF is more war like, realistic
you can find the right servers with 100-200% which are fine, game modes like conquest (dom) and rush (demo) in the same server. these are the best game modes imo. if you want less camping, play Rush on metro, lots of action, pretty sure thats the only map without vehicles
That would be one possible solution, but it would have the draw back that not everyone would use it. Which would mean the possilbe chance of random people from furthter locations being placed in a lobby because they used the quickest setting to find games the quickest. Locale only had a habit of taking a long time to find games for some people, so not everyone would use it becuase they do not like waiting for more than a couple minutes to find a match.
Another thing is it does not control who can enter the lobby, it just controls what lobby the player themself is searching for at that moment. Once in a lobby it means absolutely nothing and has no effect on the game quality at all.
It would need to be set as the default search and then give the option for others to change if needed to find faster games.
There is an issue with that where players of unlike skill would be matches to each other too much because of ping when not enough of the same skill are within an ping rang. And though a smooth game may be fun to some, it is not fun if you are matched up against someone with skills superior to your own that routinely goes 2+ or 3+ on k/d. No matter how smooth that game was there would still be those taht would back out, rage quit, leave, dasboard because of the nature of the match.
I think it should be location first, so everyone is closer to each other, then ping, then skill. having location first would lower the chance of players from greater distances being placed with each other (more local players, less non local), thus lowering the chance of unruly pings(non local players) being had because of distance to host from player at that point try to match for skill. I think that would be the best method really.
Ping is imporant yes, but not the most important factor on if a match will be fun or not for all players. And it is all players that they must adjust for and not just those with the lowest pings.
CoD is not just a rushing game, made just for shotties and smg's. That is a foolish assumption to make. You can easily play a strategic and tactical match at any point if your team is of the same frame of mind to do so.
CoD has smaller maps making action faster yes, but that does not mean fast paced action is dominant in all matches all the time.
This is only marginally correct. Two people on a 4 bar are not on equal footing as many would think, whereas being able to see that I have 50 ping and the other guy has 30 ping would let me know that he will have a slight edge one me. The only thing people would need to learn is lower number = better as opposed to more bars = better connection wise.
I never thought about this before but people with 80 PING for example would leave the game because they think they should have 20 PING like their tests say. So numbers might increase leaving games before they actually started.
(BTW I noticed in a later thread you mentioned quitting )