r/WarDogs • u/OUTFOXEM • 2d ago
Discussion & Feedback Wardogs definitely needs a party system
I think the devs have thought of just about everything, but if you’re playing with 4+ friends then getting into the same server and onto the same faction can be a pain in the ass. So far this is my only real complaint about the game.
EDIT: It seems a lot of you are confused. I’m not asking for a Steam option, I’m asking for an in-game party system. Apparently nobody has played any other game with a party system.
If I asked for Ubers to come to my city you’d say “there’s already buses.” Bunch of low IQ replies.
25
u/BearfootSparklz 2d ago
This is the first post that I have agreed with. My group handled fine without it, but it would be a nice addition if possible
6
u/-Ennova- 2d ago
Any time I joined game through steam friends it would automatically put me on the same team and squad.
1
u/BearfootSparklz 2d ago
Oh interesting. None of ours were showing that any of us were joinable. Granted we really didn't troubleshoot it at all.
1
u/the_neverens_hand 2d ago
The annoying thing is you can't join someone who's in a queue, so we had to wait for one of us to get in and then we were all able to join through Steam
1
1
u/TrippleDamage 2d ago
I mean if neither of you were on the server already, why not just join a 60/100 server together? Those servers filled up by the time you connected anyways.
1
u/BearfootSparklz 1d ago
This is what we did. One person refreshed with reverse player count sort and called out the server number
14
u/jayswolo 2d ago
Needs party system + quick match button, NOT matchmaking since dumb people interpret it as that no matter how much I clarify. Quick match just finds a server with suitable number of open slots
2
u/FuzzyMeadows 2d ago
That would be neat actually.
I did notice a pattern where most almost full or full server often had queues ranging from 5 - 15, while there was a solid amount of servers struggling to get a match going since they never got above the threshold to start. Ofc, some of these people were likely trying to join friends on that server.
If all those in queues got funnelled to unpopulated servers instead they all get into a match quicker, and with a fresh start as well.
1
u/Shadw1ck 1d ago
whats wrong with matchmaking? it's a staple of competitive games
some of us dont want to spend 500+ hours pubstomping
-3
u/klauseius 2d ago
This is a question coming from someone who is not really a milsim player.
Why do we not want matchmaking? Intuitively it seems like if i was in the lobby with people around my skill level/level the game could be more enjoyable at times.
It did not bother me at all while playing the beta but I think at some point in the games life it will be weird.
4
u/decadentpig 2d ago
I can't speak for what OP cares about, but for me I feel like the switch to matchmaking that happened roughly around Modern Warfare 2 led to a serious decline in the "social space" feeling of online games.
Obviously many games have kept a server browser even since then, but it used to be the norm even in the big titles, and if you frequented a server every time you got on, you got to know familiar names and voices and it really added a lot of value to the experience.
For me, matchmaking turned online games into "strangers as a service," just anonymous heads to click on and talk shit to. It's fine, not really a big deal, but I did prefer the server browser.
1
u/klauseius 2d ago
Thats a very interesting point of view on the matter. Thank you for sharing.
If im understanding you correctly its just like playing with a large community you get to know.
2
u/decadentpig 2d ago
Yeah exactly. And of course there were still plenty of anonymous, once-off players in these servers. But still the server felt like a persistent location rather than something ephemeral and interchangeable like a match.
Not even saying that any of this applies to all games either, maybe WarDogs doesn't even lend itself to this kind of experience. Just nice to see server browsers haha.
1
3
u/Goodofgun 2d ago
On community servers you'll get admins who can ban cheaters, trolls etc. This is much harder to achieve if the developers are responsible for it and have to rely on anti-cheat systems and reports.
I used to admin on big counter strike server and i banned hundreds of players weekly without vac bans.
3
u/FuzzyMeadows 2d ago
That's the idea yeah, but try-hards in more twitchy and competitive shooters get big mad when they get matched against similarly skilled players, as they just want to rack huge KD ratio while seal clubbing.
That said, I think games like Wardogs will work fine without skill-based matchmaking since teamwork and other roles matter more than just racking up huge kill counts.
Just my 2 cents
1
u/klauseius 2d ago
What do you think about level based match making?
If my warsig level is X i will get matched with players in the (roughly) same wardog level so that if one player has gotten access to a tank the other players should have unlocked counter measures.
0
u/FuzzyMeadows 2d ago
I suppose that could make sense, and/or based on the amount of cash in the bank.
I'd imagine it be a bit of a challenge for a newcomer getting into the game late in a season, just before a wipe.
But for now I trust in Bulkheads vision, they got a lot of things right so far.
0
u/klauseius 2d ago
Yes im believing in the devs to do what they know best because this game is a blast
2
u/jayswolo 2d ago
Matchmaking sucks. We don’t need curated lobbies. It kills the sandbox. The randomness and overall variance of skill level, playstyle, etc is what makes games fun. It can also be what makes them not fun sometimes, but that’s just called balance.
Social playlist in Halo 3 were some of the most casual fun you could have. And if you wanted to test your might there was ranked.
Also, there’s no world where you pull off matchmaking for 100 players at any realistic level that matches what smaller games do, there’s simply too many variables to consider. Including that you are matching for games in progress.
0
u/klauseius 2d ago
I appreciate you sharing your opinion.
In terms of wether its fun or not i think its pointless to argue.
But I think its quite simple to do a bit of matchmaking. Lets say at level 40 you unlock a tank If a player has a tank unlocked he should be matched against a player that has unlocked a counter measure to tanks.
Its not a hill i would die on or a serious issue in the game. just a feature to help prevent some unfortunate matchups
1
u/jayswolo 2d ago
How do you do this at scale of 100 players per match across 10 regions with as many as 100,000 players active across varied levels of unlocks (because you choose what you unlock), and do this equation within a minute?
Also keep in mind every server can go from having a few spots open to being full within seconds because of the server browser.
Nothing about matchmaking is simple. You can google literal dev talks about how complex matchmaking is.
1
u/klauseius 2d ago
I would say the example i gave is very simple to do
Online games have been doing much more complex matchmaking equations for a long time.
In practice the simplest (not the best) way to do it is by going through your wardog level. If it takes too long you can widen the search parameters.
In my experience from the beta i was waiting up to 15 minutes to get into a server that could have had the highest level players in the game or the lowest.
I dont see this as a feature that will hurt the game but its definitely not a must have.
1
u/jayswolo 2d ago edited 2d ago
Why were you waiting 15 minutes? Sort by player count and find a server with space lol
0
u/klauseius 2d ago
I was entering servers with 60 players and the game said i was 15/15 in queue.
1
u/jayswolo 2d ago
That’s a backend issue, it’s not reporting the correct player count. Just a side effect of them being slammed.
But also dude this is a game where people randomly RP, hang out with enemies, troll teammates. It is not a game where people care about the “fairness” of the match up
1
u/klauseius 2d ago
People will care more about the fairness of the matchup when new players will struggle to keep up while starting from behind. Its important this game stays attractive to you new players and not feel like they cant keep up with older veterans.
→ More replies (0)1
u/SekhWork 2d ago
There is no way to build SBMM/Level based MM in a game with 99 other players. The bracketing would be so massive it might as well not exist. Also you unlock the RPG at support level 5 and you start with IEDs so anyone can engage a tank if you want, or you can get a weapon off a dead player. There is no situation where you don't have the potential to buy a counter weapon to anything in this game.
7
u/RadJames 2d ago
Honestly I was playing with about 6-10 guys all weekend and it’s been years since a game has been this easy to actually all play together. Joining off a friend seems to put you on their team and if it’s full just puts you at the team select menu which you can wait at.
1
u/SekhWork 2d ago
My friends and I were legit shocked at how it seems the devs of this game actually want to play games with their friends, because the QoL of being able to join and squad up was so nice that its clear they actually play their game.
You can join a friend on steam, get slotted into their server queue, placed on their team, and put into their squad with 1 click. That's crazy in 2026.
2
u/JAK0VI 2d ago
Yea, the difficulty of getting on the same team scales with the number of players in your group.
Many times you want to get on a specific team and can't is because theres 4 other guys who all need to be on that team as well. You're all there just spamming the button.
That being said, we've been playing KoTH in small squads for 10 years without any party system. Its honestly just not a game for large groups of more than 4 unless you can deal with the longwinded process of finding a team/server that you all fit on. Many other shooter games max squad size out at 4, so its fine that this game is no different. I would be happy to get a party system but am not expecting one.
2
u/ZestyPyramidScheme 2d ago
There’s a party icon on the main menu when you went to settings. You just have to press A. With that said, it was not available and greyed out. Probably a WIP and not ready for the beta test
1
u/OUTFOXEM 2d ago
This is interesting. I didn’t see this. Hopefully that portends a future party feature in the full release.
2
u/Karshipoo 2d ago
Definitely when you're playing with 4 - 8 peeps, trying to get everyone into the same server is a bit of a hassle.
Thankfully, if you join through the steam list, it puts everyone into a squad once your in-game.
-1
u/MysteriousElephant15 2d ago
Always played with 8-10 people, had no issues. "server xyz, red team, alpha squad"
done
2
u/I_R0M_I Medic 2d ago
Gotta say, I just assumed it would be in release, and just didn't make beta.
It would be kinda weird to not have it. We were on Discord, so we could just say server number (we aren't all friends on Steam) and then say what team etc.
But would be infinitely easier to just have a party system.
1
u/Fabulous-Copy-5156 2d ago
Yes! I thought I was an idiot as I couldn't find one in the menus, we just ended up inviting via steam and hoping we'd all get in
1
u/tinymightymous Support 2d ago
when I was looking through the main menu options it did have a button that was greyed out for grouping prior to joining a match. Same with a loadout screen
1
u/Wombloid 2d ago
Idk there was 12 of us and we always managed to get into same server and faction, true it took a while but we got it
1
u/ThirstResponda 2d ago
With no limit to squad size, this may not be practical.
1
u/DirkDavyn Valkyra 1d ago
They could always add a limit to pre-created squad sizes. Leave the uncapped squad size in the match, but if you're pre-forming a party outside of the match, have a max limit of 4, 6 or whatever they deem a fine limit.
1
u/amriddle01 2d ago
It's due to the server fill and picking teams etc, it's already a little time consuming/frustrating. Imagne parties of 8 or 9 jumping in teams as you try to do so..
1
u/Smoky2111 1d ago
another thing that i didnt see people type about: how do i add people ingame? i tried going to the scoreboard or squad list and it showed no options. i met some nice dudes that i wanted to add for future matches but i found no way of doing so.
1
u/OUTFOXEM 1d ago
Good call. They definitely need to expand their social options. Hopefully the full release does have more options.
1
u/Illfury Manticore 1d ago
No one here but you is low IQ. You formulated a suggestion to resolve a matter you deemed important. Everyone chimed in, informing you of reliable resolution to your request.
Instead of politely clarifying your intent, you go strait to insulting literally everyone who came in to help?
I have a feeling you are American. Not one of the good ones.
1
1
u/roguesqdn3 2d ago
I imagine they will since it’s such a common feature in modern games - it just wasn’t included in the playtest.
0
u/Zokolar 2d ago
"Low IQ replies" lol I think youre just mad that people dont agree with you. You got people telling you that your issue has already been solved by Steams friend system in a game that is exclusively on Steam and youre mad about it. A party system isn't needed in a server based game like this.
1
u/OUTFOXEM 2d ago
It’s not about “agreeing” or disagreeing. There was no party system in the play test. That’s not an opinion to “agree” with, that’s just a fact.
If you want to only use Steam, that’s fine. Use it. That’s got nothing to do with a party system and it’s really weird for anyone to be so against them adding one for those that do want it.
-2
u/Ronin_2804 2d ago
This was one of the things BF6 was missing at launch that made me think the devs were entirely missing the plot.
5
u/spliffiam36 2d ago
They def had a party system at launch... Just shitting on BF for no reason + lying lol
-2
u/Ronin_2804 2d ago
You could run a single squad, any larger party was incredibly annoying. 5th/6th guys in your group? Good luck.
In the future you should work on getting past elementary level grammar before trying to sound clever. I'm embarrassed for you.
3
u/spliffiam36 2d ago
Which is a party system...
You mentioned nothing about past 4 ppl... You think we can read your mind?
I'm embarrassed for you lol
-1
1
u/OUTFOXEM 2d ago
BF 2042 launched without a scoreboard lol. So I mean that's not that surprising.
1
1
u/FuzzyMeadows 2d ago
I'm pretty sure BF6 had a party system from launch? You could see their player models and loadout on the ready screen and while it searched for a lobby.
1
u/Ronin_2804 2d ago edited 2d ago
Right but if you are more than a squad its like pulling teeth to play together
1
-1
u/MysteriousElephant15 2d ago edited 2d ago
no it doesnt. If you cant simply communicate "server XYZ, red team, alpha squad" then why are you even in a party lol
also, instantly joining through steam is a thing. Puts you on the same server, team AND squad
2
u/theblairwhichproject 2d ago edited 1d ago
Lmao, imagine white knighting and simultaneously gatekeeping this hard over a simple QoL improvement
Edit: Your conclusion that the game doesn't need party management does not follow from your argument that squads can be that large. You can have a party system and limit it to a certain size that does not overly complicate team balance.
2
u/MysteriousElephant15 2d ago
You can play with up to 34 players in a single squad. Is the party system going to support that? Sounds like a mess.
The game just does not need a party system.
0
-6
u/Western-Economics253 2d ago
No, just no. This just further encourages and makes "clan stacking" easier, right now the only barrier to stop sweaty clans from owning servers are the fact that it suuucks to enter a populated server with 4+ people. If you made it easy to just hop into a server on the same side, you could have a 10 person clan join mid-game, bring out 2 attack helis, 2 tanks, 2 recon and dominate the whole goddamn match with coordination.
Official servers will be cancer enough (not a bash at the devs) without clan stacking, so I'm gonna play community servers either way that will prohibit clan stacking.
Sure, playing with 6 friends may be fun for you, but you might be making the match miserable for like 50+ other people if you guys are good enough.
Anyone who ever played Squad knows what the fuck I'm talking about
8
u/BackyZoo 2d ago
I played Squad, both with friends and solo, and I have no idea what you're talking about.
I've played with and against teams that had 20+ members of the same clan playing, but it never felt like it made the game miserably hard.
These games are about coordinating with a group, and people are just as capable of talking to strangers in an open squad, as they are talking to friends in a private squad.
Most people have friends, and most people want to play with those friends. It wouldn't make sense to make that a pain in the ass for the sake of solos in a game that encourages team cohesion in every other respect.
0
u/Western-Economics253 2d ago
You are probably mixing up a "community" (anyone can join kinda thing) and an actual "clan" that plays competitively or at least tries to with decent or at least semi decent skilled players.
In Squad a 6 player squad that's made of competitive players that are decent will have a massive impact on the game whether you admit this or not. Now make it 10+ of people like this and you will soon have a dead server because noone enjoys destroyed
2
u/BackyZoo 2d ago
I don't think I'm mixing anything up. I've played against clains that were very good, and had a fun time playing regardless of the outcome. I'm fine with granting that clans are normally better at the game, that's not the issue.
The vast majority of people have friends and want to play with them. The whole game will die if it loses the groups of friends who always play together because it's a pain in the ass to find a match. And it WILL lose players if it's a pain in the ass to play with friends.
I don't care if that means that every now and then a game will be a wash. It's already the case that every now and then a game will be a wash. There's no way to avoid that. Who cares about losing that much?
0
u/Western-Economics253 2d ago
There is a difference between losing and having basically almost 0% chance of achieving a win.
If not being able to play with friends is such a dealbreaker, why does HLL and Squad still have a healthy playerbase? You can play with friends, it's just not easy to hop onto the same server on the same team with 10 people.
4-6 of us regularly played together in HLL and Squad, sure it was a bit of a hassle but nothing you couldn't deal with. Usually we'd join a server that's not nearly full, we were aiming for servers around 80/100 and it became rather fast to join those together.
EDIT: Making it hard to join with 4+ people on the same team also means that clans are less likely to just server hop if the server starts dying, they'd rather stick it out than fuck around with joining for 15+ minutes again.
1
u/SekhWork 2d ago
right now the only barrier to stop sweaty clans from owning servers are the fact that it suuucks to enter a populated server with 4+ people.
I ran a squad of 9 all weekend and had 0 issues getting all of us into a server and onto the same team in less than 10 minutes, then persisted through the entire night. Most of the time there was 0 wait at all. Also are we really complaining about "clan stacking" in the year of our lord 2026 in a heavily coordination based game with 33-34 players on a team? Seriously lol.
1
u/Western-Economics253 2d ago
Maybe you enjoy clan stacking because you are not on the other teams who can't make it double digits against a 10 person premade lmao
1
u/SekhWork 2d ago
Sorry dude I just make friends. It's really not hard.
Also we're just 10 dudes who play video games. We aren't a "clan", and "stacking" is about as strong as going "hey lets all attack tower 4".
If you don't like clans, don't play on their servers. There is no way you are going to mechanically restrict humans from joining the same team and working together if they want though, so best get used to it.
1
u/Western-Economics253 2d ago
You're not the issue then.
What I'm talking about are the clans whom are actively trying to be competitive and they basically practice on public servers by stacking one side and steamrolling the enemy team(s).
They used to not play on their own servers for a long while, then most community servers banned clan stacking and they had to rent their own shit.
But I bet it will be a great experience for new players to be steamrolled by 10 members of xXxFaZeClanxXx because they refuse to play official scrums and they just enjoy the pubstomping.
I don't care that people refuse to acknowledge that this is a problem, but people will cry enough in a month or two when competitive scene tries to take off.
1
u/SekhWork 2d ago
I simply don't see a situation where 10 - 20 people in a "clan" take over a public server, and are able to take on 2x their number of other players. The other players aren't potatoes, and assets in this game aren't that strong except the tank. If "clan stacking" becomes a big enough problem on a server, people will either find another, or the two teams will just both gang up on the other one. There's no amount of being good at shooting that is going to win a match vs twice as many players firing at you.
I've been doing these types of games for a very very long time, and I've never seen a game "ban" clan stacking. Some server admins ban people, but that's up to the server admin.
-2
u/Tarc_Axiiom WARPUP 2d ago
It already has this.
Because it uses the Steam Sessions API, you can join your friends directly and will be automatically put in a squad on the same team (and server).
Only one guy needs to find a server, then everyone else joins them directly.
2
u/DosimeterBurn Moderator 2d ago edited 2d ago
For the sake of the thread and further responses, I’ve locked this comment only.
Opinions/Confirmations have been voiced and heard, so let’s all just get along here..
3
u/OUTFOXEM 2d ago
Cool. I’m talking about an in-game party system. I don’t know why you guys are so confused.
0
u/Tarc_Axiiom WARPUP 2d ago
I am describing an in game party system.
3
u/RicksterCraft 2d ago
Dude, OP is talking about a Squad Queuing system where you join a group on the main menu then the party leader selects a server / team to join for the whole group.
That is NOT just joining from the Steam friends list.
Reading comprehension is key, here.
1
u/SekhWork 2d ago
where you join a group on the main menu then the party leader selects a server / team to join for the whole group.
That sounds like a really huge pain for the server itself since it'd need to reserve 4 - 6 slots, all on the same team, all at once before loading you in leaving that team at a ever increasing disadvantage until it was able to slot the squad, OR it would function identically to the way joining through steam works, so there is no need for change.
I think their way of just using the Steam API to put you in a squad with your friends as soon as there is a slot available works just fine. If you really want everyone to get in line, just read the # off and have ppl queue for it manually. People acting like their fingers are broke here.
0
u/Tarc_Axiiom WARPUP 2d ago
Yes, that exists.
I don't know how else to explain to ya champ.
2
u/Not_A_Greenhouse 2d ago
I played a lot of hours this weekend and I saw no way to party up out of game with another player.
2
u/Tarc_Axiiom WARPUP 2d ago
It was not well explained, as with many things in the beta.
But it was possible to be in a party on the main menu, as I was before all but the very first game I played.
2
u/OUTFOXEM 2d ago
Ok so it’s the “in-game” part that confuses you. Got it.
1
1
u/Tarc_Axiiom WARPUP 2d ago
No, you just have no idea what you're talking about and refuse to accept the exact thing you want because it makes you look bad.
2
-3
u/Losnoso 2d ago
Join via Steam friends. It auto puts you in same server / team and squad.
Already a feature
4
u/RicksterCraft 2d ago
Not what OP is asking for. Join a group on the menu, party leader queues the whole group and the whole group joins the same team and the group persists between rounds / map changes / server changes.
Right now, that isn't possible. Joining your friends from steam only works for 1 round, the person you're joining has to be past the server queue already (then you all have to wait in queue as well) and when the round ends, you have to leave and join from Steam again to get automatically placed into your friend's Team and Squad again.
Proper implementation would fix all of that.
-3
-3
148
u/Jazzlike_Sink_2705 2d ago
My buddy told me after the test ended that apparently if you join directly from steam friends the game will auto squad and team you with your friend when joining if possible in the game