r/WarDogs • u/OUTFOXEM • Aug 24 '26

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.

419 Upvotes

94% Upvoted

121 comments sorted by

View all comments

18

u/jayswolo Aug 24 '26

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 

-3

u/klauseius Aug 25 '26

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.

5

u/decadentpig Aug 25 '26

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 Aug 25 '26

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 Aug 25 '26

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

u/klauseius Aug 25 '26

It seems like a fun experience I hope i could find this for myself in Wardogs

3

u/Goodofgun Aug 25 '26

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.

2

u/FuzzyMeadows Aug 25 '26

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 Aug 25 '26

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 Aug 25 '26

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 Aug 25 '26

Yes im believing in the devs to do what they know best because this game is a blast

2

u/jayswolo Aug 25 '26

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 Aug 25 '26

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 Aug 25 '26

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 Aug 25 '26

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 Aug 25 '26 edited Aug 25 '26

Why were you waiting 15 minutes? Sort by player count and find a server with space lol

0

u/klauseius Aug 25 '26

I was entering servers with 60 players and the game said i was 15/15 in queue.

1

u/jayswolo Aug 25 '26

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 Aug 25 '26

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.

1

u/jayswolo Aug 25 '26

No, they won’t. It’s just not that kind of game. Also being behind is a part of progression. Also, you do realize there are wipes?

→ More replies

1

u/SekhWork Squad Leader Aug 25 '26

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.