Dodgy servers

@Daze623 ''I liked the old style as simply it gave me the option on where I want to play and gave me enough information to know what I was getting myself into.''

^ This. When gaming sessions can range anywhere from 30mins quick sessions to 8+ hrs grinds then performance is a priority for most of us, especially in an FPS. It's a joke the information they provide isn't accurate from the server to the end user.

@DoYaSeeMe It has already been done to have server selection AND instant play so why not here. The current method we have now that you're endorsing would likely be fine for an RPG but not shooters. Ping is a priority for us but for respawn it's also que time and i imagine the things the user would consider as priority are dropped to fill the servers faster after x amount of time leading to generally worse performance which is already bad for various reasons.

Just look at ranked for example.. We have effectively 2 tiers from bronze to gold/plat and plat to pred. That's not to put us in with similar skills like it advertises but to keep que times low. We accepted this with the decline of players on PC but since crossplay being introduced there is no excuse for it now.  I know they could prioritise rank over other factors as many on my friends list are in different servers at the same time, same rank and with same server selected as me so i'll cautiously assume it'll be the same with pubs.

Couldn't they increase the amount of dedicated servers more inline with the lower limits of concurrent players instead of expecting most to make do with various providers that really aren't up to the task just to cover capacity which has dropped since release, relying on an algorithm (which isn't 99.99% the best way that you make out) when we could manually do it ourselves and give us the OPTION to wait if we so chose. I would rather wait to have a rank match with equally skilled players than the algorithm sticking sub golds on my team but we don't have that option so at least give us the option to have a quality gaming experience if we choose to wait as that'll be our choice.

We are getting an S5 upgrade!!! - Answer HQ We want this but not in dreamland.

@DoYaSeeMeDepend if i'm playing competitively or casually, also mood and time.

Ones that are dedicated to the game for best performance, also which friends are playing on and/or those of roughly equal skill. Some days i might not care and just want to join instantly for quick mess around. Would i be willing to wait a considerable time to meet those requirements? Absolutely.

I would have a choice.

@apostolateofDOOMWell, your willingness to wait can't guarantee you a better experience, and it can actually turn really bad in some scenarios.

Let's say you're in a separate queue, with others that are also willing to wait. If too many are in that queue, you will either have to wait a considerable amount of time before every match (until the queue "rotates") or get denied with a "server full, try later". If the queue builds up too slowly, some of the players would reach their waiting limit and put the queue in a vicious cycle until it eventually empties.

When you do get to play on that good server, all it takes are a few lag spikes and you'll be back to the bad experience, getting shot around corners, seeing enemies teleport or stutter, hits not registering, rubber banding, etc..

Also, creating 2 different types of queues would obviously split the playerbase, resulting in an additional delay for everyone. This would eventually push all the players to the performance queue,  since there's waiting anyway. Basically, things would either return to the current state or get even worse.

@DoYaSeeMeOnce we're in then why would we wait to rejoin for the next match when we could just stay in the server for the following matches too, unless we decide to leave or timed out for being afk?

''all it takes are a few lag spikes and you'll be back to the bad experience, getting shot around corners, seeing enemies teleport or stutter, hits not registering, rubber banding, etc..''

We get this anyway because of the algorithm we rely on putting us all over both geographically and different server providers giving a very inconsistent experience... but by giving choice all this would be minimised by having a closer and generally more stable connection that's not being routed everywhere. If the problem isn't my end or the connection to the server then more focus can go to fixing where the problems actually are.

They could keep the quick play ''ready'' now and combine that with server selection to fill the same servers as they don't need to be exclusive ques. Quick play would be as is as it's just lowering priority for certain things and filling up whatever over some time anyway so it shouldn't drastically effect times to wait.. the only people that are having to wait are those choosing to.

This could also apply to ranked servers and SBMM resolving more issues than it causes.