I play my fair share of shooters. I've owned or spent a lot of time with multiple COD, Battlefield, Killzone, and Halo games. I'm not great at them, but I'm pretty good, I pretty much always contribute more than most to whatever team I'm on.

That being said, I fucking hate the way shooters assign teams. I feel like the vast majority of FPS matches are one team absolutely steamrolling the other, which isn't any fun no matter what side you're on. If you're on the team that's getting crushed, then you get stuck trying to carry a team that isn't pulling its own weight, and if you're on the team that's doing the crushing then there isn't any challenge.

Examples: Yesterday I played a game of Walker Assault in Battlefront where the enemy team didn't get a single bomber on the first set of checkpoints...and today I played a game of Drop Zone where I had 1500 more points than the second place person on my team, and I was still only 4th in the game by the end.

Battlefront is the current inspiration for my irritation, but pretty much every FPS I've played has this same issue. I should also point out that if you have a group of friends you generally play with than it's different, but I really don't play these types of games with my friends. So it sucks.

Long story short; fix it, or better yet, just let me play with bots. With bots I can just set the difficulty, set the maps and settings I want, and the teams are always even.

So basically what you're saying is you suck at video games and blame everything/everyone else but yourself. Nice logic.

Don't FPS have tournaments, friend battles, etc?

If there are tournaments or groups, find a good one, and play with them. If you end up losing, then you probably suck and have too big of an ego to admit.

Logic?

On Topic: Don't most FPS games have bots in single player?

Matchmaking has always been a problem. It's actually surprising that no one has figured out how to do it effectively in FPS games yet.

I've seen this occurrence at times in Halo Warzone. Most of the time it matchmakes really well, but then you can stumble upon times when the team I'm on or meet is extremely unbalanced compared to the opposing team. When you've played well over a hundred matches it's really easy to spot.

What I would like is that developers use a system similar to drivatars in Forza, where a servers logs your gaming style and matches based on that. I think that could greatly improve matchmaking. And I would like to see more AI opponents on the level of the ones in Warzone, they sometimes offer great challenge and it mixes up the gameplay.

I think the matchmaking is fine for the most part. Some matches, you will lose because of your team and other times, you'll win because of it. The most a game can really do is try to match decent players with bad players on a team to balance it out as much as possible. My personal gripes about FPS multiplayer is the maps are often too small and the weapons are nerfed (weapon ranges are shortened dramatically) in comparison to how real guns are.

No system is perfect. You'll always have matches where one team steamrolls the other.

Back In UT2k4, frags were counted and team was reassigned after a few maps, if on a correct server with decent mod (this was maybe 90% of the servers I used to play on)

Back in the days.

Halo, in my experience does seem to have the best matchmaking among the FPS I play. Killzone seemed to be pretty good too but I haven't played a Killzone game online in quite a while, so I could be mistaken.

I totally agree with you on the drivatar system though. Games need to keep better track of how their players actually play and matchmake accordingly. I'd also like games to react better to unbalanced teams by shuffling them around quicker/ more effectively if things are overly one sided.