The implementation of SBMM in Call of Duty is particularly bad. Usually, you would expect such a system to match you with players of similar skill. But, that's NOT how it works in CoD.
Instead, the SBMM in CoD matches you with a bunch of players who are far worse than you for a game or two. Then, it matches you with a bunch of players who are far better than you for a game or two, and this cycle continues over and over again. This means that you will do really well for a game or two, and then get destroyed for a game or two. Eventually, this averages out to the target of every player having around a 1.0 kill/death ratio.
In theory, SBMM is supposed to help lower-skilled players, but the implementation in CoD is so bad it is more of a roller coaster than a bunch of matches against similarly-skilled players.
I do perceive some "swinginess" in my performance in Black Ops Cold War, but I'm not positive that it's actually real. Gamblers at the roulette table also perceive trends where in fact there is only random variance.
It's also worth noting that this is only half of the complaints that you see on message boards about this game. The other half, or maybe the majority, is people saying, "I just want to be able to get high and use off-meta weapons and not lose to sweats (i.e. people who are trying) all night." This type of complaint is fundamentally a request to be matched against lower skilled players, and has nothing to do with the swinginess of matchmaking.
It sounds like a request to be matched appropriately to expected performance at times when they're deliberately sabotaging their ability, which is not that unreasonable except for the near-impossibility of doing so. They might even be able to achieve it by having a separate account for messing around while they're high and using dumb weapons.
Something that could help would be to allow players to choose what server they play on. The server could then establish rules against tactics that are regarded as effective but unsportsmanlike.
Casual servers could also choose to implement more aggressive rebalancing systems between rounds.
Finally, players could choose to select servers that they know to have a more casual community.
I think is globally harder to balance SBMM for games that involve teamwork because bad partners can make you loose even when opposing team is adequately balanced.
With Dota2 (a while ago might have been fixed) my complain was more than SBMM wasn't tight enough and unfortunately due to game dynamics a single sub-par player in the team could give a big advantage to the adversaries (and I totally found myself in this quite unpleasant role).
So maybe i'd say elo hell exist in some way as when the matchmaking algorithm doesn't have enough data to match you adequately it must train itself by matching you using a pretty loose standard deviation. I guess the success of "good matchmaking" actually depend on how this training sequence is more or less gracefully handled from the player perspective.
I rarely have a game of Dota2 where the spread of skill in my team is the reason I've lost. Indeed, I can't think of a time.
I've lost to smurfs occasionally. I've lost because people have tilted and abandoned or chain fed. I've lost because internet has died. I have even lost despite playing at my best and having a good game...
Mostly, 8-9 times out of 10, I've lost because I did not have enough impact on the game. I did not do enough to win, and to help my team win.
But yeah. Wide spreads in matchmaking really only happen with very extreme skill levels, on rare game modes / timezones, and where explicitly playing as a party (and thus forcing it)
>I've lost because people have tilted and abandoned or chain fed.
Was mostly thinking about that. Everyone can chain feed when in bad shape. But it's more likely that the lowest skilled player of the team do that. However its true that a poor hero choice in the setup can be all it takes.
I guess more than SBMM what ultimately made me go away from this game is the average game length. My lifestyle is now incompatible with potential 1hour+ game and i didn't want to become "the selfish quitter".
> matches you with a bunch of players who are far worse than you for a game or two. Then, it matches you with a bunch of players who are far better than you for a game or two
What are the chances this is an 'engagement' hack?
I wonder if players are more likely to continue playing if they have ups and downs.
In a perfect matchmaking system, would players get bored?
I have to wonder if this is intentional, or just the side effect of either perception or an imperfect system.
Blizzard blogged about this some years ago with regards to their SC2 matchmaking.
They found that their matchmaking was too good, and would cause a lot pf stress as people were constantly feeling pressure to play their best since the matches were so even. This led to very short play sessions as players would feel exhausted from one or two matches. Their solution was to increase the standard deviation of the algorithm, so that you had a better chance of roflstomping your opponent and a similar chance of being stomped. They claimed it led to much longer play times and less player stress.
I've seen this sentiment a lot in the Apex Legends community, and without any data to back this up, I think in some cases this is true.
Live Service games' primary interest is to keep you playing for as long as possible so they have as much time as possible to sell you in-game purchases.
It's gonna be really interesting if the suspicion turns out to be true in the next couple of years when we'll maybe get some more concrete info on it.
>I wonder if players are more likely to continue playing if they have ups and downs.
If the ups and downs were fairly close, then I could see that. But that's not what people have been complaining about with regards to the new CoD game. The issue was that a lot of matches end up being disproportionally one-sided one way or the other.
And that's not fun at all. While an occasional slam-dunk game is fun (or maybe even most slam-dunk games are fun, i don't know), I cannot find anyone who would have an increased desire to play the game after they get absolutely annihilated by a vastly superior team that they cannot do absolutely anything against.
And that's a sign of a bad SBMM system. A "perfect" SBMM system would always put you in matches where you are either slightly better or slightly worse than the other team. Turns out, that's the scenario that optimizes for engagement the most (at least from personal observations across a ton of different video games and real-life competitive sports I participated in).
If I won a game by a tiny margin, I feel proud and exhilarated. If I lost a game by a tiny margin, I feel incentivized to play more, because "only if I did this one small thing differently, we would have won, let's play one more game and see". If I won by a giant margin, it feels good too, so I might as well continue playing more. But if I lost by a giant margin, it drops all desire I had to continue this gaming session, because no amount of incremental improvements to my gameplay I can do within a day that would have let me somehow close the 30-100 point gap in that game (so, in a sense, it feels like i was set up for a game that i stand zero chance of winning, and that's pretty demotivating).
Losing by a tiny bit is a learning moment that makes you feel like you can win if you try a bit better or improve in one specific aspect a little bit. You learn from those kinds of losses, and the feeling of improvement is good. Losing by a giant margin makes you learn nothing. Just like in basketball or chess. Playing against someone who is slightly better than you are is fun. Playing against someone who is a pro (while you are a beginner) isn't fun, because of the sheer width of the skill gap. There is no "victory carrot" hanging in front of you to motivate you to continue playing, because that "victory carrot" is located on the other continent, and you aren't keen on swimming across the pacific ocean in one go.
So, at least in this case, the incentive of the matchmaking system being good aligns with the increased engagement. Or so I believe, based upon my personal observations and anecdata.
This feels like the same argument that's been used in League, DoTA and Overwatch that implies the system gives you really bad teammates, and then good teammates. I'm trying to find where I read this, but essentially even minor differences in skill can translate to feeling like you are "curbstomping" the opponent.
It's inevitable, the player distribution isn't uniform and as you move forward the gradient steepens. Most sbmm as they call them suffers from oscillations, even games with a large player base, where you'd think there's enough to balance things out.
It also flattens the base, as people have to figure out what works and what not without having skilled player in the mix to learn from
I have noticed the same with Overwatch ever since they implemented the new match making system.
Myself, somewhat a player who plays for fun and is okay ranked player will be put in a team with low experienced players paired against a team with three or four-extremely ranked high ranked players with one player low ranked. This ends up in a slaughter and it's not that my team sucks, it's just we are overthrown by experience.
This turns the game in to toxicity when the other team players then start bragging "ez" and such.
That isn't how SBMM works. If you play a team with higher ELO, the amount of ELO you win/lose changes based on the skill differential. The eventual averaging is not how the algo finds your skill level. If you play a worse team than you are expected to win with X probability, that is what you are judged against.
Also, just to be clear, no implementation is this simplistic. Most models are Bayesian and so incorporate uncertainty around the estimate of skill. And most also include your individual stats (this is game-dependent but I believe Overwatch has a class/map-based ELO that you are rated against...as an example).
I agree with your general point though. Most SBMM systems do not feel close games every time. Usually, someone is smurfing, someone is throwing, someone won't come on comms, etc. (yes, I play Overwatch and I am still angry about it).
I haven't played the game, but based on what I'm reading about it, there's a couple of confounding factors:
1. There are a lot of different game modes for CoD -- Cold War has eleven game modes. This means that the pool of players for each mode will be smaller, making fair matchmaking more difficult.
2. Some of those game modes have unusually large teams -- two of the signature game modes in Cold War have ten or more players to a team. This makes it more difficult for a matchmaking algorithm to fairly assess any individual player's contribution to their team's win/loss. It also makes it more likely that one or more teams will contain a player whose skill has been poorly assessed, meaning that their team has an unfair advantage or disadvantage.
I think that point one is true in many games, but cold war is probably not one of them. There are probably tens or hundreds of thousands of people queuing for a game of black ops cold war at any given point in time. Even if you divide by ten different queues, there should be enough granularity to give decent matchups to people at all skill levels.
And I don't know if I would call combined arms or dirty bomb signature modes. 6v6 is the bread and butter of the annual call of duty.
> Even if you divide by ten different queues, there should be enough granularity to give decent matchups to people at all skill levels.
Could be. I don't know what the numbers look like, and I wouldn't be surprised if the player base is being split up in other ways (e.g. console vs. PC, geographic regions, etc) at the same time.
> And I don't know if I would call combined arms or dirty bomb signature modes.
By "signature modes", I mean that those game modes were created specifically for CoD: Cold War, rather than ones which are shared by many FPS games, or carried over from previous games in the series.
It's just impossible to fix it. You have to put players with different ranks in a server. If you just sort everyone by their skills, you get good teams that crush the rest of server. It will be annoying for low rank players, and boring for high rank players.
There are servers tiers, but they can't always fill a server with same rank players. How many players are online on the same region that want to join a server at a given time...
So there will be always some randomness to it. As long as you sometimes get to play with good teams and win, it will keep you in the game. You will probably even play longer that way.
it sounds like a CoD socialist utopia simulator where every player has an equal outcome regardless of skill: 1.0 k/d. k/d creeping above 1.0? Let's distribute those gains to other players by curbstomping you for a bit. K/d falling below 1.0? Here's a couple of easy and free "k/d UBI" matches to boost you up. Who could have guessed this results in a mediocre gameplay experience?
> offering the freedom to decide when they want to sweat and when they want to kick back and own some noobs.
This quote from the article is likely the simplest explanation for why the game companies implement skill based matchmaking. If you are the noob this article references, it means the game royally sucks.
Setting up the game so experienced players get to abuse your newest customers isn't exactly a great recipe for long term success.
Yeah, makes me think how narrow minded can those "good" players really be? Their statements are truly ridiculous.
Of course same with the notion of "elo hell". I would be deeply ashamed of myself if I would defy all logic and sense to find excuses for my lack of skill.
You learn from players who are better than you, not players who are as good as you (or worse).
Matchmaking ruined the competitive aspects of gaming for me, since I either get dragged down by team mates or I get stuck playing the same games over and over.
It's boring, and if I want to get better I have to watch an hour of pro streams before even getting into the game to remind myself of what good play looks like.
People who are against matchmaking have a valid point, and it's part of why games revolving around community run servers last longer.
Seriously. I'm marginally above average and the SBMM in Destiny 2 was a nonstop rollercoaster of win, lose, repeat. Imo it made it difficult to learn, since the game alternated between giving me awful teammates and skilled opponents and giving me skilled teammates and awful opponents.
Now that it's gone for most modes, it feels better. Games where I lose don't feel so simply because the game wanted me to lose.
with sbmm, roughly half the players you face off against are better than you (assuming you have been accurately ranked) and half worse. You have ample opportunity to learn from better players. SBMM simply limits the skill gap between you and the better player.
I am never going to get better at basketball by playing Lebron in 1v1s.
Exactly. The issue they seem to be having is that they finally have to experience the game like _the rest of the playerbase_ does.
I have played games without SBMM (Destiny 2 recently switched away from it in certain game modes) in periods when the sweatiness is particularly high and people join as premade teams to stomp some noobs. Let me tell you that as a casual PvP player, it absolutely ain't fun.
This was a huge problem in league. Players would peak, get tired of losing, create brand-new accounts so they got to play against newbies and feel great at the game for weeks. If you were in one of those games where somebody much better was playing, it could sometimes make 9 other players irrelevant.
Riot used all kinds of clever tricks to fix this. Your skill would get smeared to other accounts playing from your network and they would rapidly adjust skill estimates when you outperformed for several games in a row. A fascinating challenge to be sure.
Hilarious that the bulk of complaints come from people who consider themselves "good" at the game, particularly content creators/streamers, because their entertainment product relies on them being the best in the server...
The games I've played/been playing with online MM are the usual ones... CoD (Modern Warfare), Halo (Reach), CS/CS:S/CS:GO mainly, and lately Valorant. Of all the games to do it, I think Counter Strike gets it the most correct. Cheating aside, the amount of play modes and available in CS has always been perfect for dropping yourself exactly where you want to play for these reasons:
1) 2v2, 5v5, 10v10 Casual, Battle Royale, Deathmatch all available natively in the game, on Valve servers.
5v5 Competitive is CS'S only "Ranked" mode. Wingman (2v2) and Danger Zone (Battle Royale) have ranks but I find they're pretty elastic in their MM.
2) The ability to run Community Servers with custom code... e.g. Surf maps, KZ (Platforming) maps, Retakes (now native in the new Operation), Executes, regular DM, FFA DM, XvX casual games.)
These servers are player-owned, player-maintained, and strictly "unranked".
3) ESEA/Faceit/et al. Pick up games for players who want to pay for better anti-cheat, tighter SBMM, and generally a lower skill floor. Also, "pug"s tend to -- more or less -- follow the rules in place for the pro circuit.
The fact that CS gives players the ability to "graduate" out of their SBMM and move into a pro/am competitive environment OR join a community server and play Zombie Mode OR relax for an hour surfing OR play a baseline ranked match is something that has allowed the game to endure so well. If I could suggest one thing to CoD, Valorant, Halo, and any other "competitive" game it would be support community and 3rd-party servers!
EDIT: By the way, SBMM leads to one annoying issue not touched upon in the article. Smurfing. Often, due to SBMM, a high skilled player can't play with their lower skilled friends. That sucks. Or, if I just want to ruin SBMM for 9 other people, I can simply make a new account, throw a couple games, get ranked low on purpose and then frag out. Smurfs are actually the glaring problem with SBMM, IMO.
anecdotally, it seems like valve has mitigated the smurfing issue pretty well in recent years. I very rarely see obvious smurfs in the gold nova range these days. unfortunately, the side effect is that there are now a bunch of hoops that a fresh account needs to jump through to get into MM.
I think the current state is a decent compromise. it's totally viable to make a new account whenever you have a new friend that starts playing. as long as you only play with them on the smurf account, it will stay in a close MMR range. your friend has to go through the grind anyway, so you may as well do it with them. the grinding does make it pretty annoying to make new accounts over and over again just to tear through the ranks.
That's one of the reasons that a lot of streamers just play with other streamers in squads. Winning a shooter game as a streamer is easy specially with Battle Royale games.
You have huge advantage just playing with your friends in a party because most of the other players don't even use microphone to communicate with their squad, and those that do are just random players matched together.
Also popular Battle Royale games are cross platform which means you play against a lot of console players. A lot the console gamers play on high latency TV screens with WIFI connection. Not to mention that an average console player can't aim as good as an average PC player.
I'm fine with SBMM, and I'm top 10 TDM for one of the recent CoDs (casual/nonpro). I want to play against better people; it's really no fun to me to easily win games.
The main complaint I've seen re: SBMM comes from top level players, including creators, who don't want to sweat / they want to beat players who aren't as good as them. To me this means SBMM is absolutely needed. Unranked play shouldn't mean better players can crush those who aren't as good.
This isn't even considering the fact that creators rely on looking good play-wise for their income, and SBMM makes this harder.
As a non-good player, my main complaint with SBMM is that EVERY round feels like a sweatfest. I much preferred the "sometimes you eat the bear, sometimes the bear eats you" experience of other games.
Sometimes you want to have a good game and have that excitement of completely crushing it.
And many people prefer to not play games where they have to suffer through however long a match takes in a hopeless effort to maybe not lose _that_ much.
I would vastly prefer if every match I play makes me at least _feel_ like I have a chance to win if I try hard enough, than have a large percentage be obvious losses leading only to frustration and waste of time.
In dirty bomb there were three objectives per match and if you somehow stomped the other team on defense the match would end after 5 min ran out on the first objective. If you stomped the team on offense then it was possible to complete all objectives in 7 minutes or less. On the other hand if there was actually a stalemate then the match could last the whole 15 minutes. It's an "old" game though. It's officially shutdown but the servers are still running.
I don't play COD any more, last I played was Black Ops 2, but yeah, I liked the swing of the rounds.
Having some easier rounds also allowed me to goof off, like doing pistol or knife only rounds. Sure I didn't contribute as much to the team, but the team didn't need it and I had fun.
Having some more difficult rounds could make it more rewarding to win the next round.
But constantly having to play against similarly skilled players to me would totally not be what I'd be after.
I haven't experienced much of that; I either finish at the top of the board or at the top for my team and still lose, or I win the game. If I'm really feeling like I'm getting crushed, I'll start a party with other players I know are good, but I don't do that often. I typically prefer solo in public lobbies for the challenge and the variety.
agreed, this was the magic of #sourcescrim back in the day (if you played css). you might get five kids who just bought the game, or you might get rolled by some invite team.
SBMM with first party servers is definitely more accessible though. I'll grudgingly accept it if it means a larger playerbase and more active development for my favorite games.
Also, why would a "pro" want to sandbag like this? I've been an amateur athlete most of my life and my goal was never to compete against known weaker athletes - there's no fun in that.
Or, do these games lack the ability to spin up "practice" sessions fully under the control of the player? That seems like the real answer, and would mirror what athletes in meat-space do - train for weeks/months, then compete at well-timed intervals against the best (or, at least relatively equal, if you're doing age group amateur competitions).
Imagine you're a world class striker on your soccer team. You play against world class defenders and goalkeepers. It's exhausting because you have to play your top game, every time.
Now, one day you decide to try out goalkeeper. You get to face world class competition because of your status as a striker.
Two possible results:
1. You get discouraged and don't play the off positions. You only maximize. Maybe you get burned out because you never relax.
2. You do switch back and forth between things you are good/not good at. Your skill averages out and you play easy matches where you carry your team, alternated with impossible matches where you drag your team down.
I know a lot of pros will have secondary accounts for things like this. Sometimes it gets viewed as sandbagging (and sometimes it is).
This is why I asked about practice sessions. Any professional e-sport should have some means for a pro to practice without:
1- engaging in actual public game play
2- sandbagging against weaker competition
In your striker-wants-to-be-goalie situation, the wanna be goalie would practice against the clubs B team. He would not step into the WC as goalie. Nor would he shit up the local junior tournament while he tries things out.
Practice. You were talking about practice... I'm sure all the esports games have a practice. But that really only satisfies the situation where you have full teams available.
Also, a lot of pros make more money from playing the game without a team and streaming it on twitch or youtube.
Back to your striker... he can do all sorts of drills solo, but also needs practice time with his team. The former he can do at home (given a big enough yard). The later, he does at the clubhouse.
But, he isn't going around joining local pick-ups games. I'm still unclear why an e-sports player needs to the play the equiv of local pickup soccer matches. If the answer is "that's how he makes money" well, sandbagging a sport to earn money is a pretty silly way to make a living. That would be like Jordan paying his mortgage playing HORSE.
In online chess I have different ratings for bullet (up to 5 minutes per game), blitz (5-15 minutes), rapid (15-25) etc. I have also different ratings for chess variants (960 which has randomized start positions, crazy house which is a bit more like Japanese chess, etc.) Couldn't they do the same for MMO?
StarCraft 2 eventually introduced faction based MMR/rankings. It's likely easier in a game when you explicitly signal a different play style and the game then gives you different tools so can be sure you are doing something different.
I think the difference is "content creators", although they are high level players, are more putting on a show. Kind of like the Harlem Globetrotters instead of an NBA game.
Assuming it's something like an Elo rating you can always opt out of skill-based matchmaking and request a specific opponent skill; if you win you will not win any rating, if you lose you will lose a lot.
Content creators for chess also do "speed runs" from 1000 to 2500 Elo for example where they explain the mistakes and produce educational content while playing "easy" opponents. They don't do it just for the fun of owning people. CoD creators perhaps could do the same?
I can't seem to find the link, but one of the BEST resources for learning how to play Rocket League at a higher level was a Youtuber who streaming his smurf leveling up through ranked, and explaining strategies and mistakes through the process.
Yes. Winning in a game with two players/teams and one winner is by definition zero sum. You can't have some players win more without other players winning less. Asking for the difficulty of the game to be reduced for oneself fundamentally implies that you want the difficulty of the game to be increased for someone else. There is no other possibility.
The most hilarious thing is when people ask that there be a ranked playlist with sbmm and an unranked playlist without. The one without, they assume, would be more favorable to them, since they would experience a random distribution of players (and they assume they are above average, naturally). But for players in the bottom decile of skill, unranked would have a dramatically worse experience than ranked! So they would leave for the ranked playlist. Now the new bottom decile of skill would be having a terrible experience in unranked, so they would leave, etc. By induction, unranked would quickly become depopulated.
It is really tough to be a below-average player in a game without any matchmaking. You lose all the time and almost never have an impact. You can kiiinda get away with this as a developer in games that have very large teams. For example, World of Warships has no skill based matchmaking (although tier level is somewhat a proxy for skill and performs a bit of a weed-out of the lowest skill players in the higher tiers). There are people who play that game who have only a 30% winrate over a large number of games. This is in a 12v12 game where presumably things tend to average out in the mix of skills on each team, so having that negative of an impact on team performance is in some sense pretty impressive.
The only thing difficult for me to understand is the resilience of the mentality involved in continuing to play that game if you are one of the way below average players. I would not have fun if I never had a positive impact on my team's performance.
It's also worth noting that if WoWS had the playerbase to support it, they'd probably build SBMM too. But it's a bit of a chicken and egg problem. The issue is that their monetization system requires what is effectively forty or fifty different queues (5 tier-based matching bands * 4 ship classes * 2-2.2 game modes, depending on whether ranked is active). Queue times can already be quite extended in some tiers and for some ship ship classes. Developing a system that continues with this alignment of tiers and classes and also substantially reduces skill gaps is probably unsolvable without a much large player base or a more complicated role selection system.
I don't know about World of Warships but in Warthunder you can get a lot of kills without meaningfully contributing to your team. Kills are very enjoyable though.
> I don't know about World of Warships but in Warthunder you can get a lot of kills without meaningfully contributing to your team.
Its harder in World of Warships because of the absence of respawns. Each kill has a bigger direct impact on team win/loss probability than in War Thunder.
Meanwhile, many multiplayer games have neither skill-based matchmaking, nor a ban on premade groups playing against solo queue players.
I just can't grasp how any developer can seriously think a game can be enjoyable when you're on a team of arbitrary players but being matched against a premade team of players all of whom have 2,000+ hours logged in that game and are coordinating flawlessly.
In COD4, some servers ran tools which would autobalance the teams. So if you had a group of 3-5 which played together and the rest were randoms, the the other team could end up with a lot more players to compensate.
Was generally quite nice, except when you really wanted to play with your mate and the tool kept swapping you over because it didn't find any other way to balance the teams.
Not very many, these days. There are a handful, like Escape from Tarkov, that are super hardcore and have no matchmaking. It will probably never be more than a small niche game as a result, since any new player has to contend with an extremely rigorous onboarding process in which you are unlikely to have much success for dozens of hours until you get the hang of things.
I used to play Battlefield 2 competitively. After our official clan practises we'd roll into random pub servers to mess around. It usually only took ~6 of us to just dominate the server, and this is a game with (2) 64 players teams.
Rarely did we ever win though, usually we'd end up getting admin kicked for 'cheating'.
Matchmaking is always blamed for a basic issue with online multiplayer games: forming a team with complete strangers to complete an objective with little to no communication about strategy, or buy-in from everyone on the team.
I would argue that matchmaking could be perfect, and these complaints would not stop at all. The very idea of random online matchmaking is dumb. Fun, because it fills a need, but very dumb.
Ask any hardcore MMO player how they got to where they are, and if they are honest, it's because they started by teaming up with their already talented friends who actually worked as a team to grind up the ladder.
This is correct. It's a team game [requires communication], but nobody wants to play on a team with strangers. I think it's part of the reason for the popularity of battle royale games.
Me and my brother share the same gaming PC. I suck, he's pretty good at the game. So when it's my turn to play, I encounter though opponents and rank down, and when it's his turn to play, he completely obliterates the lower ranked players that I should have gotten instead. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Ignoring anything else -- bugs, bad implementation, etc -- an ideal matchmaking system should be matching people with equal skill, so you would expect to lose 50% of the time.
That's what is expected in the SC community - someone, Maru or sOs?, said that if they weren't losing regularly they weren't going to be learning anything.
I wonder why these complaints only seem to come from players of team-based games. I have never heard anyone call for an outright removal of skill-based matchmaking in 1v1 games like Starcraft or Super Smash Bros. Is it because the lack of teammates means you can only blame yourself for losing?
I've always wanted a metric for how well talent correlates to victory in a given game.
For me, Super Smash Brothers Melee is a great example. Let's say I'm rank 1,000 in my city, and I play someone rank 250. I expect to loose 99% of those games.
I can't say the same thing is true for Call of Duty. It may be perception bias, but I think there's a LOT more variance between skill and victory. What's the breakdown of expected to actual performance? Would it be a 90% win rate, etc?
Oh, absolutely. I'm actually pretty sure I can count on one hand the amount times I've seen any of my friends / clan mates who consistently play pvp modes blame themselves for a loss. They are very quick to assert that they're "carrying" when they win, though.
I have seen some of their recordings, the difference in performance between them and their teammate is much lower than they think.
I just wish the matchmaking was biased to be limited by ping/region. Too many times I finally do well in one game just to get slaughtered the next when the matchmaking moves me to another significantly slower server. Filtering team making by language would be nice too.
This article is hard for me to follow. Basically, players were happy to lose when they thought it could be due to people being better than them, but aren't happy to lose when it's someone who's at their skill level playing.... better than them?
It was most apparent in Fortnite because Fortnite added a competitive ("arena") mode, which is by definition SBMM. The problem a lot of creators had was what was the point in unranked mode ALSO having SBMM? I'm sympathetic to that argument.
Forcing SBMM in all cases just seems like it's meant to protect n00bs from getting crapped on but isn't this coddling players? There's something aspirational about playing better players, no? Also, "smurfing" (creating a new account to play against n00bs) largely defeats this anyway.
If n00bs wanted to play against only other n00bs couldn't they play in ranked mode where that would happen?
More relaxed modes tend to be better viewing. That's actually good for the game IMHO if streaming it has longevity and audience retention.
> Forcing SBMM in all cases just seems like it's meant to protect n00bs from getting crapped on but isn't this coddling players?
Most people want to have fun when they play. Players consistently getting curbstomped and having no reliable avenue for improvement is a good way to create a game with terrible player retention. People don't stay around to suffer through game after game just because they really like ninja.
"Ranked" implies a competitive, high-stakes mode, which drives people who want a relaxed game (i.e. one where they _won't_ repeatedly get curbstomped) to naturally gravitate away from a game described as such. You may think that's stupid, but you can't really fight basic human psychology.
Before the introduction of ranking and bots you could spend a few minutes queuing up for a game, get killed in seconds, and repeat ad infinitum. That's not aspirational.
I cringe every time I hear the phrase, "Why would they voting that way. They're voting against their own self interest." Personally I think we need more people voting against their own self interest.
Voting against one's self interest doesn't mean you're voting for the good of the world. The often intended meaning of that statement is that you, as a lower class individual, are unwittingly empowering the upper class and exacerbating societal problems, and often implied that you don't realize you're doing this.
On a scale of one to ten, how condescending do you think this is?
At some point the left needs to start treating people as people instead of pawns to be shuffled around. Combine this with the "with us or against us" mentality, and they generate their own opposition.
About as condescending as someone deserves if they're pro Affordable Care Act, but anti-Obamacare. The average voter, on both sides, doesn't understand issues at a basic level, let alone hold a rational perspective of the nuances of their outcomes. Most issues, unlike the obamacare/aca juxtaposition, have a way to justify taking either side of the issue from a conservative or liberal framework. That doesn't mean constituents on either side are thinking about it that way.
Saying someone is voting against their own stated interests isn't likely to be persuasive to them, but it doesn't make it factually false. Most people don't really know what their political interests are anyway and just react to strawmen.
If that's the implication, then I think the implication is wrong. It's not like they don't know they are voting to cut entitlements and lower taxes on the wealthy.
SBMM is fine and has been around for more than a decade now (probably longer).
The problem being discussed widely today is that developers have a dark incentive for players to lose when purchaseable lootboxes are present. SBMM is just one (and fairly benign) tool developers use to lower players winrate.
>The problem being discussed widely today is that developers have a dark incentive for players to lose when purchasable lootboxes are present.
While this could've held true a few years ago for CoD franchise, I know for a fact that neither last year's CoD installment nor the most recent one discussed in this article (Black Ops: Cold War) has any sort of lootbox mechanics.
Instead, the SBMM in CoD matches you with a bunch of players who are far worse than you for a game or two. Then, it matches you with a bunch of players who are far better than you for a game or two, and this cycle continues over and over again. This means that you will do really well for a game or two, and then get destroyed for a game or two. Eventually, this averages out to the target of every player having around a 1.0 kill/death ratio.
In theory, SBMM is supposed to help lower-skilled players, but the implementation in CoD is so bad it is more of a roller coaster than a bunch of matches against similarly-skilled players.