For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki
Rules:
As a casual who didn't start playing shooter games until late, if it wasn't for SBMM I wouldn't be playing them at all.
The real evil is engagement based matchmaking. I don't want to beat players even newer than me every time I haven't won in 20 games, and I certainly don't want to be steamrolled by players who have been playing their whole lives when the same happens to them.
Yep, neither one is fun. I run into this issue with some mobile games - the matching algo is sometimes ludicrous - like 25% of either team gone in the opening moments.
Obviously, the arguments people make against it don’t even make sense
i want easy games, i don’t want people as good as me in the lobbies
then just tank
but I have to tryhard
"I want a non-consensual power fantasy."
"I want to have fun at someone else's expense. I want them to have an absolutely miserable time and for me to be the one who's making it happen. I'm a bully, you see"
How about dedicated servers where users can play against the same people for more than 1 or 2 matches and get better without randos smurfing and griefing?
SBMM should be an option but not the only one. Actiblizz can kick fuckin rocks.
Why do people hate sbmm? If people had the choice they would always pick the: 10 year olds with a begative k/d option.
I wouldn't...I like the struggle. It's only fun to dominate when it feels earned, I want to feel like I'm playing at my best more than anything
A lot of the problems I used to have with SBMM when I would still actually play CoD is that you’d have one good game and then next thing you know you’re playing the next couples matches with people who absolutely mollywhomp you into the dirt with ease.
It just wasn’t fun and felt like it was actively punishing you for playing good one time.
That sounds like it's correcting too aggressively. Perhaps it should take into account the last three matches before adjusting your ranking.
TL;DR: it felt like there was no 'casual' mode
I would run into an issue where I would use 1 meta load out and would hold around a 1.0 k/d, but if I ever wanted to experiment and try some other guns or unlock some new attachments I would get absolutely shredded. I would do this for a few matches, unlock whatever I was trying to unlock, and then switch back to my most efficient load out and absolutely shred the lobby I was playing in for a few games until I averaged back to a 1.0 k/d.
I felt like the only multiplayer option was 'competitive' and I couldn't really experiment with things without getting my shit pushed in.
For an IRL comparison: I play pickleball from time to time and if I casually play someone at or slightly below my skill level I can experiment a little (try landing shots in different places, work on forehand vs. backhand, etc.), but if I play in a competitive tournament and go up against a pro they will absolutely kick my ass in record time (and that's okay lol).
if I play in a competitive tournament and go up against a pro
There are pickleball "pros"? Lol. Maybe that's why it's cheap to get tennis lessons now.
If you're retired and in Florida there's a whole competitive scene! My buddy's parents got us into the game 2 years ago before they moved to the villages. They came back to visit a few months ago and I was VERY humbled .
Maybe that's why it's cheap to get tennis lessons now.
Just gotta hope they aren't stealing your tennis court to play pickleball! Lol
I personally don't hate SBMM, but I hate that it is the only option in modern competitive games. When I want to sweat, SBMM is great.
But sometimes, I want to goof off with other people. I want the option to play de_westwood pistol/shotgun only server again if I so choose.
I want a little bit of control in my gameplay experience. Nowadays, it's either ultra try hard or people not giving a shit mode, nothing in between.
This is why I left Overwatch, they watered down the matchmaking so hard that it’s just random MM today.
It's actually ridiculous. In like gold all the way up to the end of plat you get so many people who clearly don't belong in that rank. Some play like bronze, some play like diamond, keeping each other from falling or rising.
Browsing through the PDF, I'm getting the vibe that their way of measuring "skill" is weird. They claim to use multiple methods of measuring, they list a few obvious ones that they've found to be bad, but they don't say which ones they are using because "we are constantly iterating on our performance metrics to optimize the player experience per game-mode".
Elo-like systems tend to adjust skill based on the chance of winning current match X win/loss, but they're not (just) doing that. I wonder if they have a few weird metrics that look good on paper/in the lab but don't feel good in play.
This might be a relevant starting point for you: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/trueskill-2-improved-bayesian-skill-rating-system/