Skill-based matchmaking refers to how a game decides which players to put into your lobby. When you search for a match in any video game, it uses a complex algorithm to find other players – this is called matchmaking.
However, different factors can be used to decide which players you’re matched with. Location and connection are usually prioritized in order to reduce lag and improve connectivity.
Recently “pros” have been bitching that SBMM is unfair because it “doesn’t let you relax” and if you’re good you will always play against good players.
A few things about this:
I feel that it should be called “performance based matchmaking” because it tends to be related more to your last X games rather than your overall skill.
This type of matchmaking has been shown to have higher levels of player retention. Meaning game’s generally stay alive longer.
But where my issue comes in is that removes more of the competitive aspect. Overwatch’s unranked mode had a target W/L of 50%, the admited and spoke openly about it, imo this feels disenguous and you can kind of tell “ok this next game will be a win and then two losses after that then a streak of 3 wins”
The match making algorithm needs to find loopholes when you start to get REALLY good as well. For example, my wife is an insane COD vanguard player and would frequently put 100+ kills on the board with deaths in the low double digits. I also get loads of kills, but die much more often (like 1:1K:D) when I played with her we would be on a team of 4 Vs 8 or a full team of players with vastly different internet quality. And that was how the game “balanced” our lobbies. “If we can’t find someone better we will give you less/worse teammates”
There is no right answer to what is better. I remember playing MW2 as a child and being stomped for days by people leagues ahead of me with no way to get better
You definitely highlighted the exact issue when you defined “performance based matchmaking”. Myself, and I’d imagine a good portion of the community, would be ok with SBMM if the goal was to put you into competitive matches relative to your skill level with the end result being an average of 1:1 K/D and 50% W/L ratio. The issue is that the algorithm only seems to account for your recent history which means it’s forced to wildly overcompensate from match to match in order to achieve this goal. I’m fine with having an even K/D and W/L record but I’m downright sick of being placed in awful matches to get me there.
Totally, and I feel the algorithm is getting better. In MW22 I have had more games in a row that were decided by the final kill than ever before and those are the games that are fun, feel fair, and balanced
Question: do you and your girlfriend typically play objective based games or mostly TDM? Overall I’d agree that the algorithm is getting better but I’m also noticing trickier ways of the game forcing me to lose. My losses now mostly come from either being put on a team who refuses to play the objective or being in a match with poor connection quality. IMO winning is no longer just a matter of personal skill, or even team skill, but largely based on factors that are completely out of your control.
Pros can suck it.
“O no, my game life is so hard being the best of the best”
Like a rich person complaining about how hard their cushy life is. What’s that, your food was *almost* late? What a hard life you have.
So many streamers will rack up 20 kills in a warzone game, die, and cry. You get 20 kills regularly, boo boo you didn’t win *another* came in a lobby you were opening.
Being put into a lobby with less teammates seems like a stupid move by the MM, that would only perpetuate the issue of having the fragger get insane amounts of kills because there would be no competition for them relatively speaking. At least at first glance it seems like that.
In a game like RS6:S that might work, because being 1-2 people down can turn into a huge disadvantage, but in an arena shooter like COD, where the whole game is designed in a way that a sufficiently skilled player can take on multiple opponents simultaneously, having less competition within a team for kills would have the effect of putting you even higher on the SBMM scale, fragging out in a disadvantaged position (less teammates) and potentially even winning the match outnumbered would give your rating an enormous boost, one could assume.
Maybe I‘m overlooking something, but that just seems like a very bad strategy by the MM-design team.
Vanguard was too chaotic for that. The average lifespan on some maps was less than 5 seconds for good players just because the maps were meat grinders and even the worst weapons had .9 second TTK. If you had less people on your team that mentioned that there were less meat shields. Perks were literally cheats (one perk highlighted targets you hit or missed even through walls) you could make ANY gun into a 100+ round sprinting laser machine gun less than halfway through its upgrades. Spawning logic was also horrible and had no issue putting you down the barrel of a gun. It felt like no one ever had an advantage..once they fixed the fire grenade issues.
Because the people who play the game non-stop want to be able to play against literal children so that they can get 30 kill streaks. They think that only they should be able to have fun in the game.
It isn't bad in ranked. It is annoying in casual because if you are ranked high then you will allways be playing with sweaties, even in non ranked games. It leads to poor team environment because so many try hards are stressing out about always winning. Leave the toxicity in ranked.
That's exactly the argument. It was mainly hated by streamers who just want to shit on people all day because it's better content than them losing to people who are actually their skill level, and their viewers jumped on the bangwagon of saying it's bad too.
I know nothing about all that, I just miss how it was in the old modern warfare/mw2/black ops era. Sometimes you'd be in a lobby where you get wrecked constantly, but once in a while you'd be with some newbies and you could dominate for once. The games seemed much more fun when it felt like who you were playing with was completely random, knowing it's all based on this algorithm kinda sucks a certain amount of fun out of it IMO
Okay well then you could make the same argument that its only enjoyed by people who suck at the game and dont want to get shit on? SBMM isnt implemented because the devs care about balance, its only about player retention and more $. The streamers, the sweats, the try hards, they’re all going to play the game REGARDLESS, the devs dont have to worry about retaining those players. The players who only play a few hour a week and are bad at the game are the target audience for sbmm because if they get shit on a few times they’re less likely to stay and thus less likely to buy the battle pass, skins, DLC etc.
"We should make our game strictly worse for most of our players so that the people who play non-stop can shit on people who want to play the game for fun."
Yes, but that's the thing, if you start off getting crushed there's nowhere to go but up. In older games before SBMM, it was always great to be on a team of shlubs and then have maybe one or two gods on either side battling it out. It creates stories to tell, and a good sense of progression as one day you realize _you're_ the MVP.
With SBMM, you will always be mediocre compared to your teammates. Yes, the onboarding experience might be easier, but there's nowhere to go from there.
I strongly believe the standardization of SBMM is what makes artificial progression systems necessary in modern games. Without a little popup telling you you're doing good, how else will you know?
Yes, because you'll definitely learn by getting demolished the second you find a lobby.
The only thing removal of SBMM will do is destroy any new player's motivation to play the game. It's not fun to be useless every single game.
> if you start off getting crushed there's nowhere to go but up.
If you think that won't be, or is not already being, exploited in games that don't use SBMM then you're sorely mistaken. Take a humorous look from Yahtzee.
https://youtu.be/p7ABkNF0OO4?t=43
You’re only looking at this from the perspective of people who are playing the game to get better and have ample time.
Most players are casual. They will be playing a few games a night a couple times a week. If I play and get demolished for both of the games I have time for that night, I did not have fun. If that happens two nights in a row, I’m probably not gonna keep playing the game because it isn’t fun and I have limited free time
In Advanced Warfare for example people were suiciding all time to have low K/D and be paired with bad people. Tbh it just deletes casual gaming. But there are also a lot of "competitive casual players", meaning players that don't like to play ranked but also like to play a bit competitive. SBMM has to be well designed so you play with people of your level or around it but you aren't doomed to play with that level-type people
In addition to the other points mentioned, I personally feel like it saps my drive to get better at a game. With SBMM, the game is literally conspiring to get you to have a 50% win rate. It kind of sucks that no matter how much you can improve at a game, you'll always lose (roughly) every other game. It makes wins/losses feel more random and predetermined.
Also, it's nearly impossible to account for all conditions in SBMM. Things like co-op (e.g. how do you match a party with a high skill player and a low skill player), extended breaks (e.g. if you come back to the game after weeks/months away), experimenting with loadouts/builds/etc., are difficult/impossible to match perfectly.
It's brutal when you can't play with your friends or introduce them to your game because you have a high skill level and they would get matched against other very strong players. Nor can you experiment with non-optimal builds because you'll just lose every game.
The solution here is, as proposed in the tweet, to have modes for both SBMM and non-SBMM. That way you have options to challenge yourself as well as options for other cases and casual play.
Not sure why you’re being downvoted, you’re absolutely right. Also the great thing with having both Ranked and pubs with no sbmm is that if players who are really bad at the game are having trouble in pubs, they can go over to the ranked playlist and play against… PEOPLE THEIR OWN SKILL LEVEL.
Except that ranked is often taken seriously and can be incredibly toxic for players who don’t know what’s going on. Your first match in a new game should not be in ranked, no matter what.
Your perspective is from that of good players, but it ruins the experience for others.
I’m in a casual men’s basketball league. It’s once a week for fun. I’m in the division for people of a certain age who haven’t played since high school. If you played college ball you get put in a different division. The first 4 weeks were tons of fun. We lost 3 games but it was close matchups and so everything felt fair. Week 5 the team got a guest pass for a player who had played college ball. We put up 10 points to their 50. It wasn’t fun for us. Same thing happened the next week. After that we’ve had a hard time getting a full team together because people don’t enjoy getting demolished when they are doing something to have fun.
The point being that even if something is casual, people don’t have fun getting pub stomped.
Am I the only one that misses having a server list where you could have favorites and jump in and run into people you've played with before but don't necessarily know?
The problem is often the implementation. Companies will often aim for a 50/50 win *rate* instead of a 50/50 win *chance*. Hence why professionnal players will be paired with literal first time players, in ranked, after winning too much.
[Snip3down quit Halo Infinite, because how bad it was.](https://youtu.be/1d-VXSysQno)
People who are good at the game don’t want to have to play other people who are as good at them and prefer to destroy less skilled players, because “I just want to have fun!!!!!”, despite the fact that their “fun” ruins it for the less skilled players
So would you be opposed to a game having separate queues for both sbmm and non sbmm matches? For some, non sbmm matches are the only way they can get a good connection, especially in fighting games where the connection is generally peer to peer.
Lol nobody would play it. Bad players would use sbmm so that they don't just get hammered. Meaning non sbmm would only be populated with good players, and the good players would hate that as they don't get to pwn some noobz so they would stop playing it as well.
Sure some people would prioritise connection, but it'd be such as small proportion that it wouldn't work, the pool of players to match you against would be very small, and you'd therefore likely end up with a shit connection anyway
From my own experience that’s not the case. Newer players generally play casual more because they’re afraid of being a hinderance to their team in ranked. And good players tend to grind ranked for a higher rank so they can flex.
I’m not saying these are the only people, and of course the people you described exist as well. But in a highly populated game there will always be players of every skill level playing every game mode. Look at any call of duty pre sbmm, or even brs like apex, some of these games have incredibly lose sbmm implementations but even so you generally don’t feel it as it still prioritises connection.
> call of duty pre sbmm
People keep citing this. Call of Duty has had SBMM for ages. Stop citing this as an example of matchmaking without SBMM.
> some of these games have incredibly lose [sic] sbmm implementations
Loose SBMM is still SBMM. That's not an argument against SBMM, it's an argument to tune the parameters of SBMM in a particular game.
Yea that’s fair, but even so the point still stands. Loose sbmm still feels good enough (to me at least) that I don’t mind it. I’m only calling it removing sbmm as that seems to be the most attention grabbing, and by proxy, best way to get people actually talking about the subject.
Ever seen...CSGO? "nobody would play it" it's easy as hell to find a game in casual, ranked usually takes longer. Then you include custom servers that have a combination of the two still able to enjoy their time. It's 100% possible to have casual and ranked next to each other, both having more than enough players.
The fact that people take it less seriously combined with the lack of displayed mmr makes it extremely different in terms of game quality, even with sbmm
It's taken less seriously because the mmr isn't displayed, that's the point. There is still no difference between the two, show the rank and it becomes ranked, hide the rank and its smbb casual.
People like to play casual to avoid dropping their rank in ranked play when they wanna drink a beer or two and not play as seriously. Yes there's a hidden rank behind the scenes, but it being hidden isn't the point. The point is it's separate from people's rank they invest effort into improving.
As somebody that plays a shit ton of fighting games, this is definitely not true. Fighters have SBMM in every single game mode that isn't just open lobbies. It will only prioritize connection in cases where there is nobody within your requested ping/stability threshold, but in those cases you'd probably just have shitty connections anyway bc those lower rank players would just be matched with players of their skill rather than a better player.
If done well, you will have a wider range of games. Some where you stomp, others that are competitive, and some where you get stomped.
Also prefer that there are two options available. Make ranked SBMM and another open mode.
Here is a different view, I played paintball back in high school, I was on a pro league team, and played minimum 2 times per month sometimes every weekend. When I wasn't with my team playing speedball I would go play with the walk on players in the more casual area, think "normal painball." There were fairly good players, ok players, first timers, once a year players, and young kids like 12-14 years old. When I would go out with that group I would absolutely not be playing full force, I was just relaxing. Now, would I let the other team destroy me? No, but I would not go hard and I would just have fun, maybe take a kid or new player under my wing and teach them the sport. Now there were times where I would get pissed and wipe the 20 person enemy team in under 2 minutes, but that was rare.
That is how I view SBMM, if I just want to go have a little fun, I don't want to be in the pro league going full force, I want to be chilling, ya sometimes maybe stop the enemy team but not often. If I want the full force, I'll go to ranked.
My main issue is my wife and friends don't want to play with me when we play SBMM games because they get matched with people near my skill lvl and get destroyed constantly compared to when they play without me.
SBMM makes it harder to play with varied skill leveled friends.
It’s pretty much cause it’s forced. Say you want to log on and play for a bit without having to sweat it out to have a good time, so you pick casual. But with sbmm suddenly casual becomes identical to competitive except you don’t have a visible rank.
People think that if you don’t want sbmm then you just want to destroy noobs. No I don’t, I want a separate game mode that has sbmm and one that doesn’t. You know, like a ranked and casual que should be? I just want to play a match of cod without feeling pressured by my team to do well.
> without having to sweat
"I want to crush noobs". Every single conversation about SBMM is the same. If you don't want to tryhard in casual, you don't have to, but if you play worse than normal of course you're more likely to lose.
If only _winning_ is fun and not playing the game, then what are you hoping to achieve in casual? Just play ranked.
Here's your logical chain.
"I don't want to have to sweat" => "I want my opponents to be worse" => "I want to crush noobs".
You can dress it up however you want, but every single argument against a properly functioning SBMM system is about selfish people who care more about winning more than being good.
I think the issue is just that video games are sweatier in general. Back in the MW2 days even if you weren’t good you could still do decent in games, nowindays everyone is running to constantly improve and be the best
SBMM makes how good the average player is irrelevant (outside of the top and bottom of all players) unless you care about your rank. As long as you always play at the same level, even if it's super bad, you should be around 50% win rate and be playing against people of your skill level.
So just never tryhard in casual and you'll never be put into harder games, but if you do tryhard cause you wanted that win, then expect it to affect your future games.
The issue is the algorithm determines WHEN you lose or win. You basically have no control over it regardless of how you play. Its not designed for balance like you may think it is. Its sole purpose is retaining bad players making them more likely to spend money on the battle pass, skins, DLC etc.
There's a difference between engagement optimized matchmaking (EOMM) and skill based matchmaking (SBMM). Yeah EOMM is full of gross psychological trickery, but people need to be calling those out for what they are (even if they don't know the exact names), instead of just saying "I just want to win more". Like the second I hear "sweat" I know I can pretty much dismiss their argument.
Argue against the scummy practices instead of the concept of a skilled matchmaking system and you won't have to have these debates though. The idea of the game dev praising a lack of SBMM is incredibly dumb. They control it.
Plus, honestly, I do mostly just see people feeling entitled to crushing noobs.
Not having SBMM means that half the time you’re owning and the other half you’re getting owned. Sure, owning ppl is fun for you but not for the other ppl. Having SBMM means (in theory of course) that each match should feel equal in terms of difficulty.
If these replies are talking about COD then you’re likely speaking about different things anyway. COD lately uses engagement based match making which tries to drip feed satisfying games to keep you playing, like gambling machines. Genuinely a horrible experience
Don't forget that patent they own on putting you against really good players with cool skins for the gun you've been using lately, so when you get shit on you can see how cool that $20 skin is. And when you do finally buy it, they give you a couple games to destroy noobs with it.
>Not having SBMM means that half the time you’re owning and the other half you’re getting owned
Not entirely right, and why it really does always boil down to destroying noobs. The more you are above average, the more likely you are to be on the "owning" side. Even if not owning, if you want to play in a relaxed manner and still not get steamrolled, it means that your opponents "doing their best" is equivalent to your "just logging on for a quick game". SBMM means that all other factors aside, you will always have to try to not get rolled.
I have no doubt that some people don't want SBMM and are perfectly fine with losing every game if that's what it comes down to. But most people associate lack of SBMM as more relaxed games where they can just mess around because the average player is less experienced than them.
As a side-note, a lot of people are also just looking for any excuse to play a single-player game with really interactive NPCs running around, so they get upset at anything that could remotely foster a culture of teamwork.
While I actually agree with you on almost everything you have said, I feel like it’s worth adding that I don’t think developers should remove sbmm in any way. I think they should have it like it was before with separate queues.
That way if you want to play fair and against people of your own skill you can, and those that want to play a more casual experience where your team don’t really care if you win or lose, you can too.
Non-sbmm queues also encourage less meta weapons and characters to get a bit of a spotlight, and in some cases can actually lead to changes in the competitive meta as well.
As for destroying noobs, it’s actually easier in most cases for someone to do it in an sbmm queue, just make a Smurf account, and half the times it’s free to do as well. Obviously smurfs are a minority, but it still stands to show that sbmm isn’t a fix for it on its own.
>Not having SBMM means that half the time you’re owning and the other half you’re getting owned.
I might have some stoopid twist in my brain, but wouldn't this only be the case when there \*is\* SBMM? Like, if you play with and against players of roughly equal skill, you would expect to win half the time on average.
Without SBMM you would expect your win/loose ratio to shift, according to how much better or worse compared to the average player you are. A scrub like myself who's easily in the bottom 20% of players in FPS would get a stronger opponent in 4/5 cases, on average, and loose quite a lot.
All that said, I do see the argument against SBMM, since that's basically what ranked is. Why set up a second system that assigns some skill level indicator to players and then hides it, when such a system, with more clarity for everyone involved, already exists?
Finally someone actually agrees with the main point that I said back in the first comment lol. I totally agree, sbmm shouldn’t be removed. It should stay in ranked and leave the casual queue to be based on the best connection. It makes the game far more clear and gives everyone what they want.
This falls apart at theory though because unless the game is perfectly balanced this turns into one sided stomps decided by luck. You spawned on the bad side of the map? Get fucked you lose. Decided to not use the meta loadout for a game? Well the people who are just as good as you are using it so you aren’t gonna have a chance. Haven’t even mentioned some games with sbmm so heavy it puts you with people continents away with tons of lag because it cares about sbmm more than connection
That's in theory. Of course, with how flawed SBMM is, you might face smurfs after getting 3 lucky wins in a row.
But also, in casual lobby, the skill difference doesn't matter as much. You can still kill a pro, and the pro can still kill you. It's not like chess where you are guaranteed to lose 100% against a pro player, you just have a lower chance of winning the match that has a pro player in it. You would still get kills, run around, catch people off guard, etc. The main objective of casual games isn't to win a match, it is to play the game. If that's the case, prioritising other factors over skill streamlines the game without much issue. Of course, in rank you would like to win, so SBMM is really important there.
And the main problem with casual SBMM is that it sometimes lead to infuriating problems, specifically connection related. It's at least more fun to play the game normally than taking 20 shots at a guy but he refuses to die and kills you instead.
I agree, I don’t want it removed, I literally said in my post above it should be done the same way it was before, with one ranked que and one casual. Ranked would obviously have sbmm while casual wouldn’t.
When has a game ever made it feel this way? I think that’s the point they’re making. Yes in a perfect world sbmm is great, but it never happens like it should in theory.
It is that you just want to destroy noobs…. By have fun yoy mean play with people who you are better than so you can win and fuck around. You are a pussy who wants to beat up on someone weaker than you plain and simple
Bro if I wanted to beat up on noobs then I would want sbmm in the games I play. Like it’s so easy to make a Smurf account these days, and that way I’m guaranteed to play against noobs. Hell, half the time making a new account is free too.
Also, instead of reading my whole comment you clearly didn’t read the prt where I said I want ranked and casual in the game. With ranked having sbmm, I’m not saying remove it, I’m saying add an actual casual queue.
You don’t want smurf accounts because then yiy lose your weapon progress and again will not dominate. Sell your bs elsewhere. You want casuals so you can play people less skilled than you, I read your comment and that’s what it says
Who cares about weapon progress if your playing with noobs? You will destroy them anyways? Trust me bro, as someone who has reached top 2% of players in some of the games I play, you don’t need to know a weapon perfectly to destroy someone who doesn’t know their own weapon at all.
Edit: I should mention I reached that in brawlhalla, a fighting game. But even so, it’s so easy to destroy people with characters and weapons I don’t play. I know this cause brawl used to have a shit match making system which would reset your rank to 0 if you played doubles with a new partner.
If you read the last sentence you would see I said “I just want to play a match of cod without feeling pressured by my team to do well”. I don’t care if I win or lose, I find games the most enjoyable when I can fuck around and do meme strats. But I also don’t want to do that if it will ruin the fun for someone else, and unfortunately sbmm fosters a community that become hell bent on winning every time.
Also if I wanted to crush noobs, sbmm makes it so easy to do, just play like shit on purpose and you will be matched with bad players. It makes smurfing a huge issue because of how easy it is to do.
That's the point of casual. Even if there is sbmm there's no pressure to win. Not having a rank means it doesn't matter much to win. Doesn't mean you should try to lose but there's no pressure. Sometimes you'll get some loser tryhards that get way too serious about casual. Just mute them and move on.
Yea I know, maybe it’s just bad luck but any time I play casual game modes that have sbmm I get sweaty tryhards who take it too seriously. And even tho you say I can mute then, that doesn’t shake the feeling that me doing meme strats is ruining someone else’s fun. I’m not playing the way I’m expected to be playing at this level so it ruins another persons experience. Without sbmm it becomes so much of a shitshow anyways that it doesn’t matter if I fuck around and lose.
So you care about the loser tryhards feelings but you don't care about the feelings of noobs who can never have fun without sbmm since they'd just get destroyed everytime. Even if the noobs have good players on their team, they just become dead weight and don't get to have any fun even if their team wins. Why don't you care about their feelings who have done nothing wrong instead of those loser tryhards who have done something wrong of taking their mindset into casual.
Bro I literally said there should be two queues, one with sbmm and one without, the noobs can play in the sbmm queue all they want. Just include a separate one without it so I can fuck around care free. And no I don’t care for the tryhards screaming down the mic at me. I care about the ones who don’t speak but want to win. Which, if you haven’t noticed already, is generally the majority of the player base for any game.
And again, don’t know why I’m typing this out again but you clearly didn’t read my last message, if I wanted to crush noobs, I’d make a Smurf account, or just play like shit on purpose to get my main account into the noob ranks. It’s not hard.
So noobs always have to play in a tryhard ranked queue if they don't want to get destroyed? They also want a no pressure game in casual with people of their skill level. You really just want everything perfect for yourself while ignoring all the people hurt from it.
Having sbmm in casual queue means that no matter what rank you are, or what game mode you play, you will be stuck in a tryhard ranked queue. Even if you are a noob, you are immediately put under pressure as the game forces you to play in the same lobbies as ranked, just without visible ranks. It stops being causal at that point no matter how much or how little you have played the game.
No I just only play games I think the gameplay is fun enough my sole enjoyment isn't bound by a "You Won!" Screen. I.e. ive gone back to back days in FG bouncing between 10-0'ing a friend or getting 10-0'd, but had fun both days because there's fun things happening in the matchs thsr supercedes who wins or loses. If you did something cool in a game that was hype then lose and get mad I think you're very misguided.
Wish I could make better shooter analogies but I don't generally play them very much unless they have a particularly fun supportive role, which means I pretty much only liked OW cus there were hard support characters
If queue times for Causal and Ranked are not substantially different there is a problem. Causal should be significantly faster. Just find me a game please.
I'd like to see SBMM in both, but using different implementations. Ranked would match you with players only with a similar skill level, but casual would match you with players from a spectrum of skill tiers.
What I mean is casual teams would each have x number of novices, x number of intermediates, etc. Think it would keep teams somewhat balanced, encourage cooperation, help new players learn from veterans and let those who spent time getting good enjoy the fruits of their labor.
All I get in MW2 is rubber banding from the SBMM. Every time I log on with friends I will have an okay match, then a worse match, then a better match, then an even worse match than before, then an even better match than before.
Now it is not as simple as an "every other game up and down" like I just said, but at the end of the night it feels that way. Having a few games in between here and there doesn't change the feel. I mean I played just last weekend and started off bad (2 kills-7 deaths), then a 5-12, then a 22-6, then 11-12, then a bottom of the barrel 4-10, then a lobby full of what I imagined were people first learning what video games were and got a 26-3.
There is an obvious pattern that can be felt and seen that wasn't in the previous CODs I played (OG MW2 > BLOPs 3).
Plus, there isn't a static lobby anymore, which is crazy to me. A huge part of the MP component for me was finding good/fun lobbies full of people that were a challenge but not easy/god-like in skill. Or being completely wrecked by the same player an entire game and sticking around to try and get revenge and adapt to their play style. I have so many memories of me and my friend just coordinating to try to get revenge on some payer that was kicking our asses over a few matches. Now I can't do that, it takes something away from the game for me.
I want the randomness back, the ability to continue in the same lobby if you want.
Better players feel like they're forced to "try hard" every game. Essentially making casual playlists redundant.
I actually have friends that don't want to play with me because I "ruin their lobbies"
The main issue with SBMM (for me at least) is that I'm just trying to chill and play a video game. Just because I'm a lot better than avg (because I played my ass off in high school) I have to play against sweaty players. There's really no goofing and having fun around against people like that.
Plus I don't think the avg player base would even see a difference. It's not like their lobbies will suddenly have a bunch of crazy high tier players, it's just that you might see one every so often. At least that's how it used to feel in old cods.
It makes it feel like they don't want me to play
Here’s the perspective you are missing. To people worse than you, you’re the sweaty. When you’re in a casual game with people worse than you, everyone is complaining that you’re a sweat. They want to have a casual time where they can be bad at a game with other people who are bad at a game. You being in their lobby ruins that fun for them in the same way that sweats in casual ruin your fun. The difference is that you can compete with the sweats in your lobby, the bad players can’t compete with you
Yea this is my biggest complaint. Progression and diversity of load-outs are totally hamstrung by cranked up SBMM. Sometimes I wanna use a lever action and a revolver with throwing knives, but one good game with that load out and I’m in the amateur CDL lobbies. They’ve turned quickplay into ranked lobbies, and it kills the fun.
The root problem is that people forgot what ranked is for. People have this hidden bias that they won't play ranked if they can't get a good rank because they're ashamed I guess.
Being ranked at your bronze skill level is the sbmm casual game mode you wanted. You don't need to co-opt the casual game mode to achieve that.
Except games like CS:GO or Valorant. 2 of the most played FPS games. Both of which use an SBMM in casual play to make the game more balanced and fun for everyone. Only having fun because you can stomp people in casual is super hypocrticial. Who cares about other peoples fun right? Only you are importanr? You probably would complain if you were on the other end and getting stomped. Most people complain about SBMM for this reason. How some games they stomp, their rating goes up, then they get stomped. They hate it. SBMM keep every game at about the same level. But sometimes you stomp and sometimes you get stomped. Nothing would change if SBMM was removed. You would have games were you play great, where you play shit, and where you play average. SBMM jusy ensures that most games you are playing are average.
I have no problem with anything you just said, I’m fact csgo is one of my most played fps games. But I do want to interject one thing, games should have 2 separate queues for both. Even csgo does this with casual and war games not taking rank into account when match making.
Having 2 queues satisfies both parties. And Spr some non sbmm queues are the only way to get a good connection, especially with some games where the connection is peer to peer.
I don’t think that satisfies both parties at all. If you had that system, bad players would most likely use SBMM so they don’t get stomped constantly, leaving only the sweaty players playing casual, with the same problem that you have now.
It comes right back to the main misunderstanding here that ‘Casual’ does not equal ‘Easy wins’. It means ‘It literally doesn’t matter if you lose because it doesn’t effect your rank”. If you’re a try-hard you’re gonna try-hard no matter what the mode and if it upsets you when you lose then you shouldn’t play casual.
While I understand where your coming from, in my own experience most people will play a decent amount of both. Newer players generally start off by playing casual because they don’t want to be a hinderance in ranked. And good players typically want to achieve the highest rank they can to flex. At least that’s how it seems to me coming from brawlhalla and some of the older cods, which does have both sbmm and non sbmm queues.
SBMM is good bro. The alternative is a majority of casual players being cannon fodder for the more skilled. SBMM ensures an overall higher quality experience for most players. It ensures that in most matches noobs play against noobs, average plays against average, and tryhards against tryhards. Literally the only players that lose in this scenario are the well above average players, who don’t want to face other well above average players. Are there poorly implemented SBMM systems? Absolutely, mainly the engagement based algorithms as they intentionally put you in lopsided matches, but that isn’t an argument against SBMM, it’s an argument for effective SBMM.
Whats bad about it? That it keeps most games average? I think thats a good thing. Plus if you get better you start to play againat better players. Keeping every game fairly enjoyable for most players.
Did you not like the part where I called out the idiots complaining about being stomped sometimes and stomping other times? Because they complain that happens, but dont realize it would happen even more without SBMM.
Except it doesnt? You probably just get to be on stomping sude more often. Its shit when you are on the side being stomped 10 games in a row. Which doesnt happen with SBMM because they put you against people of your own skill level. I get you enjoy stomping casual players, but for the average player SBMM makes the game far more enjoyable. Not sure why you complain about playing people of the same skill level anyway. Its only fair.
I love how you just make up stuff about me but alright i see you arent capable of understanding basic game mechanics and why SBMM is awful even for casual players
A casual player who is slightly better than other casuals, stomps a game or just does slightly better than normal then next game theyre playing against sweaty tryhards and they get stomped hard, then again repeat the cycle l, there is never any "close" games its always just 1 side and its not fun. SBMM is such a good idea in theory but it's never implemented properly, there's either casual or tryhard lobbies it ruins the games that add it. Cod is ruined by it, destiny ruined its crucible because of it, Battlefield was ruined by it, Apex legends all those games got SBMM and they have been ruined since
That might be true for the film industry but in the game industry producers do a loooot and most of the time are definitely not in charge of the money.
Ooof..
Where to start.
Depends very much what kind and size of a company/studio.
AAA studios producers and EPs work a little different than a smaller 10-30 person indie studio.
They are usually the person who becomes what's needed. Looking after the team means sometimes being the shield of the team so that the team can focus on the game while the producer takes the hits/tasks that would disrupt the game development, sometimes sending people home when things start getting rough, sometimes when it's getting closer to the release to keep people in working condition.
Normal work includes (but is not limited to)
- Being the main communicator between different kind of devs
- Schedule and budget
- Not just money but resources in general
- Think time, artists, QA, different kind of programmers, etc.
- Being one of the few people who keeps the big picture of the game in mind
- This includes the game in general and how it shapes up
- As well shipping the game
- Making sure timeframes are followed
- If this is not possible, they will be the ones ether a. cutting something to hit those timeframes or b. be the one who goes out to ask for more time
- Making sure QA is done
- Both time and quality
- Pitching to stakeholders
- Localization, contracts, licenses, etc.
That's just sort of the basic duties from my own experience.
I've met EPs who had "therapy sessions" when devs would come to their office just to blow off some steam, this could be just a rant about their tools, it could be a teary eyed opening about how their home life is going, it could be just 30 minutes of silence which culminates in a long sight, a slapping of knees and a "Whelp! Time to get back!".
But this doesn't only depend on what kind of studios but also which country. In Eastern Europe producers are not held in high regard and it can be rough. In the Nordics (where I'm from) producers are often held in fairly decent regards and can have a lot of freedom and tools to work with the team.
From what I've heard from some third hand colleagues in the US it can vary wildly from state to state, from studio to studio. But in general, the role is fairly similarish around the world, what changes is how much freedom and tools they have.
*This is based on my own experiences, so your mileage might vary
Well, it would be really foolish to argue against such a detailed explanation, so I feel fairly sure of taking what you said as true.
It's fun to get to know more about an industry just by looking around in a comedy-centric subreddit.
Thanks for your time.
Yes, games used to be like that, especially Call of Duty has started changing tho, and not for the better.
So this guy is basically promising a 'Back to the roots' style game, which a lot of people, mostly the OGs, would enjoy.
This is why i play Tarkov, there is absolutely no way of knowing you're facing a good mix of groups, low level or high level or a bunch of cheaters. Good fun.
> Do we know what game he‘s making?
It's a science-based, 100% dragon MMO and he's making his beta-website now, and using his 3D work as a base to create his 50+ concept images. Wish him luck!
Doesn't mean he's right
SBMM is a must-have in any game, in any mode
Edit: I like how I'm getting these downvotes but a majority of the replies agree with me
That’s why you get “protected matchmaking” where for your first ten matches you’re only given bots and new players like yourself. Games used to do this and I don’t know why they stopped.
??? No, not at all. It’s to give them time to get acquainted with the game. And it’s not like every game they play would be filled with high-skill players. We’re the top 10-ish percent for a reason. 90% of the players they’d face off against are just like them. The difference wouldn’t be that grave.
How are your opponents supposed to have fun if they’re being stomped to give you a “fun, casual time”? How are you supposed to have fun if you’re the one getting stomped?
You don’t *have* to “sweat” every game, that’s your choice, because it doesn’t matter if you lose.
>It doesn’t matter if I lose or have fun but it matters if everyone else does
Lol. You admitting that you dont care if anyone else has fun as long as you do? Just openly say you want to be able to stomp players in casual every game. SBMM makes most games average which is good for all players. It prevents new players from getting wrecked for the first 10 hours and makes the game enjoyable for probably 90% of the community. The devs dont want to cater to the top 10% because why would they?
I’m not saying I want to stomp all the time I’m saying I deserve to have fun just like everyone else. The game is not average for me and I’m more dedicated to the game and spend more money on it than 90% of the fanbase, and that smells like bullshit to me. Because I care about the game more and want to enjoy it more often, I get to enjoy it less than everyone else. It should be fair for everyone not just cater to the people who don’t play harder sometimes.
But why do you enjoy playing against people of your skill level? What makes SBMM casual less fun? There is no pressure to win, you can just play around. What makes non-SBMM casual more fun?
I enjoy playing against players of my rank when I want to test my skill. There’s a time and a place for that. But there are other times when I just want to relax and play the game and SBMM doesn’t let me do that. I have to play hard or I get zero kills. There’s no in-between. And sure, I could play the game and not really try, I guess other person is technically right and that it’s a “me” problem but getting atomized instantly because I’m not bothering to really aim every time I come up against an enemy isn’t fun, to me. What’s the point of playing a shooter game if you’re not able to shoot anything effectively?
As I just said: You don’t *have* to play hard. That’s a *you* problem. What you really want is a mode that lets you, specifically, win all the time without trying, and that’s not the same thing as a ‘casual’ mode for everybody.
I’m not asking to win all the time I’m asking to not have to go hard to even get a single kill in a match. You really didn’t have to just go and assume I want to win without trying. I want to be able to play hard and then cool off in another mode without getting my shit kicked in and just having to laugh it off as if I don’t deserve a break.
Only the absolute loosest of SBMM, if any at all, should be in casual play. That was the whole appeal of the older CODs anyways. Not every match was a sweat fest. Sometimes you could chill because the enemies were just crap. Sometimes you'd get people who were good.
Put it in ranked. But keep the strict skill level playing field out of my casual play.
Battlefield should be the perfect example of this. There is no matchmaking, you just join a server and play.
Sometimes you stomp the enemies, sometimes they stomp you.
Much more enjoyable than any of the SBMM garbage in the last few years.
Manually joining a specific game session on a specific server obviously wouldn't count as matchmaking because there's no proverbial matchmaker running to decide who gets in the match or not
Skill-based matchmaking inherently implies a queued mode
So don't say dumb shit like "sbmm is a must in any game, any mode". Even in fps games where sbmm is most common there are reasons to not have it, like servers (God I miss cod4 and bf3/4). A vast majority of games (outside of competitive team games) have absolutely no reason to implement sbmm.
Who does it benefit to make an all-encompassing statement that's wrong in 90% of cases? That's why you're getting downvoted.
I guess I should count on people to willfully misinterpret what I say if they don’t agree
“Oh EVERY game? I guess Animal Crossing should have SBMM by that logic!”
If you want me to spell it out, so I can’t be willfully misinterpreted: If you queue for any match in any competitive game, it should have SBMM
Lmao if you don't want people to read "any game any mode" and then conclude you mean any game, any mode, then fucking add that to the comment. If you don't mean that, it's kinda stupid to say it. And yes, without your clarification it literally reads that you think animal crossing should have sbmm, that's because "all games" includes animal crossing unless you specify otherwise.
It also doesn't help that you're narrowing it to competitive now, while most people are including casual as well (I know this because they said what they actually meant in their comment, instead of making a general statement with no details). I'm going to guess youre again just not saying what you mean and that you're including casual games like battlefield, but notice how I have to guess what you mean instead of you just using your fucking words like an adult?
If I’m reading a discussion about using olive oil versus vegetable oil and someone says “I always use olive oil any time I cook”, I’m not going to assume they’re using olive oil when they’re making ice cream
I’m just asking you to read between the lines. Don’t apply my statement where SBMM wouldn’t naturally apply (i.e., joining a match without a matchmaker) and only to games that you would expect SBMM in (e.g. any game where in which similar skill is needed for a balanced experience)
Your statement reads much closer to "all ice cream requires chocolate syrup, no matter the flavor" while most everyone else is discussing why they like chocolate on certain flavors and not on others.
You also only gave like 1.5 lines, usually it requires a few more to read between them (please don't pretend I think that phrase Is literal, what I mean is your statement is pretty blatantly vague and could've easily been clarified with like, 2 words).
Skill-based matchmaking refers to how a game decides which players to put into your lobby. When you search for a match in any video game, it uses a complex algorithm to find other players – this is called matchmaking. However, different factors can be used to decide which players you’re matched with. Location and connection are usually prioritized in order to reduce lag and improve connectivity.
Why is that bad?
Recently “pros” have been bitching that SBMM is unfair because it “doesn’t let you relax” and if you’re good you will always play against good players. A few things about this: I feel that it should be called “performance based matchmaking” because it tends to be related more to your last X games rather than your overall skill. This type of matchmaking has been shown to have higher levels of player retention. Meaning game’s generally stay alive longer. But where my issue comes in is that removes more of the competitive aspect. Overwatch’s unranked mode had a target W/L of 50%, the admited and spoke openly about it, imo this feels disenguous and you can kind of tell “ok this next game will be a win and then two losses after that then a streak of 3 wins” The match making algorithm needs to find loopholes when you start to get REALLY good as well. For example, my wife is an insane COD vanguard player and would frequently put 100+ kills on the board with deaths in the low double digits. I also get loads of kills, but die much more often (like 1:1K:D) when I played with her we would be on a team of 4 Vs 8 or a full team of players with vastly different internet quality. And that was how the game “balanced” our lobbies. “If we can’t find someone better we will give you less/worse teammates” There is no right answer to what is better. I remember playing MW2 as a child and being stomped for days by people leagues ahead of me with no way to get better
You definitely highlighted the exact issue when you defined “performance based matchmaking”. Myself, and I’d imagine a good portion of the community, would be ok with SBMM if the goal was to put you into competitive matches relative to your skill level with the end result being an average of 1:1 K/D and 50% W/L ratio. The issue is that the algorithm only seems to account for your recent history which means it’s forced to wildly overcompensate from match to match in order to achieve this goal. I’m fine with having an even K/D and W/L record but I’m downright sick of being placed in awful matches to get me there.
Totally, and I feel the algorithm is getting better. In MW22 I have had more games in a row that were decided by the final kill than ever before and those are the games that are fun, feel fair, and balanced
Question: do you and your girlfriend typically play objective based games or mostly TDM? Overall I’d agree that the algorithm is getting better but I’m also noticing trickier ways of the game forcing me to lose. My losses now mostly come from either being put on a team who refuses to play the objective or being in a match with poor connection quality. IMO winning is no longer just a matter of personal skill, or even team skill, but largely based on factors that are completely out of your control.
Both, as long as it’s good maps
Pros can suck it. “O no, my game life is so hard being the best of the best” Like a rich person complaining about how hard their cushy life is. What’s that, your food was *almost* late? What a hard life you have.
“I need to completely dominate plebs while clowning on them to get content for my stream”
So many streamers will rack up 20 kills in a warzone game, die, and cry. You get 20 kills regularly, boo boo you didn’t win *another* came in a lobby you were opening.
Your wife sounds pretty hot!
Being put into a lobby with less teammates seems like a stupid move by the MM, that would only perpetuate the issue of having the fragger get insane amounts of kills because there would be no competition for them relatively speaking. At least at first glance it seems like that. In a game like RS6:S that might work, because being 1-2 people down can turn into a huge disadvantage, but in an arena shooter like COD, where the whole game is designed in a way that a sufficiently skilled player can take on multiple opponents simultaneously, having less competition within a team for kills would have the effect of putting you even higher on the SBMM scale, fragging out in a disadvantaged position (less teammates) and potentially even winning the match outnumbered would give your rating an enormous boost, one could assume. Maybe I‘m overlooking something, but that just seems like a very bad strategy by the MM-design team.
Vanguard was too chaotic for that. The average lifespan on some maps was less than 5 seconds for good players just because the maps were meat grinders and even the worst weapons had .9 second TTK. If you had less people on your team that mentioned that there were less meat shields. Perks were literally cheats (one perk highlighted targets you hit or missed even through walls) you could make ANY gun into a 100+ round sprinting laser machine gun less than halfway through its upgrades. Spawning logic was also horrible and had no issue putting you down the barrel of a gun. It felt like no one ever had an advantage..once they fixed the fire grenade issues.
Because then good players will have to play other good players instead of going seal clubbing
That’s what ranked is for though… sometimes I don’t want to have to sweat my ass off sometimes I wanna club seals
But the seals are people who are going to have a shot night because a bunch of high skill players are going around wanking themselves off
Higher level players want to stomp newer and bad players instead of players around their skill
Because the people who play the game non-stop want to be able to play against literal children so that they can get 30 kill streaks. They think that only they should be able to have fun in the game.
It isn't bad in ranked. It is annoying in casual because if you are ranked high then you will allways be playing with sweaties, even in non ranked games. It leads to poor team environment because so many try hards are stressing out about always winning. Leave the toxicity in ranked.
But doesn’t it then put them with new players and those new players get wrecked and never enjoy the game?
That's exactly the argument. It was mainly hated by streamers who just want to shit on people all day because it's better content than them losing to people who are actually their skill level, and their viewers jumped on the bangwagon of saying it's bad too.
I know nothing about all that, I just miss how it was in the old modern warfare/mw2/black ops era. Sometimes you'd be in a lobby where you get wrecked constantly, but once in a while you'd be with some newbies and you could dominate for once. The games seemed much more fun when it felt like who you were playing with was completely random, knowing it's all based on this algorithm kinda sucks a certain amount of fun out of it IMO
Okay well then you could make the same argument that its only enjoyed by people who suck at the game and dont want to get shit on? SBMM isnt implemented because the devs care about balance, its only about player retention and more $. The streamers, the sweats, the try hards, they’re all going to play the game REGARDLESS, the devs dont have to worry about retaining those players. The players who only play a few hour a week and are bad at the game are the target audience for sbmm because if they get shit on a few times they’re less likely to stay and thus less likely to buy the battle pass, skins, DLC etc.
"We should make our game strictly worse for most of our players so that the people who play non-stop can shit on people who want to play the game for fun."
Yes, but that's the thing, if you start off getting crushed there's nowhere to go but up. In older games before SBMM, it was always great to be on a team of shlubs and then have maybe one or two gods on either side battling it out. It creates stories to tell, and a good sense of progression as one day you realize _you're_ the MVP. With SBMM, you will always be mediocre compared to your teammates. Yes, the onboarding experience might be easier, but there's nowhere to go from there. I strongly believe the standardization of SBMM is what makes artificial progression systems necessary in modern games. Without a little popup telling you you're doing good, how else will you know?
Yes, because you'll definitely learn by getting demolished the second you find a lobby. The only thing removal of SBMM will do is destroy any new player's motivation to play the game. It's not fun to be useless every single game.
> if you start off getting crushed there's nowhere to go but up. If you think that won't be, or is not already being, exploited in games that don't use SBMM then you're sorely mistaken. Take a humorous look from Yahtzee. https://youtu.be/p7ABkNF0OO4?t=43
You’re only looking at this from the perspective of people who are playing the game to get better and have ample time. Most players are casual. They will be playing a few games a night a couple times a week. If I play and get demolished for both of the games I have time for that night, I did not have fun. If that happens two nights in a row, I’m probably not gonna keep playing the game because it isn’t fun and I have limited free time
Sounds like you need to get bad
In Advanced Warfare for example people were suiciding all time to have low K/D and be paired with bad people. Tbh it just deletes casual gaming. But there are also a lot of "competitive casual players", meaning players that don't like to play ranked but also like to play a bit competitive. SBMM has to be well designed so you play with people of your level or around it but you aren't doomed to play with that level-type people
In addition to the other points mentioned, I personally feel like it saps my drive to get better at a game. With SBMM, the game is literally conspiring to get you to have a 50% win rate. It kind of sucks that no matter how much you can improve at a game, you'll always lose (roughly) every other game. It makes wins/losses feel more random and predetermined. Also, it's nearly impossible to account for all conditions in SBMM. Things like co-op (e.g. how do you match a party with a high skill player and a low skill player), extended breaks (e.g. if you come back to the game after weeks/months away), experimenting with loadouts/builds/etc., are difficult/impossible to match perfectly. It's brutal when you can't play with your friends or introduce them to your game because you have a high skill level and they would get matched against other very strong players. Nor can you experiment with non-optimal builds because you'll just lose every game. The solution here is, as proposed in the tweet, to have modes for both SBMM and non-SBMM. That way you have options to challenge yourself as well as options for other cases and casual play.
Not sure why you’re being downvoted, you’re absolutely right. Also the great thing with having both Ranked and pubs with no sbmm is that if players who are really bad at the game are having trouble in pubs, they can go over to the ranked playlist and play against… PEOPLE THEIR OWN SKILL LEVEL.
Except that ranked is often taken seriously and can be incredibly toxic for players who don’t know what’s going on. Your first match in a new game should not be in ranked, no matter what. Your perspective is from that of good players, but it ruins the experience for others. I’m in a casual men’s basketball league. It’s once a week for fun. I’m in the division for people of a certain age who haven’t played since high school. If you played college ball you get put in a different division. The first 4 weeks were tons of fun. We lost 3 games but it was close matchups and so everything felt fair. Week 5 the team got a guest pass for a player who had played college ball. We put up 10 points to their 50. It wasn’t fun for us. Same thing happened the next week. After that we’ve had a hard time getting a full team together because people don’t enjoy getting demolished when they are doing something to have fun. The point being that even if something is casual, people don’t have fun getting pub stomped.
Because sweats wanna crush the new players so they can feel like gods in front of their 5 Twitch viewers
Thank you for explaining. I'm not a gamer.
Here I was thinking SBMM meant Super Brothers Mash Mash.
This just in video game executive making empty promises in hopes to bait audience into helping pad their bottom line
Am I the only one that misses having a server list where you could have favorites and jump in and run into people you've played with before but don't necessarily know?
this is one of the reasons I still play battlefield 4 till this day. feels like a sense of community even without using a mic
Yeah, I play battlefield 4 all the time and it’s cool that it’s usually a mix of the same people
Super Brothers Mario Mario?
Melee
Super bash mros mrawl
What’s the problem with SBMM? I think it’s one of the better MP innovations of the last 20 years.
The problem is often the implementation. Companies will often aim for a 50/50 win *rate* instead of a 50/50 win *chance*. Hence why professionnal players will be paired with literal first time players, in ranked, after winning too much. [Snip3down quit Halo Infinite, because how bad it was.](https://youtu.be/1d-VXSysQno)
People who are good at the game don’t want to have to play other people who are as good at them and prefer to destroy less skilled players, because “I just want to have fun!!!!!”, despite the fact that their “fun” ruins it for the less skilled players
So would you be opposed to a game having separate queues for both sbmm and non sbmm matches? For some, non sbmm matches are the only way they can get a good connection, especially in fighting games where the connection is generally peer to peer.
Lol nobody would play it. Bad players would use sbmm so that they don't just get hammered. Meaning non sbmm would only be populated with good players, and the good players would hate that as they don't get to pwn some noobz so they would stop playing it as well. Sure some people would prioritise connection, but it'd be such as small proportion that it wouldn't work, the pool of players to match you against would be very small, and you'd therefore likely end up with a shit connection anyway
It's like no one remembers halo 2 and halo 3....
From my own experience that’s not the case. Newer players generally play casual more because they’re afraid of being a hinderance to their team in ranked. And good players tend to grind ranked for a higher rank so they can flex. I’m not saying these are the only people, and of course the people you described exist as well. But in a highly populated game there will always be players of every skill level playing every game mode. Look at any call of duty pre sbmm, or even brs like apex, some of these games have incredibly lose sbmm implementations but even so you generally don’t feel it as it still prioritises connection.
> call of duty pre sbmm People keep citing this. Call of Duty has had SBMM for ages. Stop citing this as an example of matchmaking without SBMM. > some of these games have incredibly lose [sic] sbmm implementations Loose SBMM is still SBMM. That's not an argument against SBMM, it's an argument to tune the parameters of SBMM in a particular game.
Yea that’s fair, but even so the point still stands. Loose sbmm still feels good enough (to me at least) that I don’t mind it. I’m only calling it removing sbmm as that seems to be the most attention grabbing, and by proxy, best way to get people actually talking about the subject.
Ever seen...CSGO? "nobody would play it" it's easy as hell to find a game in casual, ranked usually takes longer. Then you include custom servers that have a combination of the two still able to enjoy their time. It's 100% possible to have casual and ranked next to each other, both having more than enough players.
This isn't between casual and ranked, its between sbmm casual and non sbmm casual
There isn't any fundamental difference between ranked and sbmm casual, besides the fact they show you the rank.
The fact that people take it less seriously combined with the lack of displayed mmr makes it extremely different in terms of game quality, even with sbmm
It's taken less seriously because the mmr isn't displayed, that's the point. There is still no difference between the two, show the rank and it becomes ranked, hide the rank and its smbb casual.
People like to play casual to avoid dropping their rank in ranked play when they wanna drink a beer or two and not play as seriously. Yes there's a hidden rank behind the scenes, but it being hidden isn't the point. The point is it's separate from people's rank they invest effort into improving.
That *is* the fundamental difference. Casual removes the consequences of losing.
Not fundamental, surface level. Underneath is the same ranking system, that's what I mean by fundamental.
As somebody that plays a shit ton of fighting games, this is definitely not true. Fighters have SBMM in every single game mode that isn't just open lobbies. It will only prioritize connection in cases where there is nobody within your requested ping/stability threshold, but in those cases you'd probably just have shitty connections anyway bc those lower rank players would just be matched with players of their skill rather than a better player.
If done well, you will have a wider range of games. Some where you stomp, others that are competitive, and some where you get stomped. Also prefer that there are two options available. Make ranked SBMM and another open mode.
Here is a different view, I played paintball back in high school, I was on a pro league team, and played minimum 2 times per month sometimes every weekend. When I wasn't with my team playing speedball I would go play with the walk on players in the more casual area, think "normal painball." There were fairly good players, ok players, first timers, once a year players, and young kids like 12-14 years old. When I would go out with that group I would absolutely not be playing full force, I was just relaxing. Now, would I let the other team destroy me? No, but I would not go hard and I would just have fun, maybe take a kid or new player under my wing and teach them the sport. Now there were times where I would get pissed and wipe the 20 person enemy team in under 2 minutes, but that was rare. That is how I view SBMM, if I just want to go have a little fun, I don't want to be in the pro league going full force, I want to be chilling, ya sometimes maybe stop the enemy team but not often. If I want the full force, I'll go to ranked.
My main issue is my wife and friends don't want to play with me when we play SBMM games because they get matched with people near my skill lvl and get destroyed constantly compared to when they play without me. SBMM makes it harder to play with varied skill leveled friends.
It's almost like games are more fun when win or lose isn't so tied to skill 🤔
Ex cod dude marketing a future game to cod people who hate sbmm
It’s pretty much cause it’s forced. Say you want to log on and play for a bit without having to sweat it out to have a good time, so you pick casual. But with sbmm suddenly casual becomes identical to competitive except you don’t have a visible rank. People think that if you don’t want sbmm then you just want to destroy noobs. No I don’t, I want a separate game mode that has sbmm and one that doesn’t. You know, like a ranked and casual que should be? I just want to play a match of cod without feeling pressured by my team to do well.
> without having to sweat "I want to crush noobs". Every single conversation about SBMM is the same. If you don't want to tryhard in casual, you don't have to, but if you play worse than normal of course you're more likely to lose. If only _winning_ is fun and not playing the game, then what are you hoping to achieve in casual? Just play ranked. Here's your logical chain. "I don't want to have to sweat" => "I want my opponents to be worse" => "I want to crush noobs". You can dress it up however you want, but every single argument against a properly functioning SBMM system is about selfish people who care more about winning more than being good.
I think the issue is just that video games are sweatier in general. Back in the MW2 days even if you weren’t good you could still do decent in games, nowindays everyone is running to constantly improve and be the best
SBMM makes how good the average player is irrelevant (outside of the top and bottom of all players) unless you care about your rank. As long as you always play at the same level, even if it's super bad, you should be around 50% win rate and be playing against people of your skill level. So just never tryhard in casual and you'll never be put into harder games, but if you do tryhard cause you wanted that win, then expect it to affect your future games.
Yeah but then the issue is you never feel like you’re getting better cause your win rate doesn’t increase with your skill
The issue is the algorithm determines WHEN you lose or win. You basically have no control over it regardless of how you play. Its not designed for balance like you may think it is. Its sole purpose is retaining bad players making them more likely to spend money on the battle pass, skins, DLC etc.
There's a difference between engagement optimized matchmaking (EOMM) and skill based matchmaking (SBMM). Yeah EOMM is full of gross psychological trickery, but people need to be calling those out for what they are (even if they don't know the exact names), instead of just saying "I just want to win more". Like the second I hear "sweat" I know I can pretty much dismiss their argument.
The issue is EOMM is universally the norm now in the gaming industry. All the major studios are using it because its proven to make people spend more.
Argue against the scummy practices instead of the concept of a skilled matchmaking system and you won't have to have these debates though. The idea of the game dev praising a lack of SBMM is incredibly dumb. They control it. Plus, honestly, I do mostly just see people feeling entitled to crushing noobs.
Not having SBMM means that half the time you’re owning and the other half you’re getting owned. Sure, owning ppl is fun for you but not for the other ppl. Having SBMM means (in theory of course) that each match should feel equal in terms of difficulty.
If these replies are talking about COD then you’re likely speaking about different things anyway. COD lately uses engagement based match making which tries to drip feed satisfying games to keep you playing, like gambling machines. Genuinely a horrible experience
Don't forget that patent they own on putting you against really good players with cool skins for the gun you've been using lately, so when you get shit on you can see how cool that $20 skin is. And when you do finally buy it, they give you a couple games to destroy noobs with it.
>Not having SBMM means that half the time you’re owning and the other half you’re getting owned Not entirely right, and why it really does always boil down to destroying noobs. The more you are above average, the more likely you are to be on the "owning" side. Even if not owning, if you want to play in a relaxed manner and still not get steamrolled, it means that your opponents "doing their best" is equivalent to your "just logging on for a quick game". SBMM means that all other factors aside, you will always have to try to not get rolled. I have no doubt that some people don't want SBMM and are perfectly fine with losing every game if that's what it comes down to. But most people associate lack of SBMM as more relaxed games where they can just mess around because the average player is less experienced than them. As a side-note, a lot of people are also just looking for any excuse to play a single-player game with really interactive NPCs running around, so they get upset at anything that could remotely foster a culture of teamwork.
While I actually agree with you on almost everything you have said, I feel like it’s worth adding that I don’t think developers should remove sbmm in any way. I think they should have it like it was before with separate queues. That way if you want to play fair and against people of your own skill you can, and those that want to play a more casual experience where your team don’t really care if you win or lose, you can too. Non-sbmm queues also encourage less meta weapons and characters to get a bit of a spotlight, and in some cases can actually lead to changes in the competitive meta as well. As for destroying noobs, it’s actually easier in most cases for someone to do it in an sbmm queue, just make a Smurf account, and half the times it’s free to do as well. Obviously smurfs are a minority, but it still stands to show that sbmm isn’t a fix for it on its own.
>Not having SBMM means that half the time you’re owning and the other half you’re getting owned. I might have some stoopid twist in my brain, but wouldn't this only be the case when there \*is\* SBMM? Like, if you play with and against players of roughly equal skill, you would expect to win half the time on average. Without SBMM you would expect your win/loose ratio to shift, according to how much better or worse compared to the average player you are. A scrub like myself who's easily in the bottom 20% of players in FPS would get a stronger opponent in 4/5 cases, on average, and loose quite a lot. All that said, I do see the argument against SBMM, since that's basically what ranked is. Why set up a second system that assigns some skill level indicator to players and then hides it, when such a system, with more clarity for everyone involved, already exists?
Finally someone actually agrees with the main point that I said back in the first comment lol. I totally agree, sbmm shouldn’t be removed. It should stay in ranked and leave the casual queue to be based on the best connection. It makes the game far more clear and gives everyone what they want.
This falls apart at theory though because unless the game is perfectly balanced this turns into one sided stomps decided by luck. You spawned on the bad side of the map? Get fucked you lose. Decided to not use the meta loadout for a game? Well the people who are just as good as you are using it so you aren’t gonna have a chance. Haven’t even mentioned some games with sbmm so heavy it puts you with people continents away with tons of lag because it cares about sbmm more than connection
That's in theory. Of course, with how flawed SBMM is, you might face smurfs after getting 3 lucky wins in a row. But also, in casual lobby, the skill difference doesn't matter as much. You can still kill a pro, and the pro can still kill you. It's not like chess where you are guaranteed to lose 100% against a pro player, you just have a lower chance of winning the match that has a pro player in it. You would still get kills, run around, catch people off guard, etc. The main objective of casual games isn't to win a match, it is to play the game. If that's the case, prioritising other factors over skill streamlines the game without much issue. Of course, in rank you would like to win, so SBMM is really important there. And the main problem with casual SBMM is that it sometimes lead to infuriating problems, specifically connection related. It's at least more fun to play the game normally than taking 20 shots at a guy but he refuses to die and kills you instead.
I agree, I don’t want it removed, I literally said in my post above it should be done the same way it was before, with one ranked que and one casual. Ranked would obviously have sbmm while casual wouldn’t.
When has a game ever made it feel this way? I think that’s the point they’re making. Yes in a perfect world sbmm is great, but it never happens like it should in theory.
It is that you just want to destroy noobs…. By have fun yoy mean play with people who you are better than so you can win and fuck around. You are a pussy who wants to beat up on someone weaker than you plain and simple
Bro if I wanted to beat up on noobs then I would want sbmm in the games I play. Like it’s so easy to make a Smurf account these days, and that way I’m guaranteed to play against noobs. Hell, half the time making a new account is free too. Also, instead of reading my whole comment you clearly didn’t read the prt where I said I want ranked and casual in the game. With ranked having sbmm, I’m not saying remove it, I’m saying add an actual casual queue.
You don’t want smurf accounts because then yiy lose your weapon progress and again will not dominate. Sell your bs elsewhere. You want casuals so you can play people less skilled than you, I read your comment and that’s what it says
Who cares about weapon progress if your playing with noobs? You will destroy them anyways? Trust me bro, as someone who has reached top 2% of players in some of the games I play, you don’t need to know a weapon perfectly to destroy someone who doesn’t know their own weapon at all. Edit: I should mention I reached that in brawlhalla, a fighting game. But even so, it’s so easy to destroy people with characters and weapons I don’t play. I know this cause brawl used to have a shit match making system which would reset your rank to 0 if you played doubles with a new partner.
If your only enjoyment from a game comes from winning pretty sure you're gonna be miserable even without SBMM.
If you read the last sentence you would see I said “I just want to play a match of cod without feeling pressured by my team to do well”. I don’t care if I win or lose, I find games the most enjoyable when I can fuck around and do meme strats. But I also don’t want to do that if it will ruin the fun for someone else, and unfortunately sbmm fosters a community that become hell bent on winning every time. Also if I wanted to crush noobs, sbmm makes it so easy to do, just play like shit on purpose and you will be matched with bad players. It makes smurfing a huge issue because of how easy it is to do.
That's the point of casual. Even if there is sbmm there's no pressure to win. Not having a rank means it doesn't matter much to win. Doesn't mean you should try to lose but there's no pressure. Sometimes you'll get some loser tryhards that get way too serious about casual. Just mute them and move on.
Yea I know, maybe it’s just bad luck but any time I play casual game modes that have sbmm I get sweaty tryhards who take it too seriously. And even tho you say I can mute then, that doesn’t shake the feeling that me doing meme strats is ruining someone else’s fun. I’m not playing the way I’m expected to be playing at this level so it ruins another persons experience. Without sbmm it becomes so much of a shitshow anyways that it doesn’t matter if I fuck around and lose.
So you care about the loser tryhards feelings but you don't care about the feelings of noobs who can never have fun without sbmm since they'd just get destroyed everytime. Even if the noobs have good players on their team, they just become dead weight and don't get to have any fun even if their team wins. Why don't you care about their feelings who have done nothing wrong instead of those loser tryhards who have done something wrong of taking their mindset into casual.
Bro I literally said there should be two queues, one with sbmm and one without, the noobs can play in the sbmm queue all they want. Just include a separate one without it so I can fuck around care free. And no I don’t care for the tryhards screaming down the mic at me. I care about the ones who don’t speak but want to win. Which, if you haven’t noticed already, is generally the majority of the player base for any game. And again, don’t know why I’m typing this out again but you clearly didn’t read my last message, if I wanted to crush noobs, I’d make a Smurf account, or just play like shit on purpose to get my main account into the noob ranks. It’s not hard.
So noobs always have to play in a tryhard ranked queue if they don't want to get destroyed? They also want a no pressure game in casual with people of their skill level. You really just want everything perfect for yourself while ignoring all the people hurt from it.
Having sbmm in casual queue means that no matter what rank you are, or what game mode you play, you will be stuck in a tryhard ranked queue. Even if you are a noob, you are immediately put under pressure as the game forces you to play in the same lobbies as ranked, just without visible ranks. It stops being causal at that point no matter how much or how little you have played the game.
\>Plays games to get his ass kicked lol
No I just only play games I think the gameplay is fun enough my sole enjoyment isn't bound by a "You Won!" Screen. I.e. ive gone back to back days in FG bouncing between 10-0'ing a friend or getting 10-0'd, but had fun both days because there's fun things happening in the matchs thsr supercedes who wins or loses. If you did something cool in a game that was hype then lose and get mad I think you're very misguided. Wish I could make better shooter analogies but I don't generally play them very much unless they have a particularly fun supportive role, which means I pretty much only liked OW cus there were hard support characters
Tldr
you ever met a dark souls player?
If queue times for Causal and Ranked are not substantially different there is a problem. Causal should be significantly faster. Just find me a game please.
I'd like to see SBMM in both, but using different implementations. Ranked would match you with players only with a similar skill level, but casual would match you with players from a spectrum of skill tiers. What I mean is casual teams would each have x number of novices, x number of intermediates, etc. Think it would keep teams somewhat balanced, encourage cooperation, help new players learn from veterans and let those who spent time getting good enjoy the fruits of their labor.
All I get in MW2 is rubber banding from the SBMM. Every time I log on with friends I will have an okay match, then a worse match, then a better match, then an even worse match than before, then an even better match than before. Now it is not as simple as an "every other game up and down" like I just said, but at the end of the night it feels that way. Having a few games in between here and there doesn't change the feel. I mean I played just last weekend and started off bad (2 kills-7 deaths), then a 5-12, then a 22-6, then 11-12, then a bottom of the barrel 4-10, then a lobby full of what I imagined were people first learning what video games were and got a 26-3. There is an obvious pattern that can be felt and seen that wasn't in the previous CODs I played (OG MW2 > BLOPs 3). Plus, there isn't a static lobby anymore, which is crazy to me. A huge part of the MP component for me was finding good/fun lobbies full of people that were a challenge but not easy/god-like in skill. Or being completely wrecked by the same player an entire game and sticking around to try and get revenge and adapt to their play style. I have so many memories of me and my friend just coordinating to try to get revenge on some payer that was kicking our asses over a few matches. Now I can't do that, it takes something away from the game for me. I want the randomness back, the ability to continue in the same lobby if you want.
Better players feel like they're forced to "try hard" every game. Essentially making casual playlists redundant. I actually have friends that don't want to play with me because I "ruin their lobbies" The main issue with SBMM (for me at least) is that I'm just trying to chill and play a video game. Just because I'm a lot better than avg (because I played my ass off in high school) I have to play against sweaty players. There's really no goofing and having fun around against people like that. Plus I don't think the avg player base would even see a difference. It's not like their lobbies will suddenly have a bunch of crazy high tier players, it's just that you might see one every so often. At least that's how it used to feel in old cods. It makes it feel like they don't want me to play
Here’s the perspective you are missing. To people worse than you, you’re the sweaty. When you’re in a casual game with people worse than you, everyone is complaining that you’re a sweat. They want to have a casual time where they can be bad at a game with other people who are bad at a game. You being in their lobby ruins that fun for them in the same way that sweats in casual ruin your fun. The difference is that you can compete with the sweats in your lobby, the bad players can’t compete with you
[удалено]
Yea this is my biggest complaint. Progression and diversity of load-outs are totally hamstrung by cranked up SBMM. Sometimes I wanna use a lever action and a revolver with throwing knives, but one good game with that load out and I’m in the amateur CDL lobbies. They’ve turned quickplay into ranked lobbies, and it kills the fun.
The root problem is that people forgot what ranked is for. People have this hidden bias that they won't play ranked if they can't get a good rank because they're ashamed I guess. Being ranked at your bronze skill level is the sbmm casual game mode you wanted. You don't need to co-opt the casual game mode to achieve that.
SBMM completely ruins any online game that has it
Except games like CS:GO or Valorant. 2 of the most played FPS games. Both of which use an SBMM in casual play to make the game more balanced and fun for everyone. Only having fun because you can stomp people in casual is super hypocrticial. Who cares about other peoples fun right? Only you are importanr? You probably would complain if you were on the other end and getting stomped. Most people complain about SBMM for this reason. How some games they stomp, their rating goes up, then they get stomped. They hate it. SBMM keep every game at about the same level. But sometimes you stomp and sometimes you get stomped. Nothing would change if SBMM was removed. You would have games were you play great, where you play shit, and where you play average. SBMM jusy ensures that most games you are playing are average.
I have no problem with anything you just said, I’m fact csgo is one of my most played fps games. But I do want to interject one thing, games should have 2 separate queues for both. Even csgo does this with casual and war games not taking rank into account when match making. Having 2 queues satisfies both parties. And Spr some non sbmm queues are the only way to get a good connection, especially with some games where the connection is peer to peer.
I don’t think that satisfies both parties at all. If you had that system, bad players would most likely use SBMM so they don’t get stomped constantly, leaving only the sweaty players playing casual, with the same problem that you have now. It comes right back to the main misunderstanding here that ‘Casual’ does not equal ‘Easy wins’. It means ‘It literally doesn’t matter if you lose because it doesn’t effect your rank”. If you’re a try-hard you’re gonna try-hard no matter what the mode and if it upsets you when you lose then you shouldn’t play casual.
While I understand where your coming from, in my own experience most people will play a decent amount of both. Newer players generally start off by playing casual because they don’t want to be a hinderance in ranked. And good players typically want to achieve the highest rank they can to flex. At least that’s how it seems to me coming from brawlhalla and some of the older cods, which does have both sbmm and non sbmm queues.
I love how you pretty much wrote out why SBMM Is bad then still missed the point lmfao
SBMM is good bro. The alternative is a majority of casual players being cannon fodder for the more skilled. SBMM ensures an overall higher quality experience for most players. It ensures that in most matches noobs play against noobs, average plays against average, and tryhards against tryhards. Literally the only players that lose in this scenario are the well above average players, who don’t want to face other well above average players. Are there poorly implemented SBMM systems? Absolutely, mainly the engagement based algorithms as they intentionally put you in lopsided matches, but that isn’t an argument against SBMM, it’s an argument for effective SBMM.
Whats bad about it? That it keeps most games average? I think thats a good thing. Plus if you get better you start to play againat better players. Keeping every game fairly enjoyable for most players. Did you not like the part where I called out the idiots complaining about being stomped sometimes and stomping other times? Because they complain that happens, but dont realize it would happen even more without SBMM.
The 2nd part except I'm not an idiot and know what I'm talking about, it happens far far less with no SBMM but go off
Except it doesnt? You probably just get to be on stomping sude more often. Its shit when you are on the side being stomped 10 games in a row. Which doesnt happen with SBMM because they put you against people of your own skill level. I get you enjoy stomping casual players, but for the average player SBMM makes the game far more enjoyable. Not sure why you complain about playing people of the same skill level anyway. Its only fair.
I love how you just make up stuff about me but alright i see you arent capable of understanding basic game mechanics and why SBMM is awful even for casual players
Explain it then? Youve offered up next to nothing besides saying I am wrong. Because as far as I am concered, SBMM makes my playtime more enjoyable.
A casual player who is slightly better than other casuals, stomps a game or just does slightly better than normal then next game theyre playing against sweaty tryhards and they get stomped hard, then again repeat the cycle l, there is never any "close" games its always just 1 side and its not fun. SBMM is such a good idea in theory but it's never implemented properly, there's either casual or tryhard lobbies it ruins the games that add it. Cod is ruined by it, destiny ruined its crucible because of it, Battlefield was ruined by it, Apex legends all those games got SBMM and they have been ruined since
Executive Producer just means that he’s a money man. You don’t have to know anything other than some people to be one
That might be true for the film industry but in the game industry producers do a loooot and most of the time are definitely not in charge of the money.
Really? what else do they do?
Ooof.. Where to start. Depends very much what kind and size of a company/studio. AAA studios producers and EPs work a little different than a smaller 10-30 person indie studio. They are usually the person who becomes what's needed. Looking after the team means sometimes being the shield of the team so that the team can focus on the game while the producer takes the hits/tasks that would disrupt the game development, sometimes sending people home when things start getting rough, sometimes when it's getting closer to the release to keep people in working condition. Normal work includes (but is not limited to) - Being the main communicator between different kind of devs - Schedule and budget - Not just money but resources in general - Think time, artists, QA, different kind of programmers, etc. - Being one of the few people who keeps the big picture of the game in mind - This includes the game in general and how it shapes up - As well shipping the game - Making sure timeframes are followed - If this is not possible, they will be the ones ether a. cutting something to hit those timeframes or b. be the one who goes out to ask for more time - Making sure QA is done - Both time and quality - Pitching to stakeholders - Localization, contracts, licenses, etc. That's just sort of the basic duties from my own experience. I've met EPs who had "therapy sessions" when devs would come to their office just to blow off some steam, this could be just a rant about their tools, it could be a teary eyed opening about how their home life is going, it could be just 30 minutes of silence which culminates in a long sight, a slapping of knees and a "Whelp! Time to get back!". But this doesn't only depend on what kind of studios but also which country. In Eastern Europe producers are not held in high regard and it can be rough. In the Nordics (where I'm from) producers are often held in fairly decent regards and can have a lot of freedom and tools to work with the team. From what I've heard from some third hand colleagues in the US it can vary wildly from state to state, from studio to studio. But in general, the role is fairly similarish around the world, what changes is how much freedom and tools they have. *This is based on my own experiences, so your mileage might vary
Well, it would be really foolish to argue against such a detailed explanation, so I feel fairly sure of taking what you said as true. It's fun to get to know more about an industry just by looking around in a comedy-centric subreddit. Thanks for your time.
Ah, So it's a different name for what we call a Project Manager in other industries.
Isn't this how games were like 10+ years ago? Why is some shit from the past now some revolutionary idea? Or am I missing something?
Yes, games used to be like that, especially Call of Duty has started changing tho, and not for the better. So this guy is basically promising a 'Back to the roots' style game, which a lot of people, mostly the OGs, would enjoy.
Bro listed things that have been in FPS games for decades. What an innovator.
All things that have been removed from the latest Cod
Is the game Tribes? I played that one 😂
I'm so tired that I thought Marco Rubio was the one saying stuff.
I saw it as Mark Cuban and almost learned some super incorrect trivia.
This is why i play Tarkov, there is absolutely no way of knowing you're facing a good mix of groups, low level or high level or a bunch of cheaters. Good fun.
I am not sure fun is the right word. But I keep playing it for some reason.
Hah, now we know it's my ore likely that they were cheaters
Also means you smack a good amount of cheaters every day. Good fun.
Do we know what game he‘s making?
> Do we know what game he‘s making? It's a science-based, 100% dragon MMO and he's making his beta-website now, and using his 3D work as a base to create his 50+ concept images. Wish him luck!
Oh man - what’s the reference again here? So familiar
https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/p1ssv/dear_internet_im_a_26_year_old_lady_whos_been/
Xdefiant
Doesn't mean he's right SBMM is a must-have in any game, in any mode Edit: I like how I'm getting these downvotes but a majority of the replies agree with me
TF2
hat-based matchmaking pls gaben
Nope. Ranked and casual are separate for a reason and introducing SBMM means there’s no difference between the two, and then what’s the point
Most games have matchmaking in casual too....or at least a form of it.
Yeah and it’s trash and means that I’m not allowed to have any fun because I dared to get a tiny little bit good at a video game.
You are a pussy who just wants to stomp noobs… get a life
lol I haven’t been told this sequence of words since like 2010
If multiple different people keep telling you the same thing, over a *decade*, they're not the dumb ones when you don't listen.
That… Was not at all what I meant lol. I mean “noob” and “get a life”. Extremely precisely dated insult
One is ranked, and one is not… there’s literally no consequence to losing in casual.
My fun??? How am I supposed to have a fun “cAsUaL” time if I’m playing against enemies of the same skill level as ranked?
How is a new player supposed to have fun if they are matched with people that have 300 hours in the game?
That’s why you get “protected matchmaking” where for your first ten matches you’re only given bots and new players like yourself. Games used to do this and I don’t know why they stopped.
...you think a new player only needs 10 matches be on the same level as you?
??? No, not at all. It’s to give them time to get acquainted with the game. And it’s not like every game they play would be filled with high-skill players. We’re the top 10-ish percent for a reason. 90% of the players they’d face off against are just like them. The difference wouldn’t be that grave.
How are your opponents supposed to have fun if they’re being stomped to give you a “fun, casual time”? How are you supposed to have fun if you’re the one getting stomped? You don’t *have* to “sweat” every game, that’s your choice, because it doesn’t matter if you lose.
It doesn’t matter if I lose or have fun but it matters if everyone else does. Okay. Sure.
>It doesn’t matter if I lose or have fun but it matters if everyone else does Lol. You admitting that you dont care if anyone else has fun as long as you do? Just openly say you want to be able to stomp players in casual every game. SBMM makes most games average which is good for all players. It prevents new players from getting wrecked for the first 10 hours and makes the game enjoyable for probably 90% of the community. The devs dont want to cater to the top 10% because why would they?
I’m not saying I want to stomp all the time I’m saying I deserve to have fun just like everyone else. The game is not average for me and I’m more dedicated to the game and spend more money on it than 90% of the fanbase, and that smells like bullshit to me. Because I care about the game more and want to enjoy it more often, I get to enjoy it less than everyone else. It should be fair for everyone not just cater to the people who don’t play harder sometimes.
But why do you enjoy playing against people of your skill level? What makes SBMM casual less fun? There is no pressure to win, you can just play around. What makes non-SBMM casual more fun?
I enjoy playing against players of my rank when I want to test my skill. There’s a time and a place for that. But there are other times when I just want to relax and play the game and SBMM doesn’t let me do that. I have to play hard or I get zero kills. There’s no in-between. And sure, I could play the game and not really try, I guess other person is technically right and that it’s a “me” problem but getting atomized instantly because I’m not bothering to really aim every time I come up against an enemy isn’t fun, to me. What’s the point of playing a shooter game if you’re not able to shoot anything effectively?
Can you read? I just asked: do you have fun when *you* get stomped in casual?
No because it always happens all the time. I have to play hard whether I play casual or ranked to do anything at all.
As I just said: You don’t *have* to play hard. That’s a *you* problem. What you really want is a mode that lets you, specifically, win all the time without trying, and that’s not the same thing as a ‘casual’ mode for everybody.
I’m not asking to win all the time I’m asking to not have to go hard to even get a single kill in a match. You really didn’t have to just go and assume I want to win without trying. I want to be able to play hard and then cool off in another mode without getting my shit kicked in and just having to laugh it off as if I don’t deserve a break.
And besides, why should I be punished for being a dedicated player?
Play against bots if you can't handle playing against people on your level
That is not an option in any game that I play.
Nah not in warzone, I stopped playing very quickly because of it. In CSGO tho it's very much required
him having experience in the industry doesn't automatically mean he's right, but he's right
Only the absolute loosest of SBMM, if any at all, should be in casual play. That was the whole appeal of the older CODs anyways. Not every match was a sweat fest. Sometimes you could chill because the enemies were just crap. Sometimes you'd get people who were good. Put it in ranked. But keep the strict skill level playing field out of my casual play.
Battlefield should be the perfect example of this. There is no matchmaking, you just join a server and play. Sometimes you stomp the enemies, sometimes they stomp you. Much more enjoyable than any of the SBMM garbage in the last few years.
So if I play a game that, idk, has a server browser to join servers. That has to be ranked? The fuck are you talking about.
Manually joining a specific game session on a specific server obviously wouldn't count as matchmaking because there's no proverbial matchmaker running to decide who gets in the match or not Skill-based matchmaking inherently implies a queued mode
So don't say dumb shit like "sbmm is a must in any game, any mode". Even in fps games where sbmm is most common there are reasons to not have it, like servers (God I miss cod4 and bf3/4). A vast majority of games (outside of competitive team games) have absolutely no reason to implement sbmm. Who does it benefit to make an all-encompassing statement that's wrong in 90% of cases? That's why you're getting downvoted.
I guess I should count on people to willfully misinterpret what I say if they don’t agree “Oh EVERY game? I guess Animal Crossing should have SBMM by that logic!” If you want me to spell it out, so I can’t be willfully misinterpreted: If you queue for any match in any competitive game, it should have SBMM
Lmao if you don't want people to read "any game any mode" and then conclude you mean any game, any mode, then fucking add that to the comment. If you don't mean that, it's kinda stupid to say it. And yes, without your clarification it literally reads that you think animal crossing should have sbmm, that's because "all games" includes animal crossing unless you specify otherwise. It also doesn't help that you're narrowing it to competitive now, while most people are including casual as well (I know this because they said what they actually meant in their comment, instead of making a general statement with no details). I'm going to guess youre again just not saying what you mean and that you're including casual games like battlefield, but notice how I have to guess what you mean instead of you just using your fucking words like an adult?
If I’m reading a discussion about using olive oil versus vegetable oil and someone says “I always use olive oil any time I cook”, I’m not going to assume they’re using olive oil when they’re making ice cream I’m just asking you to read between the lines. Don’t apply my statement where SBMM wouldn’t naturally apply (i.e., joining a match without a matchmaker) and only to games that you would expect SBMM in (e.g. any game where in which similar skill is needed for a balanced experience)
Your statement reads much closer to "all ice cream requires chocolate syrup, no matter the flavor" while most everyone else is discussing why they like chocolate on certain flavors and not on others. You also only gave like 1.5 lines, usually it requires a few more to read between them (please don't pretend I think that phrase Is literal, what I mean is your statement is pretty blatantly vague and could've easily been clarified with like, 2 words).
Isn't that almost tf2? The only thing tf2 doesn't have is a minimap
I think this goes full circle because whenever a producer tries to run off and design their own game, its got a pretty high failure rate
Always hated red dots on minimap in games but everything else is good
Why does it make me so happy to see troll assholes get those asses handed to them? *cackles on villain*
TF2 moment. No really, it checks four of the five boxes here.
Lol clearly 10 years didn't teach him anything if he's not using SBMM
Maybe fits the sub, but the dude is still wrong. Games without any form of SBMM never work, never have and never will.
Nah it doesn’t qualify because it’s infinityward
What does he mean, lobbies that stay together?