Is SBMM babying players?

People often bring it up, even though evidence tends to contradict it being present, but this is why such systems as EA’s EBMM methods were created.

When you look at people’s complaints with compact in games that implement that other system, it’s often that matches are loaded against them most of the time, then they god-roll, then back to being stomped.

I think SBMM in it’s current state is far more healthy a system.

Apex prioritizes matching with similar skills, but will not dawdle to do so. Load times are intended to stay as far down as possible, seeing a match queue over 1 minute outside of ranked is a bad thing by their system.

I tend to use the visualization of a trapezoid to explain how I see this systems effects in action. The small base is your own skill, plus and minus a range of acceptable values. As time increases, the other base grows at a uniform rate, widening the range of acceptable values. Overlapping with another player’s range means you will be an adequate match.

i.e.:

Skill level: 2.1

T0: 2.1+/- 0.2

T5: 2.1+/- 0.6

T10: 2.1+/- 1.4

T15: 2.1+/- 2.5

ect.

This would result in an exponential growth in acceptable ranges in a very small window of time. While similar skills will be matched with earlier on, the longer it takes the more skill in a lobby will vary.

I think I can say confidently that the common “matches with preds” trope, and the frequent I got put into a hot lobby is simply from this situation. A player is on at a poor time for matching with similar skills, so they end up “reaching” farther towards the extremes of the skill range.

@aisthebestletter Pretty much. In essence it's designed to try and hold onto the most volatile of player, the casual. It's a marketing thing. The most volatile player is the casual one, the one that needs instant gratification, or they move on to something else. By tailoring their experience, you can effectively increase how long they play the game for, and thusly, how likely they are to keep spending money on the game. You feed them exciting / engaging / easy wins or matches, they're more likely to spend money through positive reinforcement. 

Its why the current gaming industry is so pathetic in my eyes. Halo 3, Battlefield 3, the original Star Wars Battlefront 2, early CoD, etc. etc. all multiplayer games that had no SBMM, and yet all  still great. Pushing out inspired creations with no regards for player statistics, profit margins, player-counts, etc. etc. Quality experiences that made the player want to keep playing not through hidden metrics or modified matchmaking, but through pushing forward a quality experience that made the player WANT to keep playing, regardless of whether they won or lost. Even then, if you as a level 50 in BF3 got trashed by some Colonel Level 500, you were free to quit the match and move to a different server. 

Current gaming industry is just another milking machine with every developer / publisher asking the same question of, "How do we keep players interested and playing the game that doesn't involve creating a quality experience that will last the ages?" "How many corners can we cut while pricing microtransactions as high as they can be?" "How can we implement a battle pass?" "How many gimmicks can we implement that keep player retention numbers high?". The bar is so low people cheer at a developer saying there won't be microtransactions in X title. There are gems out there, but they are few and far between, and the relentless grime of over-monetized nonsense really makes the industry as a whole look pretty pallid in comparison. 

@pastaclownI'm not sure how you would implement SBMM in a game like BFV. I guess it depends on the mode, but still a difficult thing to do.

I think SBMM is good idea and required to some degree, it's just what degree is the question.

I'm never going to be a predator level player, I might pull off some plays and rounds in which I perform like one. But I'm not consistent enough for the top tier lobbies whether it be ranked or PUBS.

How ever I completely understand the complaints against it.

SBMM has been around for a while.. I remember battle chess games I would play in the early 2000's had it. I held one of the top spots on the ladder for about 6-7 months. I was constantly playing the same people over and over and over because we were the best of the best. In this particular game it worked well. 

@DarthValtrex that's the thing though, is why would you need to implement SBMM into something like BFV, where you can drop in and drop out as you please and there's literally 0 repercussion for doing so. If you're getting stomped and you don't want to deal with it, you just move to a different server. 

For Apex, there shouldn't be SBMM simply by account that there's no real quantifier for skill (and by extension no ranked) that's consistent enough to numerically evaluate. You can't go by wins because if you sit in a corner and hide for 15 minutes and third party the last squad, does that make you a skilled player? You can't go by kills because if you get one match with 15 kills, and then lose the next 14 without killing anyone (averaging out to 1 kill a match) does that make you a skilled player? Can't go by average accuracy because that's already an amalgamation of all the used weapons into one statistic. So now the SBMM has to create a chimera using multiple different statistics (most likely win-rate, K/D, average damage, total play-time, accuracy rating, etc. etc.) and then match you up to "similarly skilled" players. Which means it's most likely constantly guessing, which is most likely why the SBMM feels so crappy and inconsistent. 

There's also the mentality and average skill of the actual player-base of the game. People see Predator / Diamond / Master trails and they just give up. A very, very big portion of the Apex player base are so far below average skill it makes RDD's auto-aim look like skilled play. It's why I like the Dark-Souls treatment in terms of difficulty. You either get better (to a certain extent), learn how to play, or you die over and over. Simple as that. Sure it's not the most inclusive of stances, but the alternative is a majority being rewarded for complacency and mediocrity, while people who go about getting good are punished by no longer being able to kick back and relax. 

@pastaclownThe removal of the SBMM will only lead to the less skilled players to quit. So you will end with the same situation or perhaps even worst. 

@aisthebestletter

Game Publishers: “Come play our game! We have eliminated the ability to win more via practice, so you don’t have to worry about trying to improve in this game— we’re trying to make it so players of all skill levels perform at the same rates!”

Unfortunately this is what SBMM does. Publishers like to dress it up being “fair” or “increasing justice”, but it’s all really about money. Casual players are fine with this too, because there is a very real disdain for people who are skilled in a particular game. 

“We’ll give you more wins than you’ve ever had, you give us money. Deal?”