APEX I QUIT AFTER Playing everyday…
For as long as I can remember across my two accounts. And playing at friends. I have enjoyed pubs I have 5000+ hrs . The SBMM IN PUBS has made this game NOT FUN . I agree ranked should be difficult b...
Forum Discussion
I also have 3500+ hours on apex and have enjoyed pubs every season of the game and have always come back to play almost daily for 4 years. This season has been the most unenjoyable experience for me in pubs. However the new sbmm system works, it definitely creates more tightly matched lobbies in terms of skill level. But is that a good thing for player retention or not? A lot of people that play this game will have days when they want to come online and play in a less intense environment (pubs) and then other days when they are more focused and want to challenge themselves in ranked against people of a similar skill level. So why should players have to come online and play in lobbies where everyone is their skill level, even in pubs? It makes every match play at a much higher intensity, which means a lot less success for your average player and a lot more people wanting to leave the game. Fun isn't necessary measured by success, but when you have many unsuccessful games in a row, all the fun is sucked away and many people lose the motivation to even play another match, because they know the next game will feel just as difficult. Personally i used to be able to come online and play this game solo for 4-5 hours at a time, but this season (Season 18) i have found myself closing the game after 1 hour most days and playing something else. I can't see myself ever playing the game as passionately as I once did unless these sbmm changes are reverted, or are changed in order to make the pubs experience more enjoyable. Ranked is where we need to be placed against people of our skill level, pubs needs to be random pools of different skill levels so the matches vary in intensity. This will make for a much more enjoyable pubs experience, because whatever we have right now is not it.
@IB_Dazzle
"A lot of people that play this game will have days when they want to come online and play in a less intense environment (pubs) and then other days when they are more focused and want to challenge themselves in ranked against people of a similar skill level."
This means one of two things: Either you are a lower-skilled player who, in a loose sbmm environment, will always get stomped. Or you are a higher-skilled player who, in a loose sbmm environment, will get more than their fair share of kills and wins in the name of a "relaxed" atmosphere. Relaxed for who? You or the level 25 new guys you're rolling over? There's no reason, in any playlist, in any game, for sbmm to be anything other than tight. If you need to relax then go to the firing range or play candy crush.
"A lot of people that play this game will have days when they want to come online and play in a less intense environment (pubs) and then other days when they are more focused and want to challenge themselves in ranked against people of a similar skill level."
This means one of two things: Either you are a lower-skilled player who, in a loose sbmm environment, will always get stomped. Or you are a higher-skilled player who, in a loose sbmm environment, will get more than their fair share of kills and wins in the name of a "relaxed" atmosphere. Relaxed for who? You or the level 25 new guys you're rolling over? There's no reason, in any playlist, in any game, for sbmm to be anything other than tight. If you need to relax then go to the firing range or play candy crush.
So would the old “bucket” SBMM method not be more suited to allow for more varied matches in a pub environment, rather than the newer, ‘tighter’ system that forces players of almost the exact same skill level together? Ranked should be where the tighter matchmaking takes place, even if queue times are a bit longer. Couldn’t pubs be more lenient to allow for faster queue times? If the SBMM is looser in pubs and the population of lower skilled players is higher overall, then on average they should have more matches with people of their skill level, and rarely come across the smaller percentage of high skilled players.
@reconzero @So it's their fault for being good at the game and getting put into more difficult lobbies in the name of fairness? You know, like ranked. Fair to who? You or the player who reached a good level of skill through time and effort that he doesn't even get to experience because he's constantly playing his equal
Better players should have better success, the current system doesn't really allow that unless you are top 5-1%. No wonder people turn to smurfing.
I don't think anyone suggested to roll new players just because they're new.
And why are you jumping between the two extremes here? Either you stomp everyone or no one? No middle ground or other possibilities at all for anything else besides that?
- @blackeyeriver
"why are you jumping between the two extremes here? Either you stomp everyone or no one?"
I'm talking about extremes only in the sense that the looser sbmm becomes the more extreme the results will be.
And I know what you're saying. I'm constantly on rants about how multiplayer games, especially team-based multiplayer games, have a disconnect between effort and outcome. And I hate that. And it's more or less the other side of the coin of what you're talking about. So I can agree with you in theory that better players should have better outcomes. But when I talk about an outcome delta, I'm talking about a percent or two of three, and I often get the feeling from anti-sbmm people that they would be absolutely fine if the top 1% of players had a 75% win rate, the next 10% had a 50% win rate, and the rest just tailed off mathematically until the bottom 50% only exist as targets for their betters. Incentive for those players to improve? Maybe. Maybe not. I just keep reminding myself that this is a casual, free-to-play game. And then I remember that that argument could easily cut either way.@reconzero @@All I'd like to see is for the game to let up a bit more so that improvement can actually reflect and be felt by players more often. I mean it's not unreasonable, and it should be how any good game works
What is unreasonable is how 1kd (or less) and a sub 5% win rate is considered normal. That's a loss rate of 95%+ and a single kill per match. Totally rediculous and that's the result of tight mm, this is what fighting your equal looks like in practice.
When it comes to the anti-sbmm stuff people seem to get stuck on the idea that they would only face better players although said players are in the minority. Majority of lobbies would consist of average players. Whoever said better players would only be opponents anyway? They could be teammates too. Cuts both ways.
I'm not against mm completely, it's just that most games seem to mess it up at the expense of the players, with this absurd idea of playing your equal, always, non stop. At this point I wouldn't be opposed to them removing it but any solution to reflect outcomes more in line with improvement seems fair. It's a win win as everyone would improve at some point vs what it is now which is constantly getting the same result for most everyone regardless of improvement.
Community Highlights
- EA_Mako4 months ago
Community Manager
- EA_Mako6 months ago
