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
@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.
"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
