I have read that. But I like to hear if someone else has anything different to say or more to add.
My own experience, both ranked and unranked, is that some matches are down to five squads at first circle, and others are the aforementioned ten squads at the endgame. I never found any real correlation between any particular such outcome and the overall skill of the lobby. Except in the sense that rampant hot dropping does not seem skillful to me. But it's entirely possible that the fifteen squads who died on drop put up one hell of a fight. I wouldn't know because I wasn't one of them and I didn't end any of them. And I've heard opinions both ways on whether a final circle is more fun with ten squads or with just two. I have my own opinion, but not sure it matters for the sake of this discussion. People are allowed to like it better either way. And also, not sure that more squads at the end is a sign of higher skill or more ratting. And I don't use the term "ratting" in a derogatory way. It's a strategy. And if the season rewards placement over kills then it's a smart strategy.
But there is also an implication that what is more fun is also a better test of skill? Or am I reading something into that that isn't really there? Because on that point, if the implication is true, I would have to disagree. I know people want to have fun AND be proven skillful, but the two don't always go hand in hand. I also think people often associate fun with teammates who play like they do (not a given in this game), with engagements that happen one after the other and not all at once (also not a given), and maybe even with gameplay that tests their mechanical skills and maybe doesn't test their strategizing, or at least not too strenuously. That, again, could be me making inferences that are not right. But that is how it looks to me. At any rate, the day we can get any three players to agree on what is fun in this game is the day I eat my hat.