Lets Talk About 'Skill-Based Matchmaking'?

---

@DarthVaapar wrote:

@JiboTVThis is a very good post, that I must disagree with.

You are not being punished for being good. On the contrary, you are being fairly pitted against players of similar skill. You are simply being challenged. Removing SBMM removes that challenge.

The experience you describe is the same for everyone, not just high skilled players. Everyone is playing against opponents of like skill. They are not being punished either, but fairly challenged.

The vast majority of players will never be as good as those of your skill level. Tailoring a game to a small minority’s preference would not, in fact, be good for a game sustainability. The opposite is true.

What you describe is an acute experience that can only be had by the very few, Predator level players, who represent a tiny fraction of the population. Domination of lesser skilled players in a non SBMM environment.

I apologize, but you are simply wrong.

All players are more fairly challenged now, on average. That’s a great model for a game.

SBMM has not only improved the gaming experience for the overwhelming majority of players, but it had also constructed the foundation for long term sustainability.

Masters against novices is a terrible format for any competition.

---

So everyone must be content with winning 1 in 20 games?

'cos that's the natural consequence of perfectly balanced matches.

No matter how good you are; if you play at the skill level appropriate to your MMR, statistically you'll have a 5% chance of winning a match, and you'll tend towards a K/D of 1:1.

That isn't my idea of a satisfying progression system, nor a rewarding experience.

---

@DarthVaapar wrote:

@JiboTVThis is a very good post, that I must disagree with.

You are not being punished for being good. On the contrary, you are being fairly pitted against players of similar skill. You are simply being challenged. Removing SBMM removes that challenge.

The experience you describe is the same for everyone, not just high skilled players. Everyone is playing against opponents of like skill. They are not being punished either, but fairly challenged.

The vast majority of players will never be as good as those of your skill level. Tailoring a game to a small minority’s preference would not, in fact, be good for a game sustainability. The opposite is true.

What you describe is an acute experience that can only be had by the very few, Predator level players, who represent a tiny fraction of the population. Domination of lesser skilled players in a non SBMM environment.

I apologize, but you are simply wrong.

All players are more fairly challenged now, on average. That’s a great model for a game.

SBMM has not only improved the gaming experience for the overwhelming majority of players, but it had also constructed the foundation for long term sustainability.

Masters against novices is a terrible format for any competition.

---

Someone other than me might think you type well, but I don't. You haven't really said much in your response and your formatting is confusing. You fail to address many of the points I made, if not all of them, you focused on my main point and conclusion without addressing much if any of the details before or after them. I will make it clear that failing to address is not the same as failing to acknowledge them, which you sort of did. You seemingly dismissed my points as to why I make feeling punished for doing well the topic and conclusion - I also never said people are "Punished for doing good.". You seem to never clarify why and where you disagree with me. I will break down your response and provide my own, but I encourage you to read my original post and some of the responses I have made to others after. At which point you could hopefully write something a little more substantive for the discussion, whether you agree or disagree.

Man, reading your post it seems like you are just dancing around just saying "Your wrong and should suck it up. You're just being challenged. Why should we cater to such a small number of players anyway? Your feedback / perspective doesn't matter because you make up such a small percentage of the community. I think it's fair, and I think a majority of the community thinks it's fair too. You just want to dominate noobs! Wrong!", which would have been way easier to respond to, man. In fact, I have in some of my other responses. I do not plan use that boiled down summary of what you wrote to disagree with you. Not because I agree with it, in fact I very much disagree with it, but rather if I did you might think I was unfair and say "That's not what I said.". But, as of right now I will be honest and say that I feel it is a pretty fair and accurate summary of what you wrote. I figure it is better to address that skunk in the room before responding to your response as is. It is hard to have a good faith discussion if you are going to beat around the bush saying stuff like that and take up my time, I digress.

You misconstrued my point about feeling punished and proceeded to argue against a point you created when you insinuated my argument was "I am punished for being good at the game." and danced around addressing my reasoning as to why I came to my conclusion. I will add that me or others feeling punished is a reality you do not have the liberty to deny just to make your reasoning seem sound when you say "It's fair, everyone is doing it and I don't think they are being punished, just challenged!". Beyond that, to be doubly clear, what I actually said was players are punished for performing well and clarified why I came to that conclusion in that section both above and below. Your formatting is very weird, where you disagree is obscure or probably unwritten. I recommend you point exactly to what you disagree with in that section and explain how and why you disagree in a new response. Being charitable, your main point is "You are being fairly pitted against players of a similar skill level.", which is substantively untrue and addressed in my post, I would love to see how you justify it as fair and better for everyone given what I wrote. Are my friends being pitted fairly against players when they join my lobby and queue with me? Is it fair if I and two other randoms are in a filled random squad and most of my lobby is pre-made squads? They tend to answer with a "No.". You don't even try to explain what fair means or how I might see it. I want to play with my friends again. I would like to be able to make mistakes sometimes and meme around with different weapons or strategies. If I wanted to be in a match where I am held to very high standards, need the best weapons to compete, and need a filled team to communicate and strategize my best, I would click the game mode button and left click the mode that says "Ranked.". I also never thought "Mmm, time to dominate some noobs!" when clicking the casual play mode button before or after SBMM, for your information, Bub.

There are better ways to ensure worse or new players have time to bond and adjust to the game. The current SBMM model seems to infinitely go past focusing on new or worse players, which is a big reason why I believe it is an unsustainable model. Speaking a tad exaggeratedly, in order to win, fight (Equally), or kill, you will need to outperform yourself in your last game every time. Doing this does not bode well when your opponents keep scaling and creates very high standards for players as they progress. It may have some practicality for players on the bottom end - But the game will feel stagnate and require a lot more effort as people play more and get better. Fairness to the idea that new and bad players need a chance and ensuring players are happy and continue to join and play are why I made my recommendation section in my post. It is also a section you seem to have missed. Why do you think having the current SBMM apply to everyone is better than a system where it focuses on the lower end of matchmaking? Do you think that is an unreasonable recommendation? Explain why if you do. Also, I'd recommend you stop trying to say things are just "Fair." or "Wrong." or that "I disagree!" like that's an argument. I am not here to be told what to think. You need to convince me that your way of thinking makes any sense, and you have failed so far. I think there are better ways to be fair, you have not convinced me I am wrong, and I do not agree with you. You also acknowledge that predators (Or skilled players.) feel the way I described, but then you went and asserted that you know why - the 'inability to dominate players of players with less skill'. How about instead of assuming and asserting your own beliefs behind what you think I or other skilled players think, you read what I wrote, you know, instead of pretentiously dancing around my points and presuming to know how I think despite what I wrote. Have you ever thought that skilled players may not like the game because of, oh I don't know, the exact things I describe and maybe more? Maybe you'd be surprised at some of the responses from those who agree that the current SBMM needs a change. Or that my recommendation could help prevent this situation you talk about where 'novices fight masters'. Step off and drink some humble tea if you plan to be disingenuous and lie about my intent behind making this post.

You will not change my mind if you just say that I am wrong or that you disagree. What you want to do is reason with me that I am wrong and that your views makes more sense despite our opposing views. This is a discussion.