Match making in pubs

I have never seen as dramatic an improvement in matchmaking as I have this season. I'm sure the changes affect different people differently, but I'm scratching my head a little at your particulars. There was a time in this game... last season and all the others prior... when full spectrum matchmaking was a real thing. You could queue into trios and see a skill distribution that came as close to both top and bottom of the curve as made no difference. Bronze to predator. That was a pox on the game. This season so far seems to have that happen not at all. Curves with half the distribution are very rare in my experience. It mostly is what I would describe as very tight.

I guess where I'm headed with all this is:

Are you talking about ranked or pubs or both?

When you say "I want to... play with others around my skill level" (asking rhetorically - no answer required) are you a low platinum player who would take anything between gold and diamond, or are you after strict platinum four matches?

Toughest one of all: What exactly is the differentiator between sweaty and fun? I've always found that in a competitive multiplayer shooter when people say they want fun instead of sweat what they often mean is they want the same bad matchmaking but they want it to favor them instead of punishing them. Because, after all, bad matchmaking is all about creating winners and losers with an algorithm instead of with gaming. I'm not sure I'd quantify either as "fun," but I know which one seems more fair. And I think people are often more okay with unfair than they'd like to admit, as long as they're not ALWAYS on the wrong side of the imbalance. Again, strictly rhetorical. The only one who needs answers to these questions is you. But if you have any thoughts you'd like to bounce off the group then feel free to put 'em out there.

"What exactly is the differentiator between sweaty and fun?" You know exactly where this line is and you're just pillpulling to make him look wrong.

The question isn't "why am I asking the question?" The question is, "What is his answer?"

Because the question was legitimate given the context. Yes, I'm making an inference about what he may have meant, but I'm perfectly open to correction or else I wouldn't have phrased it as a question.

His answer is irrelevant. Your question is gaslighting him to make it sound like he has unreasonable standards for where the line is drawn. AKA, you're manipulating him and the audience in order to diminish his criticism.

Agree to disagree. I'm presenting him with an opportunity for clarification or correction, and at the same time allowing him to ignore the questions entirely by labeling ALL of them as rhetorical in nature. Yes, I have an idea of what he may have meant. I may be wrong. He may want to comment. He may not want to comment. I don't personally think he looks bad whether he does or doesn't reply, or, if he does, by what he may or may not say. I'm always just trying to get people to think carefully about why they feel the way they do, and to give them the opportunity to articulate those thoughts.

But now you're making me want to ask, what to YOU is the difference between sweat and fun? No pressure. Strictly rhetorical.