Hello Apex Legends community,I love this game. It is leagues above the competition in both character and technical aspects, but there is a giant problem here and that is matchmaking. From all of my friends that i tried playing this game with, only 1 has stuck and hes on the verge of quitting (tried over 10). I have already quit this game 3 times and doing it again. The reason being - matchmaking is badly designed. Now I am not a good player, kinda casual, but I try my best. So were my friends. I managed to get to level 80sth and I'm being matched with people about level 500. I am most definitely not that good. I have not seen a predator, so that's good, but there is a giant skill difference between me and someone who has 5k+ kills. At first it felt like they are cheating, and if it feels like your enemies are cheating, it is my belief you have failed as a game designer.Every time I got people into it they say the same thing - "game is great, I love how it feels, I just cant do anything, I get blasted in the face over and over" and then they quit. And I don't really care about "git gud kid" mentality, not everyone is a wannabe streamer, some people want to play a game without doing practice routines and homework, watching the latest videos or streamers, some people just want to play after work. You as a "mega pro" don't have to deal with people like that if matchmaking works and the game is enjoyable to everyone. Playing Ranked made no difference, even a bad player can grind to gold just by hiding. The ranking system is not based on skill apart from the higher levels of players.The problem this poses for your game in the long termA healthy game consists of a pyramid - Casuals at the bottom, people who take the game somewhat seriously in the middle and players who live and breath the game at the top, If you cut out the bottom you will have no new people joining the game, which starts to decay it. The casual players provide the base from which better players are born. This same thing happened to many games I've played, but in your case, the solution is somewhat simple. Skill based matchmaking with many tiers of play. Longer queue times is preferable to people quitting. Thanks for reading, best of luck 🙂

@SirChapwick Level is only an indicator of how long the player has played the game, it says nothing about the skill level. KDR is a better indicator, but most players manage to keep it near 1, so it's still useless for proper matchmaking, as a team of average KDR of 1 might still contain a better skilled player, who will still win a 1 vs 3.I encounter players with fancy drop trails frequently, and those games often end before I find a weapon, even... So my short term "skill value" skewed my long term, more realistic "skill value" and set me up against people who kill me by sneezing in my general vincinity. Then it's rinse repeat a couple more rounds, before the game decides it's MY turn to nuke-sneeze a lobby, then it's right back in the victim queue...Soooo basically, the matchmaking isn't granular enough to balance players, it just teams you up with someone better than you to simulate matchmaking, or if you're in a premade, tries to find other premades just to get a game going, no matter how terrible the team balance really is...The game sometimes feels like you're rolling a pair of dice, and the lowest value gets you eliminated, nothing but random numbers to decide the outcome...

@EryxApexI agree. Just to be clear I do not suggest using level to determine skill with accuracy, I just used it as an example where I am fairly new to the game and playing with veterans, that should never be the case.For me, 1/10 games is enjoyable, 1/50 is good. You are always going to have bad games, so the target for design should be 9/10 enjoyable, 1/20 good. That is very far off atm.

@Balladalidila Well that's the trick isn't it. You want to balance out queue times with matchmaking. Currently the queues are almost non-existant, so the answer is clearly more SBMM. Overall I would say SBMM>queue times, not so much for higher skilled people (for them its fun to blast newbies), but for the lower skilled people - definitely so. When you have a choice of insta death and re-queue or a longer queue, it's an easy choice.Ranked doesn't work in this game at lower ranks, at least the way it is and I cannot imagine a better solution. Problems with it: 1. Smurfs 2. You can get to gold by hiding 3. Ranks reset every so often. You still end up playing with the same crowd you play like in normals anyways.Smurfs are easy to solve with a paid-only option of play in the game. With proper SBMM they would not be a problem though.You have to also remember that long queue times are an inevitability, as more and more casuals quit the game, slowly the intermediates are going to start quitting and eventually even the streamers will go, since they rely on a broader casual community that cares about the game. Hopefully that's not anytime soon, since I would prefer the game fixed, but the main reason why people tell me they do not play - is the matchmaking. If that was fixed, I sincerely believe this game would have the highest player-base of all multiplayer games. 🙂

i read the post and its the same old, and debunked complaint. skill based matchmaking is used in many games i have played. If you have ever played Gears of War or any xbox game they basically all use it. It causes a problem because people see the name and instantly complain that the matchups are unfair. That is who you deserve to be matched withI repeat that is who you DESERVE to be matched with.I have seen this conversation for almost a decade now. Skill based matchmaking is NOT....and I repeat NOT supposed to pair you perfectly with your skill level. GO and read what the designers of it actually intended. You are not supposed to get even fair matches as those do not actually exist. It gives a mixture as close as possible. ALSO AND THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT SO PLEASE READ....IT PURPOSELY PLACES YOU AGAINST HARDER, MORE ADVANCED PLAYERS AND EVEN PURPOSELY PAIRS YOU WITH BETTER AND EVEN WORST TEAMMATES. THIS IS ACTUAL FAIRNESSWHAT YOU GUYS WANT IS IMPOSSIBLE AND ISN'T AN HONEST WAY OF JUDGING ANYTHING IN THE REAL WORLD.IN THE REAL WORLD YOU GET PAIRED WITH SCRUBS SOMETIMES. IN THE REAL WORLD YOU GO AGAISNT THE BEST SOMETIMES. GET IT?The system does this on purpose in order to test how good you actually are.

@SirChapwick But where do we draw the lines? Keep in mind that "skill" is a continuous variable.. How can we design a SBMM that makes ALL players, at ALL skill levels, NOT have to play against someone much better than him? Its not possible unless we have a super narrow SBMM, but that is not practically possible since the queue times would be too long for both the high elo and low elo players since skill distribution is most likely normal distributed.And I think the current SBMM will sort out the really bad players in a separate queue where new players or just really noobish players are allowed to learn the basics. But when you hit a certain skill level, probably measured in K/D, you will have to fight with the big boys. I honestly feel that most SBMM complainers want public games to be like ranked games. So a much easier and better solution would be for Respawn to FIX RANKED by making it super hard to smurf in ranked. Then, people who want to play vs players his own skill could do that in ranked, regardless if he is in silver, or master.

Matchmaking destroying the ability of new players joining

22 Replies

EryxApex
5 years ago
@SirChapwick Level is only an indicator of how long the player has played the game, it says nothing about the skill level. KDR is a better indicator, but most players manage to keep it near 1, so it's still useless for proper matchmaking, as a team of average KDR of 1 might still contain a better skilled player, who will still win a 1 vs 3.
I encounter players with fancy drop trails frequently, and those games often end before I find a weapon, even... So my short term "skill value" skewed my long term, more realistic "skill value" and set me up against people who kill me by sneezing in my general vincinity. Then it's rinse repeat a couple more rounds, before the game decides it's MY turn to nuke-sneeze a lobby, then it's right back in the victim queue...
Soooo basically, the matchmaking isn't granular enough to balance players, it just teams you up with someone better than you to simulate matchmaking, or if you're in a premade, tries to find other premades just to get a game going, no matter how terrible the team balance really is...
The game sometimes feels like you're rolling a pair of dice, and the lowest value gets you eliminated, nothing but random numbers to decide the outcome...
SirChapwick
5 years ago
@EryxApexI agree. Just to be clear I do not suggest using level to determine skill with accuracy, I just used it as an example where I am fairly new to the game and playing with veterans, that should never be the case.

For me, 1/10 games is enjoyable, 1/50 is good. You are always going to have bad games, so the target for design should be 9/10 enjoyable, 1/20 good. That is very far off atm.
Balladalidila
Seasoned Ace
5 years ago
@SirChapwick

But where do we draw the lines? Keep in mind that "skill" is a continuous variable.. How can we design a SBMM that makes ALL players, at ALL skill levels, NOT have to play against someone much better than him? Its not possible unless we have a super narrow SBMM, but that is not practically possible since the queue times would be too long for both the high elo and low elo players since skill distribution is most likely normal distributed.
And I think the current SBMM will sort out the really bad players in a separate queue where new players or just really noobish players are allowed to learn the basics. But when you hit a certain skill level, probably measured in K/D, you will have to fight with the big boys.
I honestly feel that most SBMM complainers want public games to be like ranked games. So a much easier and better solution would be for Respawn to FIX RANKED by making it super hard to smurf in ranked. Then, people who want to play vs players his own skill could do that in ranked, regardless if he is in silver, or master.
SirChapwick
5 years ago
@Balladalidila Well that's the trick isn't it. You want to balance out queue times with matchmaking. Currently the queues are almost non-existant, so the answer is clearly more SBMM. Overall I would say SBMM>queue times, not so much for higher skilled people (for them its fun to blast newbies), but for the lower skilled people - definitely so. When you have a choice of insta death and re-queue or a longer queue, it's an easy choice.

Ranked doesn't work in this game at lower ranks, at least the way it is and I cannot imagine a better solution. Problems with it: 1. Smurfs 2. You can get to gold by hiding 3. Ranks reset every so often. You still end up playing with the same crowd you play like in normals anyways.

Smurfs are easy to solve with a paid-only option of play in the game. With proper SBMM they would not be a problem though.

You have to also remember that long queue times are an inevitability, as more and more casuals quit the game, slowly the intermediates are going to start quitting and eventually even the streamers will go, since they rely on a broader casual community that cares about the game. Hopefully that's not anytime soon, since I would prefer the game fixed, but the main reason why people tell me they do not play - is the matchmaking. If that was fixed, I sincerely believe this game would have the highest player-base of all multiplayer games. 🙂
Balladalidila
Seasoned Ace
5 years ago
I think the problem is that the player skill distribution most likely is normal distributed with a mean surprisingly low and a standard deviation probably also low. I wouldn't be surprised if the mean K/D of active players <1.
So lets say, for the sake of the argument, that they would create public lobbies of all players >2.5 k/d
Here are just some problems of the top of my head:
1) Super long queue times. Last season, only 4.68% of the active ranked players were Diamond or better, and you dont even need to have 2.5 k/d to reach diamond. So from that, maybe we can say that there are actually FAR LESS players than 4.68 of the player base with 2.5 K/D, and creating public matches with less than 4.68 % of players will probably not even be possible in the smaller regions (20 min queue time?). Is our goal to make it impossible for good players to play this game?
2) And even if these "high elo" public lobbies could be created; ALL players in them would drastically drop in K/D. We must remember than skill is relative. Take me for example. I have 2.4 overall k/d now but only 1.63 K/D last season I played ranked (reached D2) and this number is including my silver-platinum games (started in silver that season). My "diamond" k/d was probably far less than <1.
So how would this work in this SBMM you are suggesting? Bottom line is that if we have a narrow SBMM, EVERY player, regardless of skill level, would have a k/d going towards the same value (theoretically, the value would be 1 in super narrow SBMM) because, once again; skill is relative. So after a while, how would this sbmm know what player was good or bad, since good or bad is determined what opponent we are playing against.
But on the subject of ranked, I totally agree. Ranked is a mess and is designed to make people come back and play (ebmm?) , not to provide a competitive game mode. Remove the smurfs, remove or reduce soft reset, enable both demotions between divisions and fast promotions. When someone clearly is playing on a much higher skill level than his corresponding rank, there is nothing wrong with moving him up several ranks. If demotions where enabled, anyone who is moved up too far will eventually be demoted back down to the rank better corresponding to his actual skill.
SirChapwick
5 years ago
@BalladalidilaWell the solution would be not to use K/D as a stat to create lobbies, but as a guide. My K/D is well below 1 and so is a lot of players, because anyone who is higher needs someone who is below them for the maths to work. I will offer a suggestion although I am not knowledgeable.

I don't know what the target K/D should be, for arguments sake let's say 1. Make 6 lobbies: Trash, Bad, Average, Intermediate, Good, Beast. Now if you have a lower K/D than 1, bounce one lower, If you have higher, bounce one up. Over time you will find a spot where you sit and if you get better you will advance.

I am not saying I have the answers, I am not the designer of this game, however, this game will die if this does not get solved. Same thing happened to Mordhau, nobody plays it anymore, it had a few issues but the radical difference in player skills made people quit.
* I will also add that the problem is not that there are people better than me or worse in the match, the problem is that there are people so much better than me that it feels like they are cheating with aimbots.
Balladalidila
Seasoned Ace
5 years ago
@SirChapwick

It would be interesting to try out such a "dynamic" SBMM but I honestly think that would be a worse experience for everyone. Having a lobby full of players close to your own skill level would feel super sweaty for everyone, regardless of skill. Everyone would probably go +/- 1-2 K/D every game.
My experience of the current SBMM (even though some wont agree on this) is that the matchmaking try to create lobbies according to a certain template, with only a very few high elo players in each lobby. It isnt perfect but due to all the problems Ive mentioned earlier with a "narrower" SBMM, I think its the overall best option. And yes, most of the time I die post early game, is from a predator death squad but I just think its a little bit ridiculous to demand a SBMM where I never have to have much better players in my lobby. I rather have 2-3 predators in my lobby and play with two mediocre teammates, rather than being in a lobby of 10-20 predators/masters but with better teammates tbh. If I want that, I just play ranked.
SirChapwick
5 years ago
@Balladalidila "but I honestly think that would be a worse experience for everyone. Having a lobby full of players close to your own skill level would feel super sweaty for everyone, regardless of skill."

Just a quick comment. Imagine that, but instead of equal, everyone's miles better. That is the game for me and a lot of people. It's not sweaty, it is beyond frustrating, you do not feel like you could've done something better and won, you feel like you are wasting you time.
DrSeptimus
5 years ago
@SirChapwick K/D is a bad evaluation even as a guide due to numerous factor.

Knockdown, assist and etc shouldn't be exclude. The problem with KD is that kill is only count if you kill a knockdown opponent or wipe off the whole squad. In this fast phase game where you keep getting 3rd party as soon as the fight start, you don't have the time to kill a knockdown enemy.

I have been in numerous match where I knock 2-3, sometimes even 5 opponent without getting a single kill since the entire squad was wipe off before they die.

If you judge a player performances by their profile, it would be poor evaluation since player would put the best stats at their profiles. I seen player with 4k badge and 20 kill, when ask about their win rate, they have win rate as low as 1-2%.
SirChapwick
5 years ago
@DrSeptimus which metric is best used is irrelevant, imo damage done per 100 damage taken would be probably the best one.

Whichever is used doesn't really matter though, I am not talking about a need for perfect matchmaking, I am talking about a need of an ok matchmaking.