I understand this. I know it is not simple but I should not be playing one of the top 500 players playing the game. Playing someone better than me, fine. But playing someone that much better than me is not okay. Yes there should be mixed skill gap in lobbies. Under no circumstances should I play a top 500 player, as I am not top 500. Playing people better than me is expected but not THAT much better. It's not fun. I am so outmatched by these players in a casual match that I don't stand a chance. I am not a math wiz or a software designer, but I do know I am not enjoying getting destroyed almost on a game to game basis by someone with 200 times the play time of me. I am okay with a challenge, but playing a borderline professional player is not a challenge that is enjoyed.
I personally would rather wait a long time for a balanced fair match than loads of unbalanced matches. I am okay with long queue times.
I don't know what a fair system would look like, But respawn doesn't seem to be trying. They are silent and don't update the players on anything. This is why I respect Ubisoft as a developer, they are constantly talking to the community and updating them on what they are working on. Other games have working casual matchmaking systems, Overwatch, Siege and others I have played where I do not play the top 500 best players. They are different types of games yes, but surely something in those games could be used to make apex a fairer matchmaking system.
I don't want to feel "good" or "better" at apex I just want to have a game in which I could play, someone of my skill level, someone slightly better than me and someone slightly worse. Not the same game but Scump was talking about COD matchmaking and saying he doesn't want to play the best players all the time in casual or the worst players all the time in casual. Why is this so hard for apex?
So am I getting this right, since people who are upset with the supposed "sbmm" in apex cannot figure out a viable alternative. Our concerns just don't matter? There is nothing wrong with the system because there is nothing that can be done to make it better? Is that the conclusion here?
Sure playing a top 500 sweat once in a while, okay fine. But in my experience almost every time I get killed, it is by a predator. I am not exaggerating. I have put hundreds of hours into Overwatch and during it's hay day, I never once played a master, grandmaster or top 500 player. I ask, do you enjoy playing games in which every single match you get destroyed, absolutely demolished by someone who is way better than you? Because everyone I have ever met who plays games would say no.
Just to be clear; I dont ofc think that you must present a technical solution to have the right to say you dont like SBMM. What I mean is that after reading most discussions about SBMM on this forum, I honestly think that pretty much all people who expresses dissatisfaction about the SBMM havent even started to think about
a) what they even want from this "good" SBMM
b) is this SBMM even theoretically possible
c) what consequences it would have for players that ARENT them (at their skill level) and also in terms of queue times for ALL players.
At least partly what the purpose of this thread was to just try make these people to see that the current SBMM is maybe the best possible solution for better or worse.
So based on what you said: "I just want to have a game in which I could play, someone of my skill level, someone slightly better than me and someone slightly worse", well that basically means that want you want is a super narrow SBMM. Keep in mind that the skill curve is continuous (and not a discrete variable). In how many lobbies would you have to split the queuing players to have all of them having that game experience ? The queue time might be bearable for a player like you (around gold) since that seem to be the average player, but how would this work for Predators skilled players, or even players at diamond skill level?
I honestly think that people maybe have to rethink what a BR. You mentioned Overwatch; thats a 6v6 "TDM" with objectives. Ofc they can afford, and also should have a narrower SBMM. But this is a BR of 60 players per lobby. Me personally have always seen Apex as a ladder. You start out far down, maybe even at the bottom, in this wide SBMM that follows the overall skill distribution of the player base (normal distributed) and as you improve, you gradually climb the ladder. And as you climb this ladder, your definition whats a "win" also changes. At first, a win could be to win your first 1v1, and as you improve, it changes.
For me for instance, I see a game, regardless if I actually win the match, as a "loss" if I do less than 600 dmg (which is my overall average) and an OK game is at least 1000 dmg +. These weren't my conditions when I started out ofc, and I think its unreasonable to think a game like Apex can have a matchmaking system that always gives you "fair" competative chance to win the match.
@Balladalidila Ok, this is an explanation I can accept. I don't like it, but I understand the predicament behind trying to change the matchmaking system. Unlike a typical 6v6 or 5v5 game there are way too many factors. Too many players and an unbalanced skill hierarchy, create challenges unique to the BR genre. At least this is what I am understanding.
And as much as I don't like the top 1% of players, they deserve as good an experience as possible or at least the developer should try and provide that. I was misinformed and did not think about all the variables.
While I now understand why this is such a difficult issue, I still have not been having fun recently. The matchmaking may be the best they can do, getting absolutely slapped by a top 1% player on almost a match-ly basis is no fun. Maybe with the launch of season 7 more people will come back and I won't see those top 500 players as much.
Community ManagerCommunity Manager
