Yet again strong disagree, BR’s are supposed to be random, and plus you can’t put new players against new players and not expect them to get better....faster at looting, better at aiming, and game sense to know the feel of what to do and when to do it.
skill based match making will just stagnate people’s skill level.
@zennorian wrote:Yet again strong disagree, BR’s are supposed to be random, and plus you can’t put new players against new players and not expect them to get better....faster at looting, better at aiming, and game sense to know the feel of what to do and when to do it.
skill based match making will just stagnate people’s skill level.
You get better by playing competitive matches. This is how athletic sports work. You start in the playground, then highschool tiers, college tiers, pro level tiers. The game has to be fun for everyone too, not just torture. If theres no motivation people wouldn't play. People want to gradually get better at their own pace. Which actually works contrary to your opinion.
The sad reality is that BR genre has no set concept of what a skilled player is. The ultimate goal of the game is to be the last one surviving yet most of the community ranks players by how many kills they score. And unfortunately respawn failed or just refused to address this by putting so much highlight on kill counts. If you play to win, scoring a lot of kills means you messed up a lot, it means you played bad, not good, because you took way more risk than you should have. And yet we have these arena-wide announcements of who the new kill leader is. It's a complete mess. It does not have to be this way, BR is capable of providing an awesome competitive experience, but Apex appears to be designed as this casual gambling deathmatch arena where just like in deathmatch everyone's goal is to frag except here we got gambling aspects like hot drops where you can just get frags for free. I don't think there's much point talking about skill-based matchmaking in this kind of situation.
Honestly, at this point I just want them to make a deathmatch shooter out of this game, because combat mechanics are really good. It's like a better Titanfall without the gimmicky mech combat.
The thing is, there's people entirely capable of getting in firefights with half the server and coming out on top consistently because of the lack of skill based matchmaking, it's not a risk for them.
You can play the game for survival and get in the last two teams and then you get crushed by those guys 10/10 times. Not only because they are good at shooting but also because they can stock up on weapons, ammo, attachments and healing items from the people they killed who will already have gathered only the best loot they found themselves, vs. You who took what you could get.
And you will have to kill at least one team if you want to win a round, so being good at killing definitely is an important skill to have and should factor into skill based matchmaking. Because a round that you were doomed to lose from the start no matter how intelligently you try to play because whoever you are up against is just so far above your shooting ability that you are down before you can process what happened is bad game design. A game that is impossible to win should never happen .
@stevencloser wrote:The thing is, there's people entirely capable of getting in firefights with half the server and coming out on top consistently because of the lack of skill based matchmaking, it's not a risk for them.
You can play the game for survival and get in the last two teams and then you get crushed by those guys 10/10 times. Not only because they are good at shooting but also because they can stock up on weapons, ammo, attachments and healing items from the people they killed who will already have gathered only the best loot they found themselves, vs. You who took what you could get.
And you will have to kill at least one team if you want to win a round, so being good at killing definitely is an important skill to have and should factor into skill based matchmaking. Because a round that you were doomed to lose from the start no matter how intelligently you try to play because whoever you are up against is just so far above your shooting ability that you are down before you can process what happened is bad game design. A game that is impossible to win should never happen .
You know how Shroud was never actually ranked high in PUBG back when they had MMR? That's what I mean, it's rather pointless. You start ranking people - you get Shroud in the bottom half with the noobs. As long as we are not clear on what the goal of the game actually is, you can't really rank people.
What you suggest is to rank people purely on what fights they win/lose and completely ignore what placements they get. At which point the game would probably need to stop calling itself Battle Royale. Not to mention that due to size of the lobbies there will probably never be enough high level players to match them together while also trying to match by other factors like ping.
@2deski wrote:The sad reality is that BR genre has no set concept of what a skilled player is. The ultimate goal of the game is to be the last one surviving yet most of the community ranks players by how many kills they score. And unfortunately respawn failed or just refused to address this by putting so much highlight on kill counts. If you play to win, scoring a lot of kills means you messed up a lot, it means you played bad, not good, because you took way more risk than you should have. And yet we have these arena-wide announcements of who the new kill leader is. It's a complete mess. It does not have to be this way, BR is capable of providing an awesome competitive experience, but Apex appears to be designed as this casual gambling deathmatch arena where just like in deathmatch everyone's goal is to frag except here we got gambling aspects like hot drops where you can just get frags for free. I don't think there's much point talking about skill-based matchmaking in this kind of situation.
Honestly, at this point I just want them to make a deathmatch shooter out of this game, because combat mechanics are really good. It's like a better Titanfall without the gimmicky mech combat.
I disagree, first of all let me just say titanfall 2 has a much wider skill gap and learning curve then apex, and probably why it was never that popular.
Secondly, Its the players who make the apex what it is. The problem is we are in an impatient generation that play auto chess and not real chess for the same reasons. Does that mean classic chess is not a competitive skill based game.
Even in a gambling game like poker, the pros are the ones who rank high consistently. Consistently being the key phrase.
Kills, damage done, all those stats still mean something because we are talking about MULTIPLE matches. Even if they are hot dropping and going for frags, the better players will be consistent and have higher stats over time.
But I still any game is about winning and not the stats. And if people feel that is too luck based, then they should have multiple matches and the best player will still come out on top almost always in a best of tourney. They keep saying anybody can just hide and survive till the end in a BR. Yet they can't prove that * because then they say its all about luck.
As if hot dropping on random noobs isn't also about luck......Auto Chess is more popular then classic chess among gamers for the same reasons. Its a generation with a short attention span and these pros only care about that twitch money.
There is nothing wrong with BR being competitive at all.
@RichAC wrote:
I disagree
What are you disagreeing on exactly? I mostly agree with what you just said.
@RichAC wrote:
Its the players who make the apex what it is. The problem is we are in an impatient generation that play auto chess and not real chess for the same reasons. Does that mean classic chess is not a competitive skill based game.
Just as I said, most of the community ranks players by how many kills they score. And play accordingly, view the game accordingly. Streamers are definitely part of the reason why. But, PUBG highlighted kill counters in red from the start. Apex goes even further by introducing kill leaders and listing squad's kill counts and damage next to each other after each game. Lets not pretend that when a game pushes people to care about kills and damage like this it's entirely their fault when this is all they care about. In fact, it's extremely wrong to pretend so when kills and damage are literally the only individual metrics the game focuses on (survival time, players revived/respawned are rather meaningless). Imagine if instead of those two numbers the game showed your current win percentage and top 3 percentage, or average placement among the last 3 and 10 games. Imagine if kill counters didn't exist at all.
@RichAC wrote:
Even in a gambling game like poker, the pros are the ones who rank high consistently. Consistently being the key phrase.
Kills, damage done, all those stats still mean something because we are talking about MULTIPLE matches. Even if they are hot dropping and going for frags, the better players will be consistent and have higher stats over time.
You are missing the point. You first mention poker where ranking is very simple based on order of elimination. And then you say that kills and damage should matter. How do you see them mixed with the win-rate (or are you talking off topic)? People that hot drop all the time may have a decent combat rating but they will never have a great average placement. Kills and damage do not have a straightforward correlation with win-rate.
@RichAC wrote:
Kill help you win the game.
Kills help you win the game only up to a point. Technically, a win never requires more than 3 kills. Scoring more than that is often reasonable when opportunities present themselves but again, up to a point. For example, if you killed half the server, you almost certainly played very wrong (assuming your goal is to win). If we're including kills into rating, then your rating should be reduced for that, not raised. But the exact point of how many kills are too many is impossible to determine. It's like rating goalies in hockey by the amount of spectacular saves they made - it's pointless because the best goalies position themselves better and make easy saves instead.
@RichAC wrote:
There is nothing wrong with BR being competitive at all.
I agree, the constantly repeated mantra of "RNG means the game is not competitive" is complete nonsense born out of extremely shortsighted views. But a competitive game requires a clear consensus on what the goal of the game is. The reality is we don't have that.
@RichAC wrote:Society will never respect
You'd be surprised...
Community Manager
