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.
The player numbers are up to 2 million at once. Even if just 1% of them are high level, that's 20k players.
And maybe Shroud wasn't that high because matchmaking actually made it so the players he was up against by and large could fight back semi competently instead of half the server being actual noobs like we have with the random matches? But you can't make videos like "40 kills in ONE game?!?!?! *Shocked emoji times 3*" out of fair rounds .
@stevencloser wrote:The player numbers are up to 2 million at once. Even if just 1% of them are high level, that's 20k players.
Even when there are 2 million playing at once, only a tiny fraction of them are sitting in the queue at the same time, and then they are also divided into regions. But none of that matters anyway if you have no good way to rank people. Giving some weight to some performance stats is proably a good idea, but rather not a priority considering the situation. More useful would be to separate pre-formed squads from randoms, match randoms by whether they are using a mic and by what languages they speak. And of course, matching by ping is important as well. All of these offer very clear benefits, while "skill-based" MMR - not really.
@stevencloser wrote:And maybe Shroud wasn't that high because matchmaking actually made it so the players he was up against by and large could fight back semi competently instead of half the server being actual noobs like we have with the random matches? But you can't make videos like "40 kills in ONE game?!?!?! *Shocked emoji times 3*" out of fair rounds .
Shroud was always one of the most consistent players at getting high kill counts. The reason he was ranked low is because he would often get 5-10 kills and still die in the bottom half while anyone who doesn't hot drop is guaranteed to be in the top half. Technically, he was always a terrible Battle Royale player. Just really good at fragging. And that's how you get him consistently matched against weak fighters - thanks to "skill-based" matchmaking. What you ask for would still get you exactly what you complain about, possibly even more of it (in fact, since AFAIK there was no word on this from the devs, it is entirely possible this kind of MMR is active right now - it is not a hard thing to implement at all). The only way it wouldn't is if you rank players purely by combat skill, that is by who they won/lost fights against. But then again, better just make a proper deathmatch game instead.
