Seems to me that you just like to complain and find ways to poke holes in my findings, only because you dont have anything better to come with tbh. Ever heard of straw man arguments?
I've said 2-3 times now that this experiment was just a new approach of exploring SBMM, which I think is a much more constructive way than the usual way people talk about SBMM on this forum. No one except you are talking about finding "the inner workings of SBMM".
It is what it is; 20 games in a row with some stats from every match documented. And you immediately goes "but its a too small sample; you have to do 100 matches with every variable defined to provide the inner workings of SBMM"..... So once again; the experiment was what it was, and this is the last time I will repeat this but you seem to forget: 20 consecutive matches when I, a player of 2.4 k/d, jumped in in public lobbies as a solo where I documented my squads banners, the champions banners, the jump trails early in the flight path, the match summery screen.
You seem to have the very childish approach "only because your methods wasnt 100% perfect to explain SBMM, then we should dismiss this method and keep to the "gut feeling" approach" (yeah I will call it gut feeling because that is what it is) . And, btw, thats how science usually work; small steps. I even stated in the summary that I didnt want to draw to many conclusion since so many other variables could not be considered, and that the only pattern I really could see was that I usually was the best player in the squad and that the visual observation of trails was pretty consistant.
I will always think my approach, i.e of empirical evidence even with a small sample as 20 games with those stats I choose to document, is a better way to discuss SBMM, compared tot how its discussed on this forum generally. You dont seem to think that so lets agree to disagree.
@Balladalidila I'll break this down as you appear to be going round in circles.
''I wanted, mostly for my own sake, see if I could debunk some of the "rumors" about SBMM''
To answer, from the horses mouth so to speak.
Based on the general SBMM discussion on this forum, players at ALL skill levels seems to think that:
1) they always get teamed with low level, clueless noobs (i.e. worse than themselves)
2) they always get matched against many pros, in "stacked lobbies" of multiple predator or master squads
3) If they play well one match, they get seeded in a super stacked predator game the next
After i explained why you won't be able to answer all those question with the results you have shown due to inadequate testing with a poor research method using such a tiny sample within a limited skill range...
I even gave you reasonable answers to these questions.
Your findings..
''I think these observations shows some kind of proof that the SKILL-based matchmaking does NOT sort 60 players of equal skill in the same lobby, but rather tries to build lobbies of a certain player skill distribtion.
This is true but not in the way you're describing it here.
''(very few Pros, few highly skilled and many good-to-average players). It also seems its trying to match "stronger" players in the same team with "weaker" players to make "even" teams''''
As i explained earlier, it will balance the team across the server (in most cases leaving the solo que of higher level or skill with 2 new or inexperienced players) but not always as some, especially those in the top bracket will get full squads at their skill level giving rise to lobbies up to 80% master/predator that you said which in your findings..
''So for those who claim they always get into lobbies with 20 preds, I dont know what you are talking about''
Now you do.
The probability of this occurring drastically increases when premade but not exclusively.
''Yes, it would IF a claimed that my observations, and therefore also my conclusion, from my 20 games should be applied for every every player of all skills and for solos, premade duos and trios alike, which I dont''
Obviously the rules will change with solo or premade but that can be clarified too and if SBMM is the same for everyone then wouldn't your findings be applicable to all?
In this case solo.
''debunk OR confirm''
You have done neither and i explained why. Except 1 (already common knowledge).
Now you're saying ''I've said 2-3 times now that this experiment was just a new approach of exploring SBMM''
Your research is like taking a baths worth of water out the sea and saying that on average in the past 20 tubs the fish are roughly the same size to contribute towards the discussion of what the average fish size/type are in the ocean with your ''empirical evidence''..
''Ever heard of straw man arguments?''
Most of your replies, failing to address the issues i'm highlighting for you.
''Seems to me that you just like to complain and find ways to poke holes in my findings, only because you dont have anything better to come with tbh.''
When people post their research and findings publicly it's up to others to pick apart, scrutinise and add criticism so how it can be changed or improved upon in future tests and research. The way you're going about this is fundamentally flawed and the way you're responding to this input/criticism is less than constructive. I think you're wasting your time and i know you're wasting mine so i wish you the best of luck.
I have forwarded this thread to someone who has a reasonably good understanding of SBMM as we're obviously not seeing eye to eye on this so maybe a third party can shed light on it, even if it's me missing something here.
Community ManagerCommunity Manager
