Forum Discussion

NullEffective9's avatar
NullEffective9
4 years ago

For casual queue: a) Good MM b) Low queue times c) Trios vs. Trios -- Choose one

I keep seeing this discussion pop up in General and Feedback forums, and it's high time that everyone is reminded that your casual queue experience has to be weighted against the three items mentione...
discussion
reconzero's avatar
reconzero
Seasoned Ace
4 years ago
@Axs5626Sxa5001 "Skill determining outcome" sounds great on the face of it, and it's less problematic in this game where the word "skill" means more and different things that it ever meant in Halo. But we still have to acknowledge that if we embraced that idea unreservedly then we would drop sbmm altogether. And we know from experience that when you do that you end up with a dead game. This is why I've been saying for years that a shallower learning curve and a lower skill ceiling would serve the majority of players and the longevity of the game far better than the alternative of sbmm. But, for whatever reason, modern game design is tails wagging dogs, and for as long as devs wish to service the 1% then they will also have to use sbmm to keep the rest of us around.

But as a thought experiment I would love to see them introduce a limited-time sbmm-free game type. Just to see if the old wisdom holds true, and that it would drive out every normal player until only the best and the cheaters were left.
Axs5626Sxa5001's avatar
Axs5626Sxa5001
4 years ago

@reconzeroI’m not convinced that looser SBMM = “ending up with a dead game”.

All games die. I’m willing to accept that. But games— or rather, “franchises” that predated Apex that implemented looser SBMM did totally fine. Although, I do admit that the F2P model is different than the models of the past.

Even Apex during the first 3 seasons (before they substantially ramped up matchmaking) was grossing millions (and ultimately billions).

Does SBMM extend the life of a game? Probably. “Casual/New/Below average” is the largest player base. Any system that increases the likelihood of this group winning/enjoying themselves will ultimately make EA more money.

Additionally, I do think it’s fair to state that there has been a cultural shift in the gaming community (and Western Society) as a whole, in which many feel that certain outcomes are entitled. I have to LMAO because this a totally “boomer” perspective, but a lot of people feel they should win just as much as those who are more skilled than they are, and that skill/competence shouldn’t influence outcomes. 

All that being said I would STILL prefer the more fair system— that being:

-Loose SBMM/EOMM in unranked so that natural hierarchies (differences in outcomes) are produced
-A ranked system that bends over backwards to pit players of similar skill together.

  • reconzero's avatar
    reconzero
    Seasoned Ace
    4 years ago
    @Axs5626Sxa5001

    "there has been a cultural shift in the gaming community (and Western Society) as a whole, in which many feel that certain outcomes are entitled. I have to LMAO because this a totally “boomer” perspective"

    As an X with no great love for boomers, I would have called that perspective a Millenial affair, but the point is taken nonetheless. I'm not sure how real that phenomenon is, or how much it's just a construct pushed by other generations, snarky media, fill-in-the-blank. But either way, I can't quite bring myself to say that "fairness" would be a legitimate mechanism for pitting little league kids against MLB professionals... as an example. If you're talking about a player pool that is, say, classroom-wide, or maybe even school-wide - then sure, give the best players a chance to shine. But the nature of an online game is such that there would, without sbmm, be absolutely nothing separating the aforementioned little league kids from the Boston Red Sox. Is that a game you would want to watch, much less participate in, from either side? I guess you already know how I would answer that question.
    • Axs5626Sxa5001's avatar
      Axs5626Sxa5001
      4 years ago
      @reconzero I don’t think comparing little league kids and professional athletes is a fair analogy for public matchmaking.

      The absolute majority of people playing online video games are not being paid to play; its the opposite.

      A professional athlete is choosing to compete within a league designed to test his skill, to the limit, and to compensate them for said competence.

      But being above average (regarding the median and average skill in a video game) is more akin to being “the kid at the park who is good at basketball.” Just because the kid is decent at basketball at the park doesn’t mean he should be barred from playing and forced into a league (where everyone is his doppelgänger). It’s OKAY for people at a park to play a game casually, even if there is a variance in skill level among the participants.

      I posed this perspective/argument to friends and asked if Lebron James should be allowed to play basketball “casually” at the park or at a bbq. Some actually said “no, if you are good at an activity then you should not be allowed to play at anything less than tournament-level”. This is actually slightly similar to the pro strict-SBMM argument.

      Obviously for ranked though, I absolutely agree that when there are “stakes”, every match should be as tight as possible.

      The idea that everyone needs to sweat to the maximum at all times in NON-RANKED (even though there are specific modes designed for that, which is ranked) is definitely a bit silly, resentful, and anti-natural hierarchy.

      • reconzero's avatar
        reconzero
        Seasoned Ace
        4 years ago
        @Axs5626Sxa5001 I just have to go on record as saying that I believe the baseball analogy is almost perfect. No, there are not a lot of predators in this game, numerically speaking, anymore than professional baseball players comprise a significant number of all baseball players. But they (preds/masters/diamonds) are still in the pool. If Red Sox wiping little leaguers is an extreme example, then how about Red Sox wiping a high school team? A college team? A triple-A team? When does the drubbing become acceptable? And to come back to the "above average" player who isn't a predator: Is he a triple-A player, a college-level player, or a high school level player? And which of those should be allowed to play against grade school little leaguers?

        I'm not trying to snowflake my way out of all competition here, but I think there's enough Ayn Rand insanity going on in the real world that maybe video games is place where we can afford to tone it down a little. Although I'm sure the argument could be made that if kids don't learn the hard lessons of competition here then where will they learn them? And that really is a legitimate argument.

About Apex Legends General Discussion

Discuss the latest news and game information around Apex Legends in the community forums.31,235 PostsLatest Activity: 25 minutes ago