Forum Discussion
@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.
"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.
- 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.- reconzero4 years agoSeasoned Ace@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.- 4 years ago
I hear you. As it pertains to the baseball example, all of those examples involve players in an organized league, who all consciously made the decision to play in a “totally fair competitive, tournament like” situation.
I guess we’re really talking about skill disparity and assessing the likelihood that any one person/team has in winning, in any given situation. I think about situations in which the worst team in the MLB has to play the best team— the lesser team isn’t allowed to say “this isn’t fair, we have a very small chance of winning!”. They play the game and they establish the outcome. A hierarchy is established.
Again, I will state that comparing “non-ranked pvp” and organized sports is not the best analogy. However, it is TOTALLY fair to compare organized sport to “ranked video game experiences”.
Ranked needs to do a better job at ensuring the experience is curated to meet the “true skill” of the current players. I think that Split De-Ranks work in opposition to this. Deranks allow for more skilled players to intentionally abuse the system and bully lesser skilled players— this is much different than allowing these players to meet by chance through a more random matchmaking.
Finally, I would like to state that I do NOT want the removal of SBMM. New players, and players with disabilities should have their own space to play and learn. But after a certain experience level, the non-ranked mode of any pvp game should big a mixed bag (so long as there is a ranked/sbmm mode simultaneously available for people who only want to play people in their exact skill range).
About Apex Legends General Discussion
Recent Discussions
- 2 hours ago
- 15 hours ago