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 mentioned:Good SBMMLow queue timesPremades vs. premadesYou can basically choose one sometimes. For people who are in less populated servers, they'll understand that if they get in quick it might be because the game understands that the player pool is lower than normal, so they are going to go against people of higher or lower skill than themselves. There are also times when solo queue have to go against premades because otherwise they're stuck in the queue forever.Granted, I understand that many people are playing casual right now because they feel ranked is a bit lopsided. But the queue is not always going to be daisies as a result. Additionally, if this was more of a problem in ranked (which from what I see, is very rare), then it would be a different discussion. But at some point, even in ranked, a balance has to be struck to get people into a game together.So, which one will it be? Do you just want to wait forever for a game that will have good matchmaking because it takes that long to pull people together? Or would you rather get in quick and hope for the best?

@NullEffective9 Most want to get in quick. You can tell this based on everyone hot dropping. They know they can get right back in.

@HappyHourSumwurIf the theory says that this would only affect the preds/smurfs/cheaters (as they exist in much smaller numbers than the rest of us) then I'm all for it. I genuinely do not give a tinker's damn whether or not their experience changes, or whether it's for the better or the worse. But there are plenty of scrubs to go around, so I'm assuming my lobbies could hit 60 players in a timely fashion no matter the time of day or day of the week. Because I want a 60 player lobby and a full map and nothing cut off the timer at the start of the match. Anything less than that is, to me, backslidding toward arena shooters - a place I came here to escape.

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).

@NullEffective9Why not do both? Instead of combining lobbies after a set amount of time (i.e.- dumping preds & premades in with lower skilled players after the MM timer goes off), why not shorten/shrink the game? Set a player minimum and then scale the ring at the start based off the resulting player count. Say you set the min at 30 players (10 squads), then start the game as is once you have at least that many and the timer goes off. Then have the ring start moving forward based on how full the lobby is. For example, if you have 30 players, the ring would start moving uninterrupted straight to round 2 or 3 right off the drop.I'd personally prefer smaller, faster matches with players truly of equal skill than the cluster fiesta we get now where you get melted repeatedly by people you have no chance against before the game throws you a bone.

@HappyHourSumwur This is an interesting thought, but it would change other dynamics of the game such as drop spawns, armor progression, etc.

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

24 Replies

reconzero
Seasoned Ace
4 years ago
@Axs5626Sxa5001

In my experience with decades of Halo "casual" typically meant that a top 10% player got an easy win while the bottom 90% got pubstomped but were supposed to enjoy it because "casual." So yes, it always meant loose sbmm. Extremely weak rationale in my opinion, as if the plight of the gifted is supposed to be everyone else's problem.
Axs5626Sxa5001
4 years ago
@reconzero You’re right, Halo absolutely had a loose version of SBMM and above average players won more than average and below average players. I think that’s actually a great thing.

I know a lot of people hate the idea of skill determining outcome (win rates) but in my mind that’s actually the most fair experience.
reconzero
Seasoned Ace
4 years ago
@HappyHourSumwur

If the theory says that this would only affect the preds/smurfs/cheaters (as they exist in much smaller numbers than the rest of us) then I'm all for it. I genuinely do not give a tinker's damn whether or not their experience changes, or whether it's for the better or the worse. But there are plenty of scrubs to go around, so I'm assuming my lobbies could hit 60 players in a timely fashion no matter the time of day or day of the week. Because I want a 60 player lobby and a full map and nothing cut off the timer at the start of the match. Anything less than that is, to me, backslidding toward arena shooters - a place I came here to escape.
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
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
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.
NullEffective9
4 years ago
@Axs5626Sxa5001 I mean this to be anything outside of ranked queue, hence why the first option is "good matchmaking"
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.
Lampwrecker2
4 years ago
I would rather be matched against people with similar up load and down load ms...
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.

Forum Discussion

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

24 Replies

About Apex Legends General Discussion

Community Highlights

Anti-cheat and Matchmaking Dev Recap

New Players Guide To Understanding Apex

Event Gifting | Find a Friend Here!

Recent Discussions

Ash - again :)

Ranked q

Mirage

Has there been another change to matchmaking recently?

Character balance