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

Axs5626Sxa5001
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).
NeonXXP
4 years ago
The unfair MM has nothing to do with queue timers or pre-mades. For the last month my duo partner and I have been testing the MM system. After a win it takes 5 bad games where you die early (or quit in the jump ship) to get back to fair lobbies. The difficulty of the lobby has no effect on queue time. The better you do in a match the harder the next match will be, its that simple.
hayhor
Hero
4 years ago
@NeonXXPPremades definately affect lobbies. I have thousands of games as a premade and solo queue. There is a noticeable difference. When in a premade you get put into lobbies with more premades. And generally premade teams are better than solo.

And queue times definately affect lobbies as the MM tries to get people into games quickly.
NullEffective9
4 years ago
@NeonXXP This can be due to any other number of factors, though. I've won games and had even easier lobbies after, even lobbies after or harder ones. I've also noticed a bias based on the general MMR of someone that I team up with.

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

Regarding Crosshairs

Has there been another change to matchmaking recently?

Game glitch no access to challenge, events, store, etc

The low level account cheaters?

EA Account Was Hacked & Banned