Matchmaking thoughts from a Dev
https://youtu.be/6i5642d4DNo The above link details a long standing CoD dev’s thoughts on “SBMM” in non-ranked modes. Please watch. His highlighted point is that “VARIANCE” is the most favorabl...
Forum Discussion
@Axs5626Sxa5001
A couple of things here.
If you've solo'd to masters then you are definitely not a top 20% player. You are a top 5% player. Predators account for just under (or just over?) one single percent of the player base, and Masters account for just a few percent. If you don't make it to masters consistently then you are not necessarily a victim of sbmm, but rather a victim of the way sbmm in this particular game treats solo players. Which is a different can of worms all together. Getting rid of sbmm, if this is the case, is throwing out the baby with the bath water.
"Should my outcomes legitimately be lower than people who fall on lower areas of the skill bell curve?"
And here is the crux of the issue neatly summed up in a single question. SBMM says, "No, it should be exactly the same." Which means that if your outcomes are lower, as they are so far this season, then there is a problem which has more to do with the execution of sbmm than with the concept of sbmm. That said, even well-executed sbmm will produce streaks which will only average out over time. It's possible that what you're experiencing is just a sour streak. I'll grant you, it's a long one. But something worth asking is this: Out of your 359 losses to date this season, what percentage would you count as "normal" losses where it could have gone either way, and what percentage would you count as "instant vaporization at the hands of enemies you never saw and didn't even know were there?" If the former, then streak. If the latter, then sbmm execution problem.
The next logical extension of "Should my outcomes legitimately be lower than people who fall on lower areas of the skill bell curve?" is that we kill sbmm entirely and have a game that is randomly matched. In that case you would have the top 1% of players winning 99% of their matches, and the bottom 50% or so never winning at all ever again for as long as they play the game. Unless you believe that "continuous improvement" is not just possible but also attainable. I know for a fact that it isn't attainable, and I suspect that it may be impossible as well. But I'm open to input on that idea. At any rate, if improvement is possible then all you end up with is a bell curve so lop-sided that the entire concept of bell curve rankings becomes meaningless. The entire player base, or most of it, gets continuously better, and lobbies still get harder and harder. And will still reward the three stack at the solo's expense.
Food for thought.
@reconzero My response wasn’t for you, it was for LaughingSharko, who asked if matchmaking should cater to me.
But the fact remains that we do indeed still disagree on a major topic concerning public matches— I actually don’t think outcomes should be the same.
This sounds mean but I absolutely think that the matchmaking should be loose enough (but not non-existent) that players FEEL improvement. I (and many) don’t feel improvement because an algorithm intentionally stifles our outcomes.
I think everyone (save new players) should play everyone in pubs (with some sbmm/curating to ensure players aren’t consistently playing preds).
I think average players should have average outcomes. I think below average players shouldn’t win that much. I think above average players should win more than the rest. I know this idea sounds mean, but anything else feels wrong to me personally. I guess I just want people to have outcomes that reward their proficiency. I suck at Overwatch, but I don’t want an algorithm giving me easy lobbies so I can win as much as players who are legitimately better than me.
I also think that ranked should get rid of “rank decay” to reduce how frequently lower skilled players play higher skilled players who have experienced decay. I think if played enough, rank should be the place where everyone breaks even (by virtue of playing people as close to possible at your skill level). I would love for ranked to be a place where people who want “the tightest matchmaking possible” so that players have a choice.
But the fact remains that we do indeed still disagree on a major topic concerning public matches— I actually don’t think outcomes should be the same.
This sounds mean but I absolutely think that the matchmaking should be loose enough (but not non-existent) that players FEEL improvement. I (and many) don’t feel improvement because an algorithm intentionally stifles our outcomes.
I think everyone (save new players) should play everyone in pubs (with some sbmm/curating to ensure players aren’t consistently playing preds).
I think average players should have average outcomes. I think below average players shouldn’t win that much. I think above average players should win more than the rest. I know this idea sounds mean, but anything else feels wrong to me personally. I guess I just want people to have outcomes that reward their proficiency. I suck at Overwatch, but I don’t want an algorithm giving me easy lobbies so I can win as much as players who are legitimately better than me.
I also think that ranked should get rid of “rank decay” to reduce how frequently lower skilled players play higher skilled players who have experienced decay. I think if played enough, rank should be the place where everyone breaks even (by virtue of playing people as close to possible at your skill level). I would love for ranked to be a place where people who want “the tightest matchmaking possible” so that players have a choice.
@Axs5626Sxa5001 wrote:
@reconzeroMy response wasn’t for you, it was for LaughingSharko, who asked if matchmaking should cater to me.
{snip}
I think average players should have average outcomes. I think below average players shouldn’t win that much. I think above average players should win more than the rest. I know this idea sounds mean, but anything else feels wrong to me personally. I guess I just want people to have outcomes that reward their proficiency. I suck at Overwatch, but I don’t want an algorithm giving me easy lobbies so I can win as much as players who are legitimately better than me.So, what I am hearing is, I should just be quitting this game, because since I am not improving or ever winning unless I get carried it's not for me.
Great marketing idea there. "Sucks to be you filthy casual! Git Good. Now spend money in the cash shop!"
No, don't think I will. This is not my job, it's entertainment. In fact, think I will simply start leaving my "2 a day as _________" on the drop so I can slowly gather stars while I wait for what little single player Titanfall content Respawn/EA is willing to give me, which is the "story" pages. If I am not meant to have content I can actually play, why play it?Guess EVERY casual should just stop playing the game. See what happens when only 15-20% of the player base remains. Hope some of that is their cash shop whales...
@KyldenarCome on, please don’t stretch this into things I’m not saying. I would never say “sucks to be you filthy casual!”
I’m genuinely just trying to honor people’s proficiency in Apex (and any online game honestly). I want people to continue to play regardless of their skill— but I also want people to be accepting of outcomes that match their own proficiency.
I’m being fair and talking about overall success regarding wins in non-ranked. Surely you’re in favor of people having outcomes that match their skill— What would you tell someone saying:
“Ranked is really hard and I don’t think its fair that some people get ranks higher than me. It’s just not fair. I should be a <insert rank here>.”
People who (hypothetically) verbalize that would be told: “Sorry man, if your skill level isn’t a certain degree, you can’t be shocked that you aren’t achieving <insert rank here>.”
I feel like the same applies to wins or overall performance in pubs. I swear I am not coming from a malicious place. I just want each individual person to be rewarded (as closely as possible) to the skill they are demonstrating.- @Axs5626Sxa5001
"My response wasn’t for you, it was for LaughingSharko"
Not to worry, my friend. I have plenty of opinions to go around whether they're by invitation or not!
"I’m genuinely just trying to honor people’s proficiency in Apex"
I'm not really trying to call your motivations into question, though it may have sounded that way in earlier posts. I understand the Sally Brown proposition: You just want what you have coming to you. You just want your fair share.
It gets murky when we're not clear whether we're talking about, as one's due, a specific win rate or a specific rank. Because emphatically NO, no one has a right to a rank curated by sbmm. On that point we are 100% in agreement. Unfortunately in a team-based game there will always be people who have ranks that inaccurately reflect their skill - too high by being carried by consistent teammates, and too low by soloing.
The subject of win rate is even trickier. Especially, again, in a team-based game. Especially in a team-based game that has a significant luck component built into its gameplay formula. I'm grateful that the system seems to produce for me what I consider to be a healthy win rate. But I can also say that I've played the game long enough now to know that a few of those wins are luck and a few are skill, and most are a combination of the two. And I've played long enough to know that if you count on any specific number of wins for a sense of satisfaction... in a game with 57 enemies trying to kill you... that it may be time to look for a sense of success in some other metric. Placement. Rank. K/D. To name but a few. For example: I feel your pain with your current win rate. But knowing that you're a top 5% player makes it harder for me to believe that the system needs an overhaul. In other words, being good and knowing that you're good is in itself a form of reward. Just because one particular metric is giving you hell this season doesn't necessarily mean that you're being shafted.
That said, I'll repeat: you need a secondary account.
Featured Places
