Matchmaking thoughts from a Dev

Where do you put yourself percentage wise regarding skill?

If you put yourself in a low percentage, you shouldn’t have outcomes (wins) of those higher than you.

I don’t know what percentage I’m in. I have solo’d to Masters once and hit it 4 other times with friends when we decide to play ranked. Let’s say someone of my skill level is in the top 20%. Should my outcomes legitimately be lower than people who fall on lower areas of the skill bell curve?

I think most people would agree that the more proficient you are at an activity, the better your outcomes are. But that’s not the case, because the current matchmaking structure is intentionally placing people in certain “Valleys”.

@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.

---

@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.