Ok, so here is the real question.
Do you think SMBB is necessary in fps pvp games? I do no think it is. PVP is competitive, there is only sweat, no casual mode. You want to win, get better. SBMM means the guy who spent 500 ho...
Forum Discussion
@hayhor But is it really though?
In a video game where the objective is primarily to eliminate other players and hopefully score a win, how is in not competitive? It's the literal definition of the genre.
You know, back before everyone in modern cities had internet access we would do lans (or internet cafe's). You would literally pack up all your stuff and end up at a venue and we would play each other. The best players would win, and that's that. There was no other choice, no in between, no training wheels, or artificial help. If you wanted to win you had to put in the work.
SBMM ensures everyone wins or loses equally. Where does that leave the incentive to get better if your lobbies increase in difficulty along with your skill level? Games used to have difficulty levels you could choose and I thought that's what ranked was for? Everything in life becomes easier the more time you spend on it but not here, not in the long run, and when you do it takes infinitely longer to achieve.
The 2nd thing SBMM does, which I have a particular distaste for is EOMM. This I'm sure you know already. But it is a form of "attention economy" for making money. The more time I spend playing the game the more time there is for me to spend money on it vs if I was out sitting at Mc Donald's for instance or watching TV.
I'm actually really surprised people haven't caught up with what's really happening in every shooter game these days... And if they did, how on earth are they ok with it? Really sit and think about this for a while...if you are a casual player yourself with no hopes of being better I'm sure you would disagree, but at least modern games could give us an option or a mode to turn it off then for those of us who do. There are more than enough players to cater to every mode they can implement.
In a video game where the objective is primarily to eliminate other players and hopefully score a win, how is in not competitive? It's the literal definition of the genre.
You know, back before everyone in modern cities had internet access we would do lans (or internet cafe's). You would literally pack up all your stuff and end up at a venue and we would play each other. The best players would win, and that's that. There was no other choice, no in between, no training wheels, or artificial help. If you wanted to win you had to put in the work.
SBMM ensures everyone wins or loses equally. Where does that leave the incentive to get better if your lobbies increase in difficulty along with your skill level? Games used to have difficulty levels you could choose and I thought that's what ranked was for? Everything in life becomes easier the more time you spend on it but not here, not in the long run, and when you do it takes infinitely longer to achieve.
The 2nd thing SBMM does, which I have a particular distaste for is EOMM. This I'm sure you know already. But it is a form of "attention economy" for making money. The more time I spend playing the game the more time there is for me to spend money on it vs if I was out sitting at Mc Donald's for instance or watching TV.
I'm actually really surprised people haven't caught up with what's really happening in every shooter game these days... And if they did, how on earth are they ok with it? Really sit and think about this for a while...if you are a casual player yourself with no hopes of being better I'm sure you would disagree, but at least modern games could give us an option or a mode to turn it off then for those of us who do. There are more than enough players to cater to every mode they can implement.
@Unitee01 wrote:
@hayhorBut is it really though?
In a video game where the objective is primarily to eliminate other players and hopefully score a win, how is in not competitive? It's the literal definition of the genre.
You know, back before everyone in modern cities had internet access we would do lans (or internet cafe's). You would literally pack up all your stuff and end up at a venue and we would play each other. The best players would win, and that's that. There was no other choice, no in between, no training wheels, or artificial help. If you wanted to win you had to put in the work.
The difference there though is that those were also inherently social events. Those were your friends, or at the least friends of friends. Most of them came from the same social circles and had the same time to put into the games as you. Yeah, sure, some people were naturally better from natural talent (looking at you SAM and your sniping me across the map in Halo with a PISTOL, *! 🥳 ), but overall you were pretty evenly matched, having fun, and socializing. Heck, half of my LAN parties were were also drunk, so of course we we all playing for crap, but it was FUN. We were having fun.
But Apex (and most online only or online primary games), well, that's a different matter. The population selection means skill is all over the place, and the social element is very toxic and unfriendly. I set the voice chat volume to zero just because it was easier than having to realize I was with some toxic (or racist) randoms and then muting them. I set it to zero because now when people want to abuse me for not following their 1v6 push into fragments when I don't have that kind of skill and used the pings to indicate I was not going there at least they have to do it in text chat where it's easier to report them and get action taken.
So, if we're not going to be given lobbies of people of similar skill and playstyle, and all us trash casuals are going to get is loaded into games to be streamer food (because you can't improve when you're dead before you even know where the shots come from) please explain why any of us would bother to continue playing the game? Cause seems more and more like the game and the forums are making the cases for people like me to uninstall and walk away.
- @Kyldenar Question, if sbmm is so wonderful, how are you doing now in Apex? If you're doing well, then so should I right? And everyone on here, right?
It seems more likely that the game is actually telling long time players to just quit when they've reached a certain level. SBMM is nothing more than a contradiction. It supposedly is there to help bad players win more consistently, but in my experience, once you've played enough it actually makes you lose more on purpose more often than your skill level should allow. Only every now and then does it put you in a literal bot lobby that no one enjoys anyway so you can have your one win before it's back to the shark tank...that's no way to play. And while I would be in favor of a better system I don't see one anytime soon in any game, they've all failed at it.
@Unitee01 wrote:
@KyldenarQuestion, if sbmm is so wonderful, how are you doing now in Apex? If you're doing well, then so should I right? And everyone on here, right?Well, I am doing terrible on Apex because it doesn't use SBMM for matchmaking, it uses EOMM for matchmaking.
In Destiny 2 when I play Gambit or Crucible I do about middle because they use SBMM. In Apex I have a crap KDR and have been in all of 4 winning games, and totally carried by a Master or Pred who was clearly bored with the lobby in 3 of those.
That's not actually engaging me, like I said. It's encouraging me to play less, or even uninstall and walk away for good. I tried it once, and really think it may have been a mistake to come back.
- @Unitee01 So, let me get this straight. You want all the rest of the players to keep struggling, keep fighting and keep getting wiped constantly by massively better opponents to improve....
But in your case, you've earned the right to stop struggling, stop fighting and be able to decimate lobbies by yourself because reasons?@LaughingSharko Not really no. While I do believe that better players should simply be more successful what I'm getting at is that why should better players be punished by a system that's designed essentially make everyone the same? Why even try then if the normal outcomes will always be ~5% win rates and 1kds for almost everyone? It's a system designed to ensure no one rises above another player regardless of skill. So basically it boils down to "you don't need any type of skill to play Apex, you just need to play. The game will ensure you're doing just as well as players better than you." That, to me, is not on.
@hayhor The odds are increasingly against you even as you get better at the game. It's a bot system for sure. No other way to explain it.
@KyldenarThe reason why Destiny is failing and has failed at their pvp is because they have a drought of new content. All content is just recycled from one source or another. It's repetitive and boring. And their pvp can't be balanced for many reasons, one of them simply being one player having better weapons or builds or gear than others. It's a doomed system by default and they only have maybe 1mil players compared to Apex who has 10x that. And even then only about ~20% of Destiny players play pvp so there's not enough variance in lobbies anyway. I refuse to believe that a player with a ~5% win rate with sbmm can't improve on that! You are losing 95% of the time! You are not that bad, I refuse to believe that 🙂 You should give yourself a bit more credit in your ability to be able to do ok without sbmm. I believe in you 🙂 And yeah I agree, the current system is actually driving me away.
(CM: Posts shared in a row have been merged. Check out this post for tips on how to edit and add more to a post.)
