SBMM: Equality vs Equity

“ANOTHER SBMM THREAD!? Really?”

Lol, hear me out...

This is not a rant. I’m not mad or even bitter. I have accepted that forced SBMM in every mode in every game is a permanent pillar of modern online gaming. Why? Because it makes companies money by keeping low-skilled players safe and in the mood to spend cash.

That being said, I remain interested on the topic of SBMM and it’s effects on gaming culture. 

I have already listed why SBMM exists ($$$), but there are still many people who are passionately Pro-Forced-SBMM; here are some of the common statements/arguments I have heard from this group of people:

-“Everyone should always play opponents of equal skill— this is the most fair experience.”

-“The only reason people are against SBMM is because they want to stomp noobs and are afraid of playing kids their own skill.”

-“New players need a safe environment to learn the game without getting melted by more experienced players.”

-“Low skilled players deserve to win and have fun just as much as the medium-to-high skilled players. As long as everyone is playing people of their own skill level, everyone wins and loses an equal amount.”

This last statement seems to unsettle me the most. This is where the Equality vs Equity debate enters the conversation. As it applies to player on-line experience, there are (typically) two options:

Equality: Lobbies are populated randomly. Players with more skill win more games. Players with less skill win less games. When players compare stats (Win/Loss Ratios, KD, etc) we know that those stats represent the player’s performance against the entire community. 

Equity: Lobbies are constructed so that there are equal/similar outcomes for all players. Skilled players win some, but instantly face tougher opponents as a result of their performance. This results in the player experiencing losses until the SBMM algorithm places them in easier lobbies. Lesser skilled players win more matches than they would have had the lobbies been random because the lobby was specifically constructed to be within their skill range. 

So which is better?

I know in sociology and politics, this topic is polarizing. People who work hard to be successful get mad when people who don’t work as hard receive special treatment/assistance. If we’re talking about multiplayer video games (which aspires to be both fun and competitive) the analogy applies but isn’t perfect.

Most people play online multiplayer games because they are fun. But regarding PvP games, there must be winners and there must be losers. What’s the relationship here regarding fun? Well, the people having the least fun tend to be the people who lose the most. Conversely, the people who are probably having the most fun are the people winning more than others. It’s important to note that this is hardly a 1:1 relationship and correlation =\= causation. Nevertheless a relationship exists. 

Players of all skill levels want to win. Losing is undesirable. The effect of equity on multiplayer games is that we shift the sum total undesirable experiences (total losses across the entire community) from the lesser skilled players and redistribute them on the medium to high skilled players. Despite being better than the lesser skilled group, average and high skilled players are now having more undesirable experiences (losses) than they would otherwise have if they were playing against the whole of the community (through random lobbies).

*It should also be noted that this entire discussion applies to the premade squad experience in Apex. When you party up with friends, it lumps you in lobbies based on the highest skilled player. Playing solo is different because the SBMM algorithm seeks to make balanced teams. 

Conclusion:

I don’t know exactly where I sit on this issue, as there are pros and negs to both sides. I definitely want to protect new players but I do not like the reality of forcing the community into ultra competitive matches 100% of the time for the sake of keeping lesser skilled players safe. I guess I don’t believe in equal outcomes, as I would prefer player skill to determine who wins more than they lose; random lobbies achieve this, not SBMM lobbies.

I’m open to feedback. SBMM has been discussed to death but I rarely see it discussed through the lens of Equality vs Equity. Thoughts?