The official Matchmaking blog post

@Cheese9ManI stopped making comments on this forum because the matchmaking data I was sharing wasn’t cared for by the majority of the forum community— but I feel inclined to comment here on this matter:

1) HUGE props to Respawn for even having a convo on matchmaking. Like seriously, I respect this so much. Lack of communication is a literal middle finger to the community, so this is appropriate and appreciated.

2) Parts of this are— unfortunately, disingenuous.

What parts? These:

“We don’t purposefully put you in harder matches to slow you down if you’re winning a lot, nor do we intentionally put you in easier matches because you’re on a losing streak.”

By designing their “dynamic matchmaking rating system” that is LITERALLY EXACTLY what they do. They 100% punish people for doing well, even in one single game. The algorithm reads your 3 kill 1st place win and the next game you are playing with people significantly above your skill level. Next disingenuous statement:

“Either way, this is the system accounting for your recent changes in skill. This process tends to be slow, so you should only feel these changes from long streaks.”

This is true for many accounts but definitely not for all. I have literally studied this across 20+ accounts and shared my findings (something I’m sure Respawn wasn’t betting on) and the results prove this to be untrue.

Accounts with a lot of data that show that a player is above average do NOT have slow mobility down the matchmaking ladder. Win a game with just 2 kills and above 50% placement and the next match is right back to the top of the MMR ladder. I’ve literally tested this almost every single day for the past 2 years so I am going to need a PhD level argument/rationale to convince me otherwise.

I guess I’m happier that they are addressing MM, but tightening of matchmaking in pubs for no reward is an ABSOLUTELY bad thing. People need to be rewarded for their proficiency, EVEN IN PUBS.

Tighter matchmaking means more people playing their doppelgänger team at any given time, which results in outcomes being more similar for people, regardless of skill.

Players who are more proficient should have better outcomes (wins, etc) in pubs. I’ll say that again: Preds (by virtue of their proficiency) deserve to beat players of my skill level in pubs. Similarly, Diamond-level players should have better outcomes than gold-level players.

Tighter matchmaking and everyone breaking even feels super forced, curated, and exhausting.

But the needs of the many outweigh what’s actually fair. So it is what it is. We should probably just commit fully at this point and have a system that does in-game adjustments for players performing too well or too poorly. So players on a hot streak should have their bullet damage decreased and their movement slowed slightly. We need to push for a system that results in uniform outcomes for all players. 

@Axs5626Sxa5001 

“We don’t purposefully put you in harder matches to slow you down if you’re winning a lot, nor do we intentionally put you in easier matches because you’re on a losing streak.”

By designing their “dynamic matchmaking rating system” that is LITERALLY EXACTLY what they do. They 100% punish people for doing well, even in one single game. The algorithm reads your 3 kill 1st place win and the next game you are playing with people significantly above your skill level. Next disingenuous statement:

The post isn't saying this doesn't happen, it's saying they aren't intentionally throwing all matchmaking out the door and forcing players to match with harder players because they win a couple games.  They are showing the system is designed to give the player a harder match as they get more confident and play better.  We both know that in a set play session, playing for 2-3 hours you get better as you play... the systems design intentionally accounts for your increase in skill based on the information it's being given.

This being said, I personally have no problem with this design, the issue at hand is one they have seemed to identify, the level or "bucket" in which you change could drastically effect who you are placed with... For instance lets say you finish a session in bucket 3, you've lost 3 games so your skill rating goes down.... next day you come back win your first game because you are feeling more confident.... now you've moved from bucket 3 to 4 because you were right on the edge last night, inherently putting you with way higher skill players, causing you to get slaughtered and question your entire reason for playing, but this then lowers you back into bucket 3.  The systems design flaw is obviously going to be located at the edge of "buckets" because players can move between these based on winning and losing a couple games, where as players in the middle will see slower moments by inherently being further from the edge of the bucket.

All being said one, among many, major flaws in this system is definitely not enough buckets, the change from bucket 3 to 4 should show a skill change from gold 2 to 3, not gold 2 to diamond 1, in which the system does now. I agree totally that I can win a game or two and go from players below to right at my skill to preds it feels like, in fact it happens so often friends and I make fun of it.... 

Over all I am really impressed someone even took on trying to explain a complicated topic to an average crowd.  Most will never see the post and out of those who do, statistically 20% will actually understand it what is being talked about.  

---

@Axs5626Sxa5001 wrote:

“We don’t purposefully put you in harder matches to slow you down if you’re winning a lot, nor do we intentionally put you in easier matches because you’re on a losing streak.”

By designing their “dynamic matchmaking rating system” that is LITERALLY EXACTLY what they do. They 100% punish people for doing well, even in one single game. The algorithm reads your 3 kill 1st place win and the next game you are playing with people significantly above your skill level.

---

The post isn't saying this doesn't happen, it's saying they aren't intentionally throwing all matchmaking out the door and forcing players to match with harder players because they win a couple games.  They are showing the system is designed to give the player a harder match as they get more confident and play better.  We both know that in a set play session, playing for 2-3 hours you get better as you play... the systems design intentionally accounts for your increase in skill based on the information it's being given

This being said, I personally have no problem with this design, the issue at hand is one they have seemed to identify, the level or "bucket" in which you change could drastically effect who you are placed with... For instance lets say you finish a session in bucket 3, you've lost 3 games so your skill rating goes down.... next day you come back win your first game because you are feeling more confident.... now you've moved from bucket 3 to 4 because you were right on the edge last night, inherently putting you with way higher skill players, causing you to get slaughtered and question your entire reason for playing, but this then lowers you back into bucket 3.  The systems design flaw is obviously going to be located at the edge of "buckets" because players can move between these based on winning and losing a couple games, where as players in the middle will see slower moments by inherently being further from the edge of the buckets 

All said though, among many, major flaws in this system is definitely not enough buckets, the change from bucket 3 to 4 should show a skill change from gold 2 to 3, not gold 2 to diamond 1, in which the system does now. I agree totally that I can win a game or two and go from players below to right at my skill to preds it feels like, in fact it happens so often friends and I make fun of it.... 

Overall I am really impressed someone even took on trying to explain a complicated topic to an average crowd.  Most will never see the post and out of those who do, statistically 20% will actually understand it what is being talked about.  

All I know, is that the current system doesn’t work, although the break down is appreciated, I want a fair end result, that’s all that matters to me as a player/consumer.

I’ve shared numerous screenshots of my SBMM on here, top 100 pred opponents, 3 man pred premades, or the complete opposite being matched with silver/gold players while being P1.

Just do what you have to do, and give me a fair gaming experience.

Awful mm today. I'm being put on bot teams 8/10, and sus enemies a couple of times too. I'm spending more time afc than playing. Might as well jump on Star Trek then.

As I said...

@hayhor Yes, but what seems strait forward is not always that.  I am a system designer personally, so I know for a fact that saying something is easy isn't always the case.  It's really easy to say "well just do this" than it is to actually implement it that solution.  There are many many variables to take into account that they probably aren't even mentioning in the post, and probably even more we've never thought about.  Just reading this short post made me, someone who already designs systems, realize there is more to MM than I even realized.

Personally, I'd prefer tighter matches more often instead of getting obliterated in humiliating fashion for multiple games in a row by players WAY better than me.  My current solo queue experience is often  struggling to get a single kill for 10-12 games in a row with the occasional win & 4-5 kill game thrown in there.  My KDR is about 1.0, give or take, but the quality of the wins & good games does not consistently offset the cumulative aggravation of the deaths.  I'm OK with deaths where I F'd up or just missed my shots but am not OK with dying repeatedly where I feel like I had absolutely no chance.  Nobody likes playing a game that's rigged against them and that's the feeling lots of people have under the current matchmaking system.

I applaud Repawn for finally saying something on this topic.  However, the post is mostly non-committal and IMO unnecessarily vague on certain points.  It all leaves me in the same place I was before the post ... very skeptical that anything will change significantly.