is SBMM actually based?
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
is SBMM actually based?
is SBMM actually based?
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
Only morons play competitive fps games
matchmaking is evil and dedicated servers are the only correct way to play FPS
however, SBMM is preferable in fightan games and other 1v1 genres.
/thread
Having a solo rank, elo, or whatever in a team based game is worthless and never works. If it's s team game, the ranked mode should be for premade teams only.
>the ranked mode should be for premade teams only
from a long term perspective, that would kill the game pretty fast
Stop spamming SBMM threads.
>Ranked queue using MMR
>Quickplay queue only using ping
Job done.
it's time you realized that competitive games are bad for your mental health and most matches are not fun
casual matches are better because egos are less entangled
really spoken like someone that hasn't played at a high level against other people at the same level
it's incredibly fun, doesn't matter the game
way to out yourself as a shitter
hell no
the fun matches are like 1 in 8 for skill based matchmaking
out of my hundreds of hours in counter strike only maybe 4 matches were actually worth remembering for how fun they were
hundreds of hours in CS is not playing the game at a high level
you right, I had a job that wasn't playing counter strike
you have no basis of comparison because you're bad so you just insult the people better than you
the most fun a game that has a good amount of skill expression is to compete at a high level, I've experienced this in multiple genres throughout my life and it has continued to hold true the entire time
you want a award
you're so good at video games bro. what games have you competed in professionally?
imagine thinking that being good a video game is a point of pride
homie you literally just sat in front of a screen longer than him
you aren't an athlete
looks like projecting this hard is making it difficult for you to read my posts
>Getting personally offended when no game was even mentioned
Genuinely seek help
That just kills the game. Most casual paypigs play quickplay.
it only fricking works when it’s 1v1, when you throw teammates into the mix then it starts to rig games. giving you shit fricking brain dead teammates while you go against like the top 100 players just for winning a single match. stop browsing x or shitter and stop spamming this thread you meta using homosexual
This is the only valid argument against SBMM and it's incredibly obvious when the game has put you on the moron team because you're "supposed" to lose this match
That's EOMM not SBMM
That is the primary reason I stopped playing Overwatch when my friends started to get fed of it first, when playing solo it just becomes unsatisfying when you either win or lose with little input from yourself. Too many matches felt like you either get put in teams that carry you or where you can't do anything to win.
>waaah my teammates are all shitters and my opponents are all gods every game all the time even though statistically the opposite scenario is just as likely
The biggest cope in gaming history
you never played rocket league
>am shitter I need gib space
Biggest cope in the SBBM history.
>gib space
wut
>ME UNGA TEAM BUNGA
The game doesn't rig anything, if you're better than the people you're playing against then you will win more.
How do you explain the same people being able to reach the top ranks each season in solo queue? Do you think they always just got good teams who carried them?
shooters arent the same. you really want to fight 10+ people of equal skill level every fricking match? its a headache.
why not just play against bots if you want to easily stomp people who are bad at the game?
homie you are essentially playing with bots since the “good” players in any game use the same fricking meta it gets fricking tiring as shit since you know how they are gonna play and you can’t do shit since it’s over powered
lol
lmao
Off topic but what does this phrase even means
he gives up
In MW3 for example, you can seriously counter any player or any meta. Don't follow the meta, just use your head and have fun.
I'll even share some shit with you.
I max the hell out of my movement, equip a light smg, use that tac-aim shit, and strafe/move like a crackhead. That will stomp controller players that rely on controller auto-aim 8/10 times easily. Actually breaks the aim-assist lock-on effect. In the kill-cams I look like I'm using fricking Sandevistan on these frickers cause of how fast I'm moving. I actually been having a blast doing this shit. point is, just have fun.
The bot can't feel anything when it loses
Sbmm is the reason why bad players are getting stomped
Playing shit games is a headache. If a game is only fun when you are winning it's a shit game.
Core problem with fps games
Why is cod popular? Because it's piss fricking easy. You win by pointing at someone and clicking, that's fricking it. Even if you're the best player in the world, a fricking toddler can rape you if you're unlucky enough to be looking the wrong way when they turn a corner
These morons play for 20 years like it's a job and think they should be destroying every lobby, but the sad truth is they picked a game where all that time amounts to diddly fricking squat. Bohoo. Maybe should have spent that time playing chess or learning an instrument.
>Because it's piss fricking easy. You win by pointing at someone and clicking, that's fricking it.
Yes easy accessibility, low skill floor.
>Even if you're the best player in the world, a fricking toddler can rape you if you're unlucky enough to be looking the wrong way when they turn a corner
Don't look wrong way simple as...
thats the point of cod and modern shooters
anybody can kill anybody
remember this has been the case since CS devs were getting btfo in quake duels 30 to -2. if you want to play a "Real strategic skill based fps" play reflex arena.
>1/4 of the team are now bots so the guy getting blasted on respawn doesn't feel bad
there, fixed
>playing multiplayer instead of 1v1
here is your mistake
Yes I do?
Yes they are.
Yes I want to play people of equal skill.
Yes I want a challenge.
I genuinely stopped playing fps games with my friends because they would say shit like "they are too good lets go for others"
fricking excuse me? if they are good, we should go after them.
the challenge IS the fun
the hunt IS why I play
I strive to overcome challenges, steel sharpens steel, I learn nothing from stomping those below me, I should be challenge for them to overcome on occasion, they should not be the bulk of my encounters.
but then the good players will have to stomp (you) and get bored
70% of your gameplay should be against players roughly equivalent to you
10% slightly worse
10% slightly better
5% much better
5% much worse
by far the bulk of your matches should be close and I have no idea what games people are playing where this isn't the case
its almost always a perception issue and people not being realistic, much like most areas in life most people have no idea how good they actually are or how good others are.
psychologically speaking, people have an inclination to remember bad stuff more than good stuff so people in threads like this aren't going to think about all the even/good games they did have. They damn sure aren't going to add them up and tally
>people have an inclination to remember bad stuff more than good stuff
There is no "good stuff" to remember. I either get stomped, or am bored out of my mind when the game throws me a pity one and I stomp someone else which feels hollow.
Part of the fun of rising to higher heights is looking to see how far you have come. Stomping those worse than you reinforces your growth and gives a sense of satisfaction. SBMM undermines that by constantly making you climb and climb with no catharsis, or at least dramatically less than without systems built to put you into challenging games nonstop. If you're better than most players it should FEEL like you're better than most players. Being objectively above average (>50%) but having difficulty in 100% of encounters is unsatisfying and unrealistic at that. It pulls you out of the experience in a bad way. It only serves to benefit those who are the <50%, who are the ones who are much less invested to begin with, but are more stupid, and thus more likely to spend.
this is only a problem if you just grind matchmaking out of context and have no community or others you interact with around the game
You know what feels better than stomping on players of lower skill than you? Stomping on players of equal skill to you. THERE’s your catharsis.
SBMM isn't real challenge it's artificial. You fell for the marketing gimmick. Real challenge is joining pro servers on a server browser. SBMM is a cancer that kills both the genuine pro/competitive side of multiplayer games AND the fun/casual side. It was a mistake, simple as.
Yes, I do want to do that, you fricking moron. have a nice day.
lol for SBMM its been the same top 16 for the past 20 years. its a pyramid scheme of young blood constantly losing.
Yeah, only shitters hate it because they can't bully noobs.
all multiplayer is shit, especially ranked, but sbmm is the least shitty shit. plus it's funny to watch obvious dopamine addicts cry about having to actually try to get their fix
If gay cheaters were actually banned yeah
This isn’t even an argument it’s braindead morons actually parroting the marketing term for these shitty Skinner box games hur dur the devs call it skill based so it is skill based
sbmm is a good idea on paper, but is implemented very poorly in cod. basically if you arent playing with your own team you will just get shitters on your team. you are forced to play in a group of skilled players you know because if you dont do this you will 100% play against a stacked team while you are just by yourself with 5 other randoms leading to you losing just about every game.
it’s not implemented poorly it’s by design it’s supposed to increase playtime, purposely introducing “frustration events”. It’s a psychological trap, the same type of system that slot machines use. And just like slots it’s not about raw mass appeal it’s about hooking the whales
You homies just suck at games just get better and climb. More time invested doesn't mean better
this moronic strawman argument is so funny, there's plenty of other reasons to hate sbmm like wanting to play with friends of varying skill levels
>SBMM is there to make sure you play against people at your skill level chud
Then why do I constantly get put on teams with people that all go negative while I go massively positive?
People who grind ranking for a living have a severely warped view of the purpose of video games.
yes, there is no argument against it
companies can and do have awful systems that will match people of wildly different skill levels together in order to create an average MMR per team, which does ruin games
so yeah just moronic companies fricking up the implementation
The problem is that SBMM/EOMM does NOT place you into games where all 10 players are at the same skill level. It places you into games where someone is having their turn to lose, according to the system. That would be awesome.
Instead, the "seeds" for teammates are already placed and decided before the game even begins, and whoever the system has deemed needs to lose will then get shittier teammates. The most obvious case of stuff like this happening is LoL where you can have 10 awesome games in a row, and then right after for the next handful of games you get people who troll/AFK/int/leave/etc.
>win a bunch of games
>get placed in games now above your skill level
>lose a bunch of games
>get put back to your original skill level
You are shit no better than the inters you complain about. If you are better than your opponents you will climb. People can hit challenger in <100 games from a bronze account every single time.
The absolute cope morons employ to refuse acknowledging they are just another faceless nameless shitter in the cog is hilarious. Yes the entire system is designed around keeping you down in whatever shit elo you are in lmao pure delusion. These are also the players that tend to put 1000s of hrs in every year for some reason while simultaneously claiming its rigged and pointless.
Nice smugness but you basically agreed with him and refuted what the OP states.
No I didn't. moron is claiming he can't get better because he will eventually be the best player on his team always carried down by the shitters. When in reality no matter the rank or elo you have an equal chance to be the worst or best ranked player in any individual game you play.
When you have 1500 elo you might get put against people between 1400 and 1600. That doesn't mean you'll get both in the same game it means you can be the best in a lobby of 1400-1500 players, or the worst in a lobby of 1500-1600, or more likely somewhere in between. If you win and get 1525 elo you are now in the 1425-1635 range, still just as likely to be the best in a 1425-1525 game or the worst in a 1525-1625 game.
The entire premise is flawed because there isn't one set of players the game draws rank to balance around but arbirtrary ranges that mean gaining elo doesn't make it any more likely to have shittier teammates, the enemies are just better.
>moron is claiming he can't get better because he will eventually be the best player on his team always carried down by the shitters
Where the frick did I ever claim anything like that? You are reading into something that I have never said or implied at all. I was just pointing out that these systems have gigantic issues. I can personally overcome them by just grinding out the "you are meant to lose here" games, but I wasn't speaking for myself, I was speaking about the systems in general.
No one has "their turn to lose" that's pure cope, a delusion even. You can be on a 10 game winning streak to get up to 1500 or a 10 game losing streak down to 1500 and the matchmaking doesn't give a frick it's just your 1500 they look at.
Where's the problem again?
There isn't one. Shitters don't understand statistics and expect to always win. At the same time, there are likely hidden factors that may or may not result in better team composition, but it's not likely easy to measure so the best we all get and the world as a whole, is some kind of modified ELO, which provably works since shitters cry about forced 50.
>Shitters don't understand statistics and expect to always win
It's such a copout to be like "ONLY SHITTERS COMPLAIN" when pretty much every single game that has any kind of SBMM/EOMM system has actual pro players and top 1% players saying the exact same thing.
I don't really care. You want to play an online game which is built around a specific gameplay which requires a relatively balanced team composition, you're going to get the sbmm and you're going to like it. If you don't, maybe stop playing them.
>I don't really care
So you admit that you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about and that you are wrong. Got it.
I understand math better than you do moronic homosexual. It's not my place to teach it to you. If you don't like balanced play, maybe stop playing.
You clearly don't. In one post you basically said that there is no problem with the SBMM/EOMM systems, then once slightly challenged on it, you instantly switched to "WELL IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, THEN DON'T PLAY IT" which means that you do acknowledge that there is a problem.
You are a dishonest and disingenuous person. You are sad and pathetic.
There literally is no problem with it. The game finds equilibrium when you hit your ELO. It's not my fault you're blaming the game for your schizo delusions when it's more likely pure freak millisecond frick ups that define the difference of winning and losing against your peers (elo-wise).
>There literally is no problem with it
And we're back to you going "UR BAD" again, because you are a low IQ moron who has no arguments.
See
You literally are bad. You're basically a whiny homosexual who blames everyone but themselves. Shit unironically happens and it's sad they you're too moronic to recognize it.
>You literally are bad. You're basically a whiny homosexual who blames everyone but themselves.
I have been top 1% in every FPS game I have ever attempted at playing competitively. I was 5k MMR in DotA2 when pros were the same MMR. I've been master in LoL for 2 seasons.
You literally have no arguments other than constantly repeating "UR BAD". It's getting quite pathetic to watch you fumble around like this. I have told you countless times that even pros complain about this shit. Do you know who people like Faker and Dopa are? Deemed to be the world's best LoL players for ages, and they sometime complain about the exact same thing. Would you go "UR BAD" to them too?
My argument is you're at the skill you belong and you're not capable of seeing why this doesn't change. It's subtle sometimes.
What makes you think that I am talking about my own experiences? I personally don't really have many issues with these systems because I know that you can just grind out the bad games to overcome them over time. We are talking about the systems in an objective sense here, in general.
>I have been top 1% in every FPS game I have ever attempted at playing competitively. I was 5k MMR in DotA2 when pros were the same MMR. I've been master in LoL for 2 seasons.
Yup, and you've got a 190 IQ, and make $500,000 salary, and have a thirteen inch penis. Please keep making shit up moron. It's funny.
It's pretty fricking sad that you think those things I mentioned are big achievements. Top 1% in FPS is still not actual pro player status. 5k MMR in DotA2 was top 1%, but it was still nothing compared to 6k MMR. Master in LoL is still high, but it's also nothing compared to challenger.
I can't imagine how bad you must be at video games, to think that those things would be the equivalent of someone having an IQ of 190 or a 13 inch dick.
>forced 50 is not real
>well acshually players do have 50% winrate
>but it's not real
50% winrate is the natural state of SBMM, the only way you could escape it is to be the best player/team in the world and win every time, otherwise there will always be someone better than you.
>forced 50/50 is the natural state of SBBM
Yes. Though chuds just five seconds ago claimed that 50/50 doesn't exist.
P.S. also no. Activision has patented system to feed micrtransaction whales more wins through matchmaking system to stimulate more plays and and more microtransactions.
> Activision has patented system to feed micrtransaction whales more wins
That's not what the patent shows.
>In one implementation, when a player makes a game-related purchase, the microtransaction engine may encourage future purchases by matching the player (e.g., using matchmaking described herein) in a gameplay session that will utilize the game-related purchase. Doing so may enhance a level of enjoyment by the player for the game-related purchase, which may encourage future purchases. For example, if the player purchased a particular weapon, the microtransaction engine may match the player in a gameplay session in which the particular weapon is highly effective, giving the player an impression that the particular weapon was a good purchase. This may encourage the player to make future purchases to achieve similar gameplay results.
Learn to read Black speech.
That doesn't say anything about feeding wins to mtx whales.
It literally says to give mtx whale stomp match after weapon purchase.
Ii know you are member of the Black tribe but your mind tricks have now power over me.
It literally does not say that. Your own quote does not support your claim.
>It literally does not say that
Trying Black speech again?
It will not work.
Try again.
most statistically literate Ganker poster.
>No one has "their turn to lose" that's pure cope, a delusion even
Except they do. You can literally go watch pro players in LoL during their long streams where they will have 10 fantastic games in a row where everyone is master and above, and then suddenly the next few games they will have 1-2 teammates who are some D1/D2 players who will int/throw/AFK/surrender spam/etc.
I have played several FPS games at the highest levels like Q3CPMA, UT99, HLDM, Tribes, CoD4 ProMod ET, etc. not to mention that I've also played on a semi-pro level in games like CS 1.6(hardware sponsored, mice/mousepad/teflon/headset sponsors, LAN expenses paid, etc.) where I regularly participated in ESL uYR tournaments against teams like Begrip, Lemondogs, CLANTEAMFALCON, and so on.
You are a fricking moron if you think I wrote anything wrong.
my problem with these games is that all the "best" players that have no issues climbing the ranks are all controller aim assist homosexuals.
Look at The Finals aimbot city. Controllers can snap onto players, even cloaked players.
Multiplayer shooters are all fricking gay now.
>It places you into games where someone is having their turn to lose, according to the system.
That's called you getting better and being given harder opponents. Either rise to the challenge or teeter back and forth at your current rank.
>Either rise to the challenge
Ever considered the person is at their skill ceiling and there's no further advancement, so there's nothing the game can offer beyond a frustrating experience?
>the person is at their skill ceiling and there's no further advancement, so there's nothing the game can offer beyond a frustrating experience?
just play something else bruh
Welcome to reality? Again what do you actually want? You expect the game to suck your dick or something because you feel like a special snowflake? You share the same online experience with other players, moron.
There is a reason I only play games like this once a month.
Say hello to the game that invented SBMM. Guess what it didn't do? Restrict player metrics so every match was "even." Bungie devs who created the system explained it intentionally rolled between casual games, sweaty games, fair games etc. to keep players engaged and not frustrated.
>The game added statistical biases that made it unfair to make it appear "fair"
So basically... You want forced 50? You're a special kind of moron I guess.
>Completely whiffs over the part where the system had a CASUAL outcome and thinks this is anything like modern SBMM that hyper-focuses on "even" matches
Illiterate or moronic, call it.
SBMM systems have been around for a long time. It didn't really become a huge problem until around 2015 or so when gigantic companies starting pouring like a billion dollars into researching the psychology and player behavior and metrics behind the scenes, and how to exploit the human mind to optimize for the largest player retention possibly.
Imagine a chess grand master complaining about this shit
You're not a Chess grand master, I'm not a Chess grand master. You are saying this shit to a thread filled with utter fricking casuals, that includes me, who just want to not get bodied a dozen times.
>I don't want to get bodied (not fun) but I want to body other people (fun)
Who is supposed to care?
Go play with bots on easy then.
Oh look, someone made a post calling you out so I don't need to bother wasting my time calling you a moron in detail
It's just more incoherent tantrum noise from someone who thinks they are special.
I'm not special. How come I had fair and fun games in every Call of Duty up until psychologists got involved?
Because you were younger and not a jaded manchild yet.
I've literally only gotten "better" on the KD side as I've gotten older. I averaged 1KD when I was a teenager, matches were still far more even and ended with closer numbers than they do today with my 1.7KD. Now it's always either my team stomps or the enemy team stomps, it's rare as frick for a match to actually be close. This was never the case in e.g. Modern Warfare 2 OG.
>Either rise to the challenge
The next time I see some LoL pro having 2 morons on his team who are AFK or throwing the game on purpose because the system decided that it's his turn to lose, I will be sure to tell them "just rise to the challenge".
Or maybe those players are just having a bad time. Sometimes things happen, things that likely happen at that very specific skill level as well.
>Or maybe those players are just having a bad time
Except that you can use this nifty little thing called op.gg to see their actual rank, and in most cases the people get do that kind of shit will usually be several ranks below what the average rank of the lobby is.
If the entire lobby is full of master/grandmaster/challenger players, and then you have 2 morons in one team that are diamond 1/2, and both them are are trolling/throwing, you don't see how that is an obvious system rigging things?
It's so funny watching FGC guys rightfully clown on FPS losers who can't stand playing similarly skilled players
Fighting gamers block and dodge other players all the time.
overwatch lets you block players too but it's still the worst game of all time
There is big difference in effects of blocking in game with 1000 players and 280000 players.
you'll still face the same 3 troonys everytime no matter what
since the playerbase is cancer just like league of legends where you get the 3 same homosexuals who do the same shit everytime since reporting does nothing unless they said Black person or act like a whiny baby in chat
morons that don't understand how the system they give their opinion about works should not give out their opinion.
The way current matchmaking works is that you are playing people that are equal to you 20% of the time while you're either getting fricked in the ass by people much better than you or stomp a whole server full of the people "who play once every two weeks" for the other 80% of it.
This can be easily verified if you have played a shooter with cosmetics that reveal skill level, like Apex Legends.
>this can be easily verified if you have played any online games that are modern
bazinga
i mean the only way to get better is to paly against those who are better than you
yea but thats not how this works
it isnt like starcraft 1 1v1 ranking system where a diamond league palyer will only go against another diamond league player or high platinum player who's fighting for promotion into diamond league
the way it works is that it forces 50% win ratio
and the games are 5v5 or worse
so the way it works out is like. if you're a diamond league player who carries a couple games. now you get matched with bronze league players on your team vs masters league people. to force your 50% win ratio.
>the way it works is that it forces 50% win ratio
and the games are 5v5 or worse
Sounds like you reached your skill cap and are now stagnating
>let multibillion companies running predatory anti gamer shemes to decide who would win online matches
>what can go wrong?
SBMM is awful, I should be able to win all of the matches I play but without actually trying that hard but while still playing a competitive mode with a high ELO.
SBMM doesn't even match you against equally skilled players in team games. Developers do lazy shit where they try to equalize team skill based on a hidden number by making a team of 1 high skilled player and actual morons vs the same team composition or a team of average players. It's fricking shit.
It doesn't do this though, it adds two dead weight drooling fools to force a 1v2+-3 NPCs.
i never jumped on the competitive gaming hype. i always play unranked modes. and people call me a moronic baby for doing this.
it's fun getting to actually learn and understand the game, and the best way to do that is by grinding in ranked
It's as fun as getting cancer
you can do that without playing ranked
>muh teammates
literally every matchmaking thread. Why bother
Every modern problem in multiplayer comes from a lack of servers.
If the game can only be played in such a fashion, it's fine. This more speaks to the nature of the game than anything else though.
>play team based game solo queue
>whine when you lose
Peculiar
>algorithms rigs your game so you have worse odds of winning
why wouldn't you complain
I don't understand how people can take a game with random teammates seriously. Either play those games casually or don't play at all. How the frick can anyone stand to play something like that competitively? Even if you can rank up because you can win more than you lose on average, it's still extremely frustrating to play a game where you can keep losing with no real control over the situation.
The winning move is not to play
>I MUST TEAMSTACK
genuine shitter
why arent sports teams playing playoffs with random teams?
sbmm doesnt even work unless you gate keep the game by a hefty price tag, otherwise you'll end up with 9 billion alts of the top 100 because everyone up there knows each other and refuses to play with for ego reasons.
>hefty price tag
You don't need that.
>we see hardware id gaylord has logged into 50 accounts. This is suspcious
>investigate
>gaylord is some streamer gay.
>ban all their accounts
realistically very few games actually do this and the ones that do it takes forever. there will always be smurfs.
>playing games full time
>waah work is hard
How terrible. Want to cry about how work is hard? Join the fricking queue.
I like games that let me take down a whole squad of noobs by myself, screw competitive bullshit I just want to have fun.
Nuke esports to save competitive and casual plau
I'm sick and tired of the myth that critique against SBMM is only perpetuated by sweats who want easy wins. You tell me what the frick is fair or balanced about this scenario
>Two teams
>Each has
>x1 Diamond player who goes 16/3, one loses because his team wasn't good enough
>x2 Gold players, this likely includes you, the person reading this, you go 7/8 and likewise had a miserable fricking experience
>x1 Silver player, new to the game, who gets his shit rocked 1/16 and puts the game down for good
The only thing "even" in this very common scenario is the stat distribution between teams. Because in terms of a fair experience, 6 out of the 8 players got fricked.
>playing a team-based game competitively solo
found the mistake
>Uh it only works if you have friends!
Great system, it's not like the vast majority of players solo queue or anything.
what is your suggestion then? all of your teammates are exactly the same skill that you are?
>all of your teammates are exactly the same skill that you are?
Yes? That is literally the supposed system homosexuals claim SBMM is whenever they start strawmanning that only sweats complain about it.
>Durr you just want to stomp scrubs!
No, I want people on my fricking level because otherwise I'm having a miserable experience getting bodied for five matches in a row because my winrate happened to go over 51%.
So what you're saying is that you want matchmaking based on skill?
>So what you're saying is that you want matchmaking based on skill?
Yes, the thing SBMM explicitly does not do. It doesn't match players based on their actual skill, it matches you on the only metric it can calculate--winrate. But it's a worthless stat depending on a multitude of factors.
Here's a prime one for you, I used to play a LOT of For Honor back in the day, and when the Black Prior character was released, the playerbase skyrocketed from like 3K on PC to nearly 250K. Prior to this surge, my winrate was around 52% in Dominion, but with this massive influx of new players, over the next two months, my winrate leaped to around 67% because I was stomping an endless torrent of new players that the game just kept matching me with. As the new players left, because naturally that shit is frustrating experience when you just get parried all the time, all the game would match me with beyond that point were the unironic, literal sweats. We're talking Youtube and Twitch personalities still playing the game today. I'd amassed such a massive winrate that post-player loss I was averaging a daily winrate of barely 10%, and that was me at the bottom of the match leaderboard being blatantly carried. SBMM didn't know what the frick to do with me beyond keep giving me borderline impossible matches to try and even my winrate back out to 50%.
then what exactly is the alternative that prevents this
The alternative is to have no automatic matchmaking that purely optimizes for player retainment.
Either optimize for actual fair games, optimize for fun games, or go back to not having any kind of matchmaking at all, and thus people who want to play competitively need to actually form their own teams/mixes and find scrims to play on dedicated servers.
In terms of ranked SBMM? Much tighter restrictions on who faces who, and losing ELO isn't a snail's pace.
Fortnite is a prime example of a very poor ranked SBMM system. You don't lose ELO until Diamond on losses, meaning with enough time, even the shittiest of players will end up in that bracket, and a lot of people from every skill level play ranked because it has exclusive rewards.
SBMM, but you get matched with people similar to your elo. Like pretty much every sane online game in the world does.
this type of argument always comes from golds, not diamonds. legitimately good players understand how statistics work on rankings and having bad games doesn't matter because they don't have trouble staying in the top ranks or getting the sponsorships or the twitch views. golds get mad because they're stuck and think their lack of skill isn't the barrier, when in the first place they are playing a team game that doesn't isolate their personal skill level, i.e. they are designed for women.
git gud
>and having bad games doesn't matter because they don't have trouble staying in the top ranks or getting the sponsorships or the twitch views
If you asked every single person like that, don't you think they would prefer to NOT have those rigged games in the first place, even if they can relatively easily overcome them?
>Literally told in the example that the Golds are average
>No see the Golds think they're super special and can somehow compete with the best
See
>people who defend skill-based matchmaking operate on pure cognitive dissonance.
Over and over it's always "you think you're better than you really are" even when you are being told to your face by the other person "I am shit."
I got Diamond in LoL and found the whole thing a complete farce. SBMM sucks in that game.
>SBMM
What's that
Super Bombastic Mario Maker?
still skipping your shooter
Actual SBMM leads to people queuing for half an hour when they're outliers. Which is good because frick streamers.
sweats never think they're the shitter
like there's a trap to drag them down to a certain elo that specifically activates at their level but affects no one else
tying themselves in knots to protect their ego
how did the people higher than you escape the forced 50 anchor?
>it's another "only bad players complain about SBMM/EOMM" post
See
the pro players complaining are streamers who want to show off stomping casuals on stream but can't because sbmm gives them fair matches
>People at an extreme outlier position are less likely to get matched with people exactly even with their skill level
Are you just pretending to be moronic? Because there's no fricking way you actually think that's an argument against sbmm
>Because there's no fricking way you actually think that's an argument against sbmm
It is literally a direct counter argument to any low IQ spastic who keeps repeating "ONLY BAD PEOPLE COMPLAIN ABOUT SBMM/EOMM".
>It is literally a direct counter argument to any low IQ spastic who keeps repeating "ONLY BAD PEOPLE COMPLAIN ABOUT SBMM/EOMM".
Holy shit you're fricking stupid. Pro players complaining because the next tier down of player may as well be playing a totally different game for how wide the skill gulf is is a totally different argument from shitters like you complaining because sbmm prevents them from pubstomping.
>shitters like you complaining because sbmm prevents them from pubstomping
You are a moron. See
sbmm is fine, eomm is gay
place someone in a bracket, tell them what the bracket is, matchmake them with the bracket and tell them which bracket their opponents are in
or GIVE US COMMUNITY SERVERS
i think cod only does more than w/l, but its predatary that there are shady practices like the sbmm patent, using bots to alter match scores, worse ping at higher mmr, etc.
teammates just make sbmm worse to deal with because theres not as many players in a skill bracket to fill a lobby sometimes. having w/l sbmm in a team game is also like crabs in a barrel because youll get punished with elo loss for doing well in a match, or get rewarded for doing bad.
it only made sense for full premade teams who have a consistent roster, because they would count as a single unit to only need a w/l rating. anything less your rank is influenced by teammates
>casual play based on ping
>ranked play with SBMM
It's really not that hard. When you put SBMM into casual play it's hard to enjoy the game.
It's funny how the people who defend skill-based matchmaking operate on pure cognitive dissonance.
>I am bad and I hate SBMM
>You just want to stomp new players!
>No, I want even but fun games. The kind where I can say both teams had a shot at winning and it's a close finish
>No, you clearly just want to stomp noobs!
The only modern game where the SBMM doesn't feel like a fricking vice around my neck is Halo Infinite. The amount of Team Slayer games that end with just one kill separating the victor is surprisingly common.
>Shitfinite
Post invalid
Infinite is good and I'm tired of pretending it's not.
Flesh out that supposed argument, how would SBMM ruin the experience for low to average skill players looking for fun games?
>how would SBMM ruin the experience for low to average skill players looking for fun games?
Because the system isn't looking for fun games, it's looking for metrically balanced games not just between you but everybody else. Whether it's you or someone else, the system has pre-designated losers and winners to the best of its ability before the match has even started. It's not interested in your enjoyment, it can't be, it's only interested in balancing out Player A's winrate of 53% by bringing it down, while in turn looking at your 49% and deciding you need a boost.
>Because the system isn't looking for fun games, it's looking for metrically balanced games
They don't have a fun measure for matchmaking. You seem to admit matchmaking cannot really do this. People say they want balanced games so that's what the system tries to do. One player's rating of 1930 against opponents of 1900 skill rating means they put someone with 1870 with the 1930 player. This doesn't prove pre-designated winners and losers. This wouldn't even be skill based match making that you're criticizing but some sort of player retention matchmaking.
>One player's rating of 1930 against opponents of 1900 skill rating
But what determines why my rating is 1930 vs. the opponent's 1900? I mean it's a stupid question because we know it'd purely based on KDA and winrate, but that isn't the be all/end all of a skill discussion.
People who are fast learners but limited on a technical level suffer more than any other player under SBMM. These are the people who get a massive head start because they take in basic shit really quick, actually use the tutorials, find dumb little quirks before everybody else. I see it all the time, the person who figures out a random shortcut in a racing game, or someone who learns some dumb tech move in a fighting game that isn't documented. This inflates their ELO massively during the first month of a game's life not through skill, but purely because they inadvertently fudged the numbers. The moment the actually skilful players start getting video tutorials on how to do everything the quick learner knew intuitively, they former suffers for weeks on end as the SBMM rips down their pants and begins fricking them raw.
Maybe they should learn to play the game then
>What is a skill ceiling
Skill issue
>it'd purely based on KDA and winrate, but that isn't the be all/end all of a skill discussion
>People who are fast learners but limited on a technical level suffer more than any other player under SBMM.
In other words people who understand how to play but are still bad at the game suffer under a system that discriminates based of skill in a skill based game.
Easy solution would be to play casual games instead where skill isn't much of a factor.
>People who are fast learners but limited on a technical level suffer more than any other player under SBMM.
>They can get high winrates through learning faster and figuring out tricks but then lose all competitive advantage when others know the tricks and have execution
This doesn't negate the value of SBMM as a whole. What you're describing is a niche set of cases with an issue. That issue is their own doing where they got ahead and then didn't stay ahead so now they'll gradually go back to the level at which they are relatively balanced. That some players have temporary misfortune doesn't undo that the majority of players will have long lasting good experiences.
>it'd purely based on KDA and winrate, but that isn't the be all/end all of a skill discussion
It basically is if we're talking about winrates.
>I want even but fun games.
No you just want to stomp noobs
You people are being silly/ Skill is nebulous and fluctuates, especially at lower levels. sbmm/MMR is just a compromise they make in an attempt to quantify it, but mmr wasn't even made for team games to begin with. There are also a multitude of factors for why a player is playing bad/good which can both trick mmr for a while and skew matches even at the "appropriate" mmr. The dumbass who throws the game is often where he's "supposed" to be but he's tilted or something so he sucks more than usual. Some dude is just in the zone a playing above his normal level. Some guy is a one trick but it got banned that match. It goes on and on. The idea that matchmaking could know any of this before the round even starts is absurd. You can't really know how a match plays out until you play it unless there's a severe all around talent mismatch, which does sometimes happen but you also have to factor in leeway for reasonable queue times. There is really no better solution for team based matchmaking right now unless you really put AI to work or something
if it bothers you so much then stop playing team games, play games with random servers, or whatever
>There is really no better solution for team based matchmaking right now unless you really put AI to work or something
There is. They can stop optimizing for player retention and instead optimize for fair games.
consistency issues is more a low skill issue, so stuff mostly tracks
obviously there are things outside of an MMR system's control like if the player is drunk or something, but if outliers occur often it should be reflected in their rating
>Skill is nebulous and fluctuates, especially at lower levels.
i agree, often times in fighting game noobs get perfected and believe they got smurfed but actually the other guy was a noob too woth some tricks up his sleeve
>Make a game where stomping others is rewarded and the more you stomp the more fun things you get to use
>people get annoyed when they can't stomp anymore due to SBMM
How could CoD devs predict this?
I logged into the MW3 beta and went 17-13 my first round, the next game I couldn't ADS before the other teams players melted me, after going 0-7 in the next few face to face match-ups I just quit out of the game and that was it for me. I guess their SBMM or algorithm makes them the most profit statistically, but the game isn't fun when those kinds of things are happening so I just don't buy the game.
the sbmm kicks in after the first game. if you had mmr data it also readjusts your rating. i refunded after my 5th game because after the first it was laggy as hell.
For shitters? Absolutely, it's amazing. For everyone else? Nope, it's awful.
SBMM fricks over high skill players when they play casual as now every match has to be full on sweaty tryhard mode. It also fricks over low skill players in competitive as shit teammates will have you stuck in ELO hell.
so you put in an unranked mode that has no MMR system
like most games do
If everyone is on sweaty tryhard mode then they will get the elo they deserve
The difference is my sweaty tryhard mode puts me in Gold which is the participation medal award of ranks, the rank that is basically Copper for people who don't have neurological/physical disabilities. We know it works like this because some dude made it his mission to get into Copper in Overwatch and it was like watching poorly programmed bots who couldn't shoot and walk at the same time.
>it was like watching poorly programmed bots who couldn't shoot and walk at the same time.
wow they're just like me
>Overwatch
>Comp baby
No wonder you're so pissed off all the time.
Take a break kiddo.
It was an example, I haven't played Overwatch since 2017.
SBMM between both casual and ranked is borderline identical in most modern games, just it's a smidge tighter in ranked.
Matchmaking destroyed TF2, casual will literally match you with 6 morons with a 6 compgay troon stack on the other team, all of them using compgay meta weapons because, god forbid, they have fun in a non serious match
Oh yeah something something bots
TF2 is one of those games where you can avoid the competitive aspect by playing game modes with large lobby sizes and on server browser lists no less.
How come you are never the moron with a good team? Are you immune to statistics?
If I wanted to face casuals in my games I would play casually.
why don't people who complain about sbmm just play easy bots?
Because contrary to what you believe, I don't find enjoyment in stomping. I want, get this, actually fair matches.
how will i make le epic killstreak video for moronic children if im matched
SBMM isn't a problem, what's a problem is when the game rigs itself in favor of the shittier player because they are too shit at everything including taking a shit without staining their butthole everytime, needing an extra wipe for their butthole!
homies complaining about SBMM need to play Guilty Gear Strive and experience how fricked up random matchmaking is
fighting game matchmaking and fps matchmaking are not the same in the slightest even if they use the same system due to the variables known as teammates
Can't, the game is still loading
MMR/ELO/SBMM/EOMM stuff for 1v1 games is completely different from those systems in team games. One of the main ways that "forced 50%" works is by giving a certain player shit teammates. If you play a 1v1 game then that obviously can't happen.
idk I think a lot of people in 1v1 games get shit teammates and just deny it and cope that its the fault of something else rather than having a bad team
1v1 games are actually one of the few types of games where it genuinely can be an issue of you having a bad team and you just need to git gud and carry.
forced 50 is the worst shit ever. Why is this even a thing? Queue times being shorter?
Companies poured billions of dollars into psychology research that shows that 50% win rate is where games will retain the largest amount of players possible, over the longest time. You'll never feel like you are losing too much, but you will also never feel like you are winning too much. Basically any time you have had one of those moments where you wanted to stop playing for the day, and you had that "I should just play one more, I can't end on a loss" or a "I should play one one, because I am on a streak", you have basically fallen into the psychology trap.
In addition to that, you're also constantly in a state of feeling like you want to improve and become better, because you feel like you don't belong in the rank that you are currently in. There's a whole bunch of strange psychology tricks that are being applied every time you play. For example, Activision has a patent that will place certain people who a prone to spending money with extremely good players with certain skins, so that the "bad" players will be tricked into thinking that they need those skins.
Here's one of those patents, for example - https://patents.google.com/patent/US20160005270A1/en
The queues being shorter is also another component of that, but it's a secondary boon.
>into psychology research that shows that 50% win rate is where games will retain the largest amount of players possible
Well considering that Activision patented system to feed more wins to whales no 50% is not optimal winrate for maximum engagement at all. Problem with higher than 50% winrate is other players would be wining less than 50%. If you control it Wins becomes recource, losing players become recource, food to feed to whales.
Random MM is random, but the floor system is great-ish to find players on your skill floor unless someone is clearly throwing to sunk their floors
Not really, it makes things less fun for players of all skill level. In general there's a bell curve of skill and the average player will play against other average players anyways. I want to encounter the rare shitter and rare good player instead only ever playing with average players.
I've come to realise that whenever people talk about "playing for fun" they mean "it's only fun if I win"
You've had multiple examples in this thread that prove you wrong.
Nah.
>No, I want even but fun games. The kind where I can say both teams had a shot at winning and it's a close finish
>No, you clearly just want to stomp noobs!
Every time. There's no helping cognitive dissonance.
No what I said was that people who say "I play for fun" only care about winning which is true.
No, again, pure cognitive dissonance. Fun is not a synonym for winning.
If I'm playing TDM, and the game finishes 48 to 50 in a loss, and I can say everybody tried their hardest and a lot of funny shit happened, that's a good game. That's how games used to be. That was everybody's experience, that was why nobody b***hed about SBMM despite knowing about it. The earliest "forced 50" memes I can ever recall came from shit like LoL and Dota 2.
Then explain why people claim they play for fun and then talk about losing being unfun?
Losing in a stomp where you're spending more time respawning than playing, which is frequently the case in modern SBMM, one way or the other, is not fun. It's not fun to stomp people who can't fight back, and it's not fun to be on the receiving end of it. But people like you cannot get over this idea only you perpetuate that I and everybody else against this garbage system want to stomp.
If you were playing for fun, you wouldn't care it was a stomp.
There is a stark difference in casual play and losing fair and square to someone on your level, and getting stomped by the Denver Broncos because Alan on your team might have the potential to go pro in ten years.
If you spend more time respawning than playing that’s 100% on you. It is completely within your power to die less, and blaming “muh matchmaking” for that is a pathetic cope.
>Get put against literal tournament pros Twitch streaming and stacking
>Lose horribly because they're well beyond your level
>"It's on you to not get bodied, dude."
Stop pretending these matches under SBMM are fair.
Why would skill based matchmaking match you up against people far outside your skill?
>This moron actually believes SBMM matches based on player skill
It by definition does exactly that, but if you wanna prove otherwise good luck
It doesn't, no system on this planet can measure player skill. SBMM focuses primarily on winrate, and winrate is fudged and manipulated by a large variety of factors that SBMM cannot account for.
>Were you sick?
>Were you drunk?
>Were you holding in a shit?
>Were your hands cold?
>Did you have brain fog?
>Were you distracted while your mom screams at you?
>Were you solo or with friends?
>Were you actually trying?
Then why do some players have higher win rates than other players?
>Then why do some players have higher win rates than other players?
Why do some players have winrates well below the average that SBMM tries to achieve? Because 10%-20% of the playerbase are outside of what SBMM can accomplish within what it's been told to do. This is why regardless of which extreme end of the bell curve you're on, whether you're abysmal or beyond Godlike, your queue times will be astronomical compared to the middle of the bell curve.
So what you’re saying is depending on individual player skill your win rate can be above or below average?
I'm saying that there are always extreme outliers and using them to prove SBMM isn't trying to achieve 50% winrates for every player is an incredibly flawed fallacy. SBMM aims to hit 50% winrates for the vast majority of players, because the vast majority are, shocker, the bulk of potential profits. The designers of SBMM couldn't give a frick about the other 20%, those are, again, outliers.
People climb rank and fall in rank all the time, how would that be so common if a 50% win rate is so forced?
>People climb rank and fall in rank all the time
A coin flipped a thousand times can have instances of it landing on heads 20+ times in a row. Now, substitute these flips for games played, what's a 20+ winstreak in a sea of a thousand games? A gradual ELO hike and a rank up.
So it’s just random chance when a high ranked player makes a brand new account and climbs to the same high rank far faster than any other player would?
See
>high level players are extreme outliers
If “high level” is just “better than the average” then “high level players” accounts for at least 40% of players
Please look up what a bell curve is, please.
Looked it up. Doesn’t change what I said. Players who attain the same high level rank across multiple accounts are not “outliers”
They are quite literally outliers. You do not understand a bell curve. Being in the top 10% of players is outside of the average/center of the bell curve which is not what SBMM is targeting.
It's not recognized by SBMM at all, it's the complete opposite. If you have a 60% winrate, it'll try and match you against people with 60% winrates. The problem is it doesn't know why these people have 60% winrates. The assumption is they're good, but it could be because they played with friends in a stack, or the queue was especially limited the last week due to low player counts. The person in question wins again, and again, because they're better than everybody else, to the point SBMM doesn't know what to do with them. Leading to either excessive queue times in very strict SBMM to the point they're forced to smurf to get games, or putting them against literally anybody in looser SBMM systems.
>The problem is it doesn't know why these people have 60% winrates.
Because they're better than average players.
Wrong, see
60% winrates can be thrown at you literally because of a playerbase surge.
That post doesn't prove what you're saying. In reality winrate is the most reliable metric when it comes to skill. Over enough time, bad players lose more often and good players win more often. This holds true across pretty much every skill based game.
That post is literally proving the point that winrates are not reliable narrators for your skill. Going from 52% to nearly 70% just because of a new player boon does not mean you got better, it means the skill floor beneath you sunk straight into the Mariana Trench. It's like the video game equivalent of that shitty Twitter Commie belief of the ratcheting right political spectrum where, over time, our politics become righter every year so now liberals from twenty years ago are actually on the same level as Hitler. Their politics haven't changed, but the board on which they sit has.
Overtime the winrate will correct anyway because you will lose tons of games. It fixes itself. And honestly fighting those slightly higher tiers is good anyway, you'll improve overall if you're actually trying.
>you'll improve overall if you're actually trying.
No you won't, there is no such thing as perpetual improvement. There is no such thing as always getting better. Everybody has a cap. If everybody could improve indefinitely by just doing X over and over, we'd all be pros at X game of our choice.
I'm in the top 1% of most racing games I play. I do nothing but play racing games in most instances, I still get my ass stomped by people well beyond my skill level who have put much less time than me into these games.
Unless you're in the top percentiles than there is no cap. The vast majority of players for any game never reach anywhere close to their full potential. In you're in the 1% sure you have reached your cap but realistically you're around the top of the bell curve and for you imlrovement might as well be perpetual.
Most SBMM systems account for stacks vs solo queues. If you're winning the majority of your games in a given week, it's unlikely you're going to go on losing streaks if you're not playing against people who are better than you.
>he thinks only the top 10% of players can make a new account and get to the same high rank far faster than someone stuck in a low rank can
Let’s try again. Explain how someone stuck in gold can make a new account and get back to gold in no time while someone stuck in silver can make a new account and still not be able to make it to gold like the first player can? If it’s totally random shouldn’t they end up in about the same rank. It’s not as if someone in gold is in the top 10% of players, they’re not an outlier.
>Explain how people within the idealized bell curve margin that SBMM aims for are most affected by SBMM
How about this. Explain why someone in Copper with four missing limbs who plays with his tongue gets placed with Platinums.
Dead game. There aren't enpugh new players.
No, that's the case in even populated games. Mr. Carpet Copper is just like our idealized pro, he's outside the bell curve that SBMM aims for and doesn't know what too do with him.
Yes it does, be quiet.
Go ahead and prove it does, if you can (you can’t)
No it isn't.
The only reason a Copper gets matched with platinums is because the game prioritises actually queing players up over keeping the ranks even. This would only happen because the copper can't find other coppers. Either because there aren't enough new players, game can be populated but lack a consistant influx of noobs, or it can be an intermet issue where all the other coppers are too high ping. Much more likely the former. It's more indicitive of the skill floor being higher because of player retention.
Nope, this happens regardless of population. Even games that are still heavily populated like Apex have this issue. Sbmm is to carry shitters long enough so they have the incentive to buy microtransactions before they drop the game. The population excuse is leftist game dev cope.
Heavily populated can also mean good retention. Apex Legends is an older game, not as many new players enter but tons of ealier adopters remain. You would naturally expect a higher skill floor.
Pic related is actual player retention.
Modern player retention is based off of microtransactions sales and psychological manipulation of players, ie putting predators in silver liver lobbies as punishment for the silver players stomping on new players.
Monetization focused player retention isn't about maintaining high populations. Often times these games have low populations but are kept a float by a small subsect of extremely devoted whales and dolphins.
They don’t.
When I played Apex Legends back in the first 2-3 seasons, that would happen regularly. I was high diamond trying to get to Apex Predator and whenever I would go on big win streaks and become close to Apex Predator, I'd get matched with high gold/low plat sometimes.
I don't know if it's still like that, but it was so painfully obvious what was happening with that system.
>Explain why someone in Copper with four missing limbs who plays with his tongue gets placed with Platinums
Because he's actually a pro https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1MYSgy4QMw
That just you saying skill is recognized by sbmm
All of these are just skill issues.
>Losing is not fun
Fixed
No, don't change my words and then try and act like you've won. I don't care if I lose, I care if it's a stomp. Now try refuting the actual point instead of being stuck in a logic loop.
>I don't care if I lose, I care if it's a stomp
A stomp where you lose.
What your saying is losing isn't fun, which isn't a point against SBMM since it's designed to prevent stomps.
>What your saying is losing isn't fun, which isn't a point against SBMM since it's designed to prevent stomps.
Then why is every single one of my matches me stomping or getting stomped? It's not doing a very good job in any game I play.
Whatever you say.
You don't play video games or you're baiting, that's the only explanation. My matches in Call of Duty as of the last few years either have me go 20+ and 2 deaths, or the complete inverse, there is no in-between. I either crush people seemingly playing with their feet, or get bodied by xXxDeathFrickerxXx as he teabags me over and over.
so you're playing with other shitters, sounds skill based
normal players cannot force a game
>normal players cannot force a game
Maybe not but good players can. Why are you a normal player and not a good player?
>You don't play video games or you're baiting, that's the only explanation
No you're just projecting here.
>Then why is every single one of my matches me stomping or getting stomped? It's not doing a very good job in any game I play.
That would be bad game design, not that SBMM cannot work.
What's an actual example of SBMM working?
Advance Wars By Web.
Every online game where it makes shitters use it as a scapegoat
>That's how games used to be
nah
I'm not interested in the opinions of zoomers whose first online game was CSGO.
>That's how games used to be
lol lmao even
You don't want even games though. you clearly just want to stomp noobs
But they don't.
SBMM will always be shit in casual matchmaking. Almost every game uses some loose scoring system that adds up to a team total like elo based on win percent and performance. This can vary widely within random team comps creating wildly imbalanced matches where you could potentially be carrying or stomped. Albeit, this happens less than in some CBMM.
Another issue is that when you improve in the game, the player pool you play with gets smaller. While this might not be noticeable for some bigger for some time, it will eventually reach the point of playing similar players at whatever mmr you're at. The problem this creates is that the connection gets progressively worse and worse as you play people all over the world with similar matchmaking. Ive yet to play any game (fighters, fps, etc .) where my connection wasnt ruined by SBMM making my experience fricking awful as i play sweats with awful connection at a certain point.
If you sit near the middle of the bell curve, you'll get occasional shit connection with awful team composition and the occasional sweat. If you're at the top you'll get terrible connection unless you connect to a lower skill bracket. If you're at the bottom you will occasionally be fed into the higher brackets. All round terrible.
Reminder that you gays bring this upon yourself by trying to play a team game solo. It's just fundamentally impossible framework to make work, like trying to ram a square peg into a round hole.
Matchmaking works just fine in 1v1 games, as well as team games with fixed team rosters.
The fact that you're allowed to solo queue in a team game in the first place is a gigantic cope. It's something that only exists to cater to people too casual or cowardly to play one of the above.
There really isn't a good argument against SBMM in ranked play that doesn't just amount to an argument against matchmaking altogether or randomly queuing up for team based games in general.
More people need to wake up that competitive "esports" games as a service games that have been releasing are filled with this horrendous predatory shit made to retain players
These games aren't fun anymore, they're turned into a second fricking job except instead of you getting paid you get the occasional dopamine and they get all your fricking money
>predatory matchmaking designed to keep you playing so you can rank up, but it is designed so you're chasing that rank up forever
>predatory battle pass systems and dailies/weeklies designed to keep you logging in every day, every week, every month
>FOMO shit tied to the above battle pass systems designed to urge you to keep playing
it's all fricked. All of it. Remember that period of time where games released with an optional multiplayer mode that was just meant to be dumb fun?
Like, remember bulletstorm? The transformers games' multiplayer, I could go on and on.
Competitive shit is just ruining everything. No fun anymore, everyone is mad, everyone is blaming everyone else
If it was really that awful people would just stop playing, which in turn would destroy these systems designed to keep you playing.
>If it was really that awful people would just stop playing
If alcoholism was really that awful people would just stop drinking.
If drug abuse was really that awful people would just stop doing drugs.
If food addiction was really that awful people would just stop overeating.
Video game "addiction" is a meme.
just turn the game off bro hahahahaha it's not crystal meth it's just a game
what are you a child
it's not that simple anon
the systems exist because they're designed to make you keep playing
the average player doesn't realize this, because most of the time you have a game that's good, fun even, you get the dopamine rush from winning, and that drives you to keep playing
the games are stockholm syndroming people
these games are an abusive domestic partner
If the game wasn't fun people would would just stop playing it, defeating the purpose of these systems designed to make the game more enjoyable to play.
>If the game wasn't fun people would would just stop playing it
Look at how many insanely mentally ill LoL players there are, that constantly talk about how much they fricking despise the game, but they can't quit.
That has more to do with sunk cost, not matchmaking. For the record I'm only talking about matchmaking systems designed for "engagement" aka making the game more appealing to play for longer. If it was making the game less fun people would play for less or not at all.
>I just told you the games are fun
Then what's the issue?
>If it was making the game less fun people would play for less or not at all.
I think you are looking at it in a wrong way. The systems don't care if people have fun or not. The system taps into the human psyche and abuses the human desire to keep playing to improve. You can get thrown into 10 shitty games in a row and people will still be like "okay, I just need to get over this bad lose streak, to get to the good games, and I will become better and climb the ranks".
Anyone who is able to look behind the veil of these systems would obviously question why the frick they are even subjecting themselves to 10 bad games in the first place, but most people don't ever do that.
>The systems don't care if people have fun or not
They clearly do since people would play less or just quit if it was making the game less fun. Why are you trying to improve in a game you don't enjoy playing?
>Why are you trying to improve
Who's trying to improve? Is this honest to God the mindset of an SBMMtard? We're playing to, well trying is the keyword, to unwind and have fun after work.
>Perpetual improvement
>Must get +3 ELO today
>Casual play? Pfft, casuals, get rekt
if you want an easy game then you can play with bots.
>play competitive game
>whine it’s not relaxing
Clearly this is the fault of the matchmaking system
What happened to casual game mode, chud?
It still exists in every competitive game, so what’s the problem? You can’t stand losing even in a casual game mode with no consequence?
>It still exists in every competitive game
Yeah? Show me one, chud.
League of Legends normal draft queue
You wut lol? Its the same ranked only without displaying rank and ELO.
So why do you care about your invisible rank in a casual game mode?
But it's not casual game mode, it's ranked game mode without displaying the rank. So you failed to deliver examples.
Try again.
OK let’s try again. Why do you care about your rank, even in a ranked mode where rank is visible? If you’re just trying to enjoy the game, what’s stopping you from doing that? Fear of losing rank?
>play competitive game
>Solo queue for CASUAL
>Still hit with SBMM that determines my winrate of 50.01% means I'm facing a squad of friends two ranks above me
So what does that matter if it's a casual match?
Why do you care if you win or lose in a casual game?
Why do you care about rigging casual matches outcomes?
Isn’t matching two teams of equal skill together the opposite of “rigging”?
>two teams of equal skill
Name 5 games with SBMM/EOMM where this actually happens, and it isn't just a one-sided stomp instead.
All of them, that’s the point of SBMM. If it’s a stomp it’s because the individuals on that team made choices that lead to that stomp.
>All of them
Name the actual games were you think it happens, please.
Name literally any game with SBMM
Jesus christ, you are pathetic. So dishonest and disingenuous. It's painfully obvious that you don't even play games that utilizes SBMM/EOMM.
Sure buddy, whatever makes you feel better about being a shitter
>oh woe is me all my failures are due to le algorithm there’s nothing I can do oh woe is me
Pathetic homosexual
The fact that you instantly revert to "UR JUST BAD" is pathetic. I personally have no issues with these systems, because I know how to just grind through the bad matches and not let it affect my mental attitude, but we are talking about the systems here in an objective fashion.
>The fact that you instantly revert to "UR JUST BAD" is pathetic
What else do you say in response to someone who believes that within a game where can make choices that directly lead to either victory or defeat that your victory or defeat is completely random? You’re coping with being bad, literally no other explanation makes sense.
>defeat is completely random?
Where did I ever say that it was completely random? Let's take a game like LoL as our example here. You can have 10 amazing games that are all 45 minutes long where all 10 players are equally skilled(where you can even see it through op.gg). Then afterwards the system will be like "you are winning too much" and then for the next 3-4 games you will now have 1-2 people on your team in every game that feeds/AFKs/ints/leaves/etc.
This even happens to the absolute best players in the game. The top 1% players and pro players regularly experience these things and also complain about it. That's why you saying "UR JUST BAD" is such a fricking moronic copout. Also, the fact that you refused to name 5 games just made it 100% obvious that you don't even play these types of games in the first place, because this happens in nearly every game that has SBMM/EOMM.
>Then afterwards the system will be like "you are winning too much" and then for the next 3-4 games you will now have 1-2 people on your team in every game that feeds/AFKs/ints/leaves/etc.
Nta but that's not how sbmm in league works.
>Nta but that's not how sbmm in league works.
That is exactly how it works.
No it doesn't.
Great argument. T1 experiences that. Faker experiences that. Dopa experiences that. Midbeast experiences that. Basically any top player who plays tons of games will regularly experience it and show it on their stream. I don't know why you are even attempting to argue against this.
No they don't.
>Win games
>Game rank you up
>Start losing because you're playing against better opponent
>Somehow this is the game deciding you should lose
Notice how none of you Black person ever say your team lose because of you.
>Notice how none of you Black person ever say your team lose because of you.
My team loses because of me all the time to the point I've dropped God knows how many games because of it. These are in games with SBMM by the way.
Cool anecdote. Now prove it actually happens
>Now prove it actually happens
Okay, here's a clip from yesterday of a guy named Gorgc in DotA2 who is ranked 476, complaining about being teamed up with a rank 1345 who is throwing his game.
https://clips.twitch.tv/CrackyGiantPhoneItsBoshyTime-8EsqjIEANM8rKG2r
>Top 0.01% get marched with a top 0.02%
>Somehow this is sbmm throwing his game
Black person
You have no idea what the difference is between Rank 500 and Rank 1300. Why do you even attempt to talk? Clueless moron.
Nice counter argument gay
That’s a cool second anecdote. Now let’s see you prove it.
Go watch any LoL streamer for an extended period of time and track their op.gg meanwhile. You will see when they go on winning streaks that it's always followed by absolutely atrocious games with the most garbage teammates right after.
Have you ever considered that maybe their teammates performed like garbage due to poor performance and not because the algorithm willed it
Have you ever considered that maybe you are just clueless and wrong on this subject?
I did but then I concluded that’s simply not the case.
You are mad. Because you are bad.
>You are mad. Because you are bad.
See
Saw it. Got anything else to say or are you just gonna keep being mad about being bad?
No player has a 100% winrate. Pro league players are consistently able to climb ranks and reach the top .01% in solo queue on their smurf accounts because the number of so called forced losses are vastly outweighed by the number of games where they were evenly matched or better than everyone else in the match. Non-pro skill level players are unable to consistently perform as well despite having to play under in the exact same matchmaking system as these streamers
>Didn't win the lottery? It's because you made the wrong choices, and should have instead made the right choices
>none of my choices matter and everything is subject to random chance in a game where I literally make choices that either have good or bad outcomes
Hey if you wanna think that go ahead. Just don’t cry when you get rightfully stomped on.
Under SBMM, your choices and outcomes are quite literally determined by a number generator.
>Just don’t cry when you get rightfully stomped on.
Sorry, does SBMM encourage or prevent stomps now? Make up your mind. After all, under SBMM, I should never experience these, right?
>Under SBMM, your choices and outcomes are quite literally determined by a number generator
Cute shitter cope. Just leave the competitive games to the competitive people. Maybe animal crossing is more your speed.
I care if I get stomped. Keyword, stomped.
Seriously, are SBMM defenders this illiterate? Do words not go into your brains? Do you struggle to comprehend basic sentences?
You realise that you’re playing the game right. That is, you have influence over its outcome. If you don’t want to get stomped why don’t you just… stop it from happening?
>win rate is 50.1%
>matching against squad of friends two ranks above me
Huh?
>Why are you trying to improve in a game you don't enjoy playing?
Why are people trying to improve their bodies through lifting despite 9/10 people saying that it sucks?
I just told you the games are fun
the games have to be fun at their core to get people to play, and you get stockholm syndromed into staying
years ago these games would just release, be fun, and then devs would move on and maybe make a sequel later
>If the game wasn't fun people would would just stop playing it
And what are the alternatives?
BTW same logic apllies to era when CoD had no SBBM. Chuds try defend SBBM with argument
>shitters would leave random matchmaking game because it's no fun for shitters
Well they didn't back then.
you seem to not understand how moronic modern gamers are anon, you’re saying oh this system isn’t bad since people still play! that’s the same argument as, well modern slopfare is the most sold game so it’s bound to be good! point is there are too many stupid people playing making it hard to “destroy” these systems
>you’re saying oh this system isn’t bad since people still play
Unironically yes.
Whether the game is good or not is ultimately subjective. But if SBMM was bad it would drive people away from playing the game not keep them playing more.
>But if SBMM was bad it would drive people away from playing the game not keep them playing more.
This sentence depends entirely on what "bad" means to you. SBMM is inherently bad because it abuses the human psychology. But you can also say that it's not "bad" because it achieves exactly what the system was made for.
>SBMM is inherently bad because it abuses the human psychology.
Not really. Or at least, not in anyway that making the game more "fun" is abusing human psychology. It's not comparable to gambling or FOMO that exploits impulsive people to play games they don't enjoy.
>It's not comparable to gambling or FOMO that exploits impulsive people to play games they don't enjoy
It is on the exact same level as those, except that monetary transactions aren't involved, and instead your time is involved, which is what the developers want. They want the player retention.
In other words it's not on the same level at all.
That depends entirely on your philosophy. Let's take someone who is a multi-millionaire. Do you think money or time is more important to that person?
For me, as a person who has a lot of money, I'd say that I don't really care if a game manages to entice me into spending like $500 on skins, as an example. However, I feel cheated if a game repeatedly places me into several matches that feel rigged, right after I have had a good winning streak.
Matching you with opponents of similar skill level is not the same as rigging games.
>That depends entirely on your philosophy.
No it doesn't. This isn't a relativist argument. The systems are meaningfully different from eachother.
>No it doesn't. This isn't a relativist argument
Counter my argument, then.
>The systems are meaningfully different from eachother.
Explain how it's different from my argument, then.
Your argument is just trying to force a false equivalency. Matching people based on skill to make matches as even as possible to retain players (or keep the game fun) is not the same as psychological systems designed to exploit your impulses in order to milk as much money out of you as possible (ie loot boxes). Whether you're rich or poor doesn't change that fact.
>Oh that's depends on your philosophy
No.
You still haven't given any actual counter argument. You just keep writing things that essentially sum it up as "I don't agree" without putting forth any counters. I am just going to assume that you're some incredibly low IQ moron who is incapable of presenting any real arguments or points.
Youre projecting. Not an argument.
google stockholm syndrome
Video games don't hold you hostage so Stockholm syndrome isn't applicable here.
A lot of people do. I did when this shit started getting really bad 4 or 5 years ago.
The other issue is that people just play the same newly released games every year. They've grown a tolerance to shit. Some people started playing games during that time and quite literally havent experienced things before this current market. It's the norm to them.
If matchmaking systems were driving a lot of people away from playing games that would defeat the purpose of matchmaking systems designed to entice people to play more. As far as I can tell these types of multiplayer games people are talking about have become more popular not less.
It's more that these days, people get baited into trying to be competitive about games when they're not cut out for it. In the past, if you weren't playing a fighting game/rts/1v1 arena shooter, you simply weren't a competitive gamer and you didn't consider yourself one - you just played games for fun and that was fine.
Around the time dota came around, companies started realizing they could reap a lot more engagement by tapping into the casual demographic. That's when you started to see ranked systems getting bolted onto things like mobas and shooters. Suddenly every casual shitter that buys call of duty or something gets railroaded into a competitive framework.
It would be if it existed.
50/50 does exist. It's just not forced
It's shit in everything else besides fighting games. But even then, fighting games have to deal with smurfing as well when things like ranks and tiers are involved. Any team games with more than 5 people is easy to rig in your favor and won't make a difference if you match grouped players against another. SBMM is just not in anyone's favor AND heavily relies on a large population with varying skills after they achieve their fitting rank/tiers to work properly in the first place.
Fighting players dodge and ban players all their time. So no they are not satisfied with matchmaking at all but they have more control about it.
professional losers...i mean le elite players need a break now and then to get their head right. they can't just be forced to play against people better than them like some scrub. That's the argument they use. They deserve to pwn nubs and pad their silly records because they just do.
It's bad because it simulates professional sports leagues in a non-professional environment.
its bad because it doesn’t fricking work correctly in team based games
This is just another way of saying it's bad because it makes competitive games more competitive.
I want to see Leffen find out the hard way that SBMM affects more than just who you get matched up with. He wouldn't last a week on nu-CoD.
>corporate shills defending bad game design ITT
SBMM isn't bad game design anymore than matchmaking itself is.
Matchmaking in general was never good.
It's just that I'm not going to improve
It's less wanting to avoid skilled players and more just having an even spread. A match that runs the gamut from great to terrible players, spread evenly across the teams is fun. A match where everyone is almost exactly the same just becomes sweaty as hell. I'm okay losing if I can get a blowout on my side as well here and there, it keeps things interesting.
In the newest CoD you basically win a match or two, then get thrown into SBMM matches where you'll lose 3-4 games in a row until it resets. I don't know why they messed with it, it worked fine in the older games.
How can everyone be getting 1 win and then a string of 3-4 losses. If each match has one winning and one losing team, and the whole system is zero-sum, where are all the excess wins going to?
Why does Ganker jerk off so much about troonycated servers?
They fricking sucked and still suck.
they had more freedom than they do now, why seethe this much
>freedom
What freedom for troonymins to jerk themselves off?
you can avoid homosexual admins by joining another server or making your own
>just move on and ignore the central problem
sure and when it's the same shit everytime?
If everywhere you go smells like shit anon, the problem is you.
Or every server is shit.
>get kicked out of 109 servers
>it's the servers that are the problem
yeah ok
Correct.
Maybe they shouldn't have been ran by egotistical trannies who shit themselves in rage cause they were killed.
Are you israeli by any chance?
>They fricking sucked and still suck.
Great way to out yourself as a complete zoomer. Almost everyone unanimously loved dedicated servers. What people complain about were just moronic admins, but you could just avoid those easily.
This image alone will always mindbreak tards that defend matchmaking.
That image is a meaningless anecdote. There, matchmaking defended
>be a comfpag, casually hanging out in my country's dedicated servers with the same ~100 people total every day
>everyone knows each other, everyone has a reputation, clan dramas between servers but in the end everyone tries to resolve things in order to stay in the community
>some other compgay from a different country stalks me through ASE to come ask to join one of the password-protected dedicated scrimming servers to do some practice games, get some higher level matches going, or to arrange a quick ESL ladder match
We had it so good...
whatever apex legend did it completely ruined the experience. people arent playing rounds against others who are as strong/weak as they are, instead low skilled players are paired against predators which will easily end up curb stomping the round.
>SBMM
>in a team game
>ESPECIALLY in games where you can just have a shit stack that fricks with the team balance
wat
>casual matches all based on best ping
>ranked matches can sweat it out with sbmm
simple as
i remember when destiny2 tried that, all that happened was sweats end up flocking to the ping based mm option to stomp newbies.
Destiny 2 had actual SBMM for a while it was funny
>your mind tricks have now power over me.
heh
a) any worthwhile matchmaking system should weigh skill
b) that does not mean balanced teams should be top priority, or that every sbmm implementation is good.
c) abmm vs server browser is a false dichotomy: the argument is between sbmm and "random" mm.
d) "random" mm has never even existed, so that is also a false dichotomy.
e) call of duty specifically is a game designed around pubstomping. "fair" matchmaking doesnt make sense in a game like that. but that doesnt mean matchmaking should ignore your skill altogether.
>c) abmm vs server browser is a false dichotomy
Why? Let's take CS 1.6 as an example. If you wanted to play that game competitively and do something like scrims, you'd go to IRC and find matches and then play on dedicated servers. The vast majority of times, you'd be able to get games that were much closer and better than the games you get in automatic matchmaking in CSGO.
And if you wanted to go for really competitive matches, you'd join things like actual tournaments and then play through things like upper brackets/lower brackets to see how far you'd get, and that kind of experience would usually be vastly superior to just playing through automatic matchmaking in CSGO.
Both of these examples are also very evident when you look at how third party sites/tools like ESEA and FaceIT came to be. They simply offer a MUCH better experience.
>Getting mad at videogames.
Why bother?
I believe in MBMM aka Money Based Match Making. The more you spend the worse the players you fight should become.
>leffen
You guys understand that saying SBMM only works if you perpetually improve is a complete dogdshit argument, right? If that were the case, we'd all be competing at international level. There is no such thing as perpetual improvement. It's as nonsensical as infinite profits.
The difference is fighting games are solo, and FPS are team based. So "SBMM" in a fighting game makes sense, while in FPS it turns into:
>You have good stats? Carry these 5 morons against a team of grouped coordinated players! Have fun!
>You have good stats? Carry these morons to a stomp so they enjoy winning and buy cash shop items!
Most of you people in this thread wouldn't even be taking games this seriously if a ranked mode wasn't an option in modern games in the first place.
In the server browser era people just.. played for the sake of playing and it didn't even cross their mind to think about ranks and competition.
The real engagement optimization going on isn't what's happening within these mm systems, it's the fact that ranked matchmaking modes in casual games exist to begin with. They do a real good job of suckering your average joe into caring about their imaginary 'rank' when they would've been perfectly content to just play the game without it. It's literally creating a problem.
>In the server browser era people just.. played for the sake of playing and it didn't even cross their mind to think about ranks and competition.
Yeah, let's just completely ignore the competitive scenes in games like Quake, UT, CS, etc.
those were tiny in comparison to today's ranked modes
now everyone plays ranked in cs because valve pushes it as the only option they seriously care about
>those were tiny in comparison to today's ranked modes
Because games back then were less popular.
>Under SBMM, your choices and outcomes are quite literally determined by a number generator.
No they're not.
Yeah and most people here weren't part of that scene, which is the point. Competitive players seeking out competition of their own volition is one thing. Modern games trying to railroad every single player into being a tryhard is another.
It's funny to see people point out sbmm or eomm like it's some kind of gotcha, in reality you already lost when you picked up the game to begin with.
If fighting games had SBMM
>game eats your inputs
>delay modifier
>random lag spikes
I hope you're ready for MS to kill the fightan genre with KI 202X. They just got their hands on the real prize of the Activision deal: their SBMM technology and patents.
Fighting games have SBMM though.
I genuinely wonder if people actually know what they're talking about.
It's almost as if SBMM comes in different formes! Who would've thought?
Fricking idiot.
>calls me an idiot
>doesn't even know fighting games use SBMM
lmao
As if we needed more proof that fighting games were a decade behind the rest of the industry. No wonder you anons still take SBMM at face value.
>says dumb shit
>gets BTFO
>y-y-you're wrong
SBMM doesn't eat inputs or throttle your connection.
>>game eats your inputs
modifier
lag spikes
None of these have to do with SBMM. Fighting games already have SBMM
>win some matches
>lose some matches
>this is totally the fault of the game
>say moronic statements
>this is totally the fault of anons in this thread
>My wins are brainless victories against people who never stood a chance, leading to a boring match and a dull experience that kills any motivation to continue playing long-term
>My losses are the inverse where I'm completely helpless against people who can seemingly read my mind and outplay me. The difference so vast that I have no way of learning from this experience. You may as well have shown a caveman a fighter jet, his pea brain concludes it runs on magic and fairy dust
>This system is perfect
Sounds like the problem isn’t the concept of skill based matchmaking, the problem is it not behind implemented correctly where players are not matched as evenly as they should be
Not the guy you are replying to, but that's 100% correct. Games had SBMM before and people never complained much. It wasn't until around 2015 or so when companies like Riot and Activision implemented systems that were based entirely around player retention and nothing else, after having poured billions of dollars into studying the psychology of gamers.
>My losses are the inverse where I'm completely helpless
Skill issue.
Which SBMM should be correcting, but it doesn't, because it's a shit system.
You do realize "skill issue" under the topic of SBMM only reinforces it's not a very good system?
all you have to do
is join private scrims with top players
Eat shit and die
it's not a problem if you play fps with other people with the same skill.
the problem is when they're using free aimbots with controllers.
fps used to be my favorite genre and i grew up with cod 1,2, medal of honor, quake, ut, delta force, project igi, vietcong, bf, you name it i played it.
now from time to time i want to play some fps for fun but it's impossible.
counter strike is trash.
warzone, apex and halo are filled with controller aimbots.
what else is there that is alive at least?
rainbow shit?
Remember, kids. The house is ALWAYS rigged against you.
People only hate SBMM because it makes them face the fact that they're not nearly as good at a game than they think they are.
>only bad people complain about SBMM
I am so tired of this shitty attempt at an argument. Pro players complain about it too. Absolute moron.
Most pro players don't. The majority of people who complain about sbmm are simply mad because bad.
Actual good players will always point out what they did wrong even if their teammates did something far worse, because they understand they have no control over anyone but themselves. That’s what makes them good players.
What is your point? There's plenty of games where LoL pros for example get unwinnable games because they'll have one teammate that's either worse than the entire lobby or because they will feed/troll, so the pro goes "ff 15" and just wants to get the game over with as soon as possible, and everyone in the entire lobby obliges to not even play out the match.
This happens constantly in the master/grandmaster/challenger queues on KR servers, for example.
My point is no matter how random things seem your skill matters, if it didn’t high rank players wouldn’t exist.
And that discredits the notion that the matchmaking system makes arbitrarily unfun matches how?
Why would a game intentionally make its matches unfun? It makes a lot more sense that you’re simply bad at the game and make matches unfun for yourself with your own lack of skill.
>Why would a game intentionally make its matches unfun?
Because a lot of humans who play video games want to improve. I could literally flip your argument around and ask you, why wouldn't games intentionally make 100% of games fun?
How would making matches unfun appease players who want to improve?
>How would making matches unfun appease players who want to improve?
I don't know how exactly the human psychology works, but it's similar to the Activision patent for CoD where they will inject 1 extremely good player with certain skins into lobbies, and then all the shitters think that they will also become good if they purchase those skins.
That’s an interesting psychology lesson, how does that affect you as an individual? Are you the type to think buying a skin will make you feel better? No? Then why care?
>how does that affect you as an individual?
I don't care personally about either. I have plenty of money, so I don't care if a game entices me to buy skins. I also know how to overcome SBMM/EOMM by just grinding out the bad games and have been top 1% in a handful of different games that utilize these systems.
But we are not talking about me personally, we are talking about the systems in an objective manner here.
>Then why care?
Because it offers a worse experience for the vast majority of players.
To deny you satisfaction so that you'll desperately spend more time trying to get a good game. Apex's matchmaking isn't referred to as engagement-based for no reason.
>You're just not having fun because you're bad.
Okay thenb, so what if I am? Shouldn't SBMM be matching equally bad players together so they don't feel like they're as shit as they are? Or am I just SO bad at video games that I'm incapable of having fun?
>Shouldn't SBMM be matching equally bad players together so they don't feel like they're as shit as they are?
Which is what it does
Which is why only bad players complain about SBMM? That doesn't make any sense.
Because bad players don't have perspective. If your winrate is 50%+ than the system is working. If it's sub 50% then it's a problem and even then that can be a player issue.
>purposely putting bots on your teams to force you to lose after a win streak is good matchmaking
Wouldn't that be balanced by you having games against botted enemy teams? Because of averages.
No, because there's no guarantee that you're always going to encounter the best player, or Smurf, or mnk cheater on the other team thys "supposed" to carry in your 1v1s. You could mostly encounter the bad players and inflate your kd when the player on your level is doing the same. Sbmm will then make your next match even harder because it thinks you "stomped" the other team, when in reality it was just a race to slay the bad players. Nobody, especially the shitters, learned from the match and nobody got better. You also could've gotten many kills with power weapons which you wouldn't have gotten otherwise
That's entirely a perception issue. There's no guarantee but over the course of dozens of games you will get each of those instances. sbmm doesn't just use a single game as measurement for your performance it's incremental. For every smurf on the enemy team there's one on your. For every bad player on the enemy team there's one on yours. If you took your performance in it's entirety you would see that any bullshit helps and hurts you in equal proportions and between those extremes are the vast majority of games.
>perception issue
>it's not actually happening goy
>don't believe the scoreboard goy
>don't believe your experiences goy
Emerald in siege
Onyx in shitfinite
Diamond in Apex
Etc
Good, bad, and pros are just lying everyone. It's in your head
These broccoli headed monkeys are something else. No more yous
.
I am telling you right now as a certified shit player who struggles to maintain a 1.0 K/D, no it fricking doesn't.
SBMM would never work in regions like Oceania especially for FPS games. It already takes a monumental amount of effort to retain any Oceanic playerbase and keep them consistent enough that it doesn't impact queue times.
Also once the population starts to dip and game becomes less popular it'll become essentially impossible to find games with SBMM in places like Australia.
That's probably why it hasn't happened, they've probably observed based on their own internal research within these game studios that longer queue times negatively effects a players experience by a large amount.
gay Black person moron posting a gay Black person X thread wooooow must be a day that ends in "y" on Ganker
btw if you go into a game and the other team generally has a high ping than you, you’re gonna lose
Sbmm does NOT match people of similar skill level. If it did, nobody would complain.
Ganker is pro sbmm, GET GOOD
Bronze players going up against champion players isn't skill based. Nor is it skill based to have that same champion carrying bronze plays to rig a 50/50 win rate.
This rarely happens and champion players aren't forced to have 50/50 win rates
You're being a corporate lapdog when you outright lie about something that happens in every popular game right now. Cod, Halo, apex, whatever. You're literally just lying. Pros in infinite have the same win rate as platinum players. Just stop
Not an argument.
You didn't engage in the argument, you just said it doesn't happen when there's endless videos of it happening and these games losing players because of it
No I didn't and no there aren't. I said it doesn't happen most of the time, you just replied with kneejerk ad hom instead of making a counter argument.
The counter argument is that it isn't "skill based" because nobody is the same rank. Platinums should never play against champions. If it was always 4 platinums against 4 platinums or maybe 1 or 2 diamonds, then that would be skill based. One guy on each team getting all the kills, that's not skill based.
morons that are gullible like you are the type of people they target because you fall for the israeli gaslighting.
>you disagree with going against pro players when you just started? You're against skill
>The counter argument is that it isn't "skill based" because nobody is the same rank
This is a moronic as frick argument. Matchmaking can't be skill based somehow because everyone isn't the same skill wise.
Apex was the first game I mentioned because it still has a high population. Preds shouldn't be in silver lobbies. You defend this because you're a corporate lapdog as I've said.
I don't care about your dumb corporations. "it isn't "skill based" because nobody is the same rank." Is a moronic argument.
Professional boxers don't fight amateur boxers you fricking Black person gen z moron. They're matched evenly.
>Matchmaking can't be skill based somehow because everyone isn't the same skill wise.
Quick question. Do you think chess ELO would be a good system if it regularly resulted in grand masters(+2500) playing against people with 2000 ELO?
Do you think the system should not match people based on their ELO, simply because not everyone is equally skilled at chess?
I think systems should attempt to make every single match as fair and equal as possible, rather than attempting to focus on something like "player retention". Simple as. SBMM/EOMM does not do this.
>I think systems should attempt to make every single match as fair and equal as possible
This is literally the point of SBMM/EOMM. Making matches as even as possible increases player retention. Lopsided matches hurt player retention, causing people to play for less or quit entirely.
>Lopsided matches hurt player retention, causing people to play for less or quit entirely.
Look at League of Legends and tell me that again with a straight face.
>League of Legends
See
>Lopsided matches hurt player retention, causing people to play for less or quit entirely.
That's completely untrue. At least in the context of a Battle Royale, getting the win placates people and can be enough to stop someone from playing for the rest of the day. If you're beaten low repeatedly it drives you to keep playing until you finally get that big sweep.
It's almost 1:1 the same psychology of gambling. Terrible odds of winning, and constant losses that push the player for the big cash out, ultimately increasing the time of their play session.
Saying stomps hurt player retention is factually incorrect, especially given that your argument has largely been that people WANT to stomp.
>That's completely untrue
It is true. Battle Royales are a terrible example too, because not winning doesn't mean the same thing as getting stomped. Someone who loses most of their matches in a battle Royale but places in the top 10 consistently isn't having the same experience as someone who almost always ends up losing at the beginning of the game.
>It's almost 1:1 the same psychology of gambling.
It's nothing like gambling. A game matching people based on skill and where skill determines who wins the game is the opposite of a system based on luck
Saying stomps hurt player retention is factually correct. It is impossible to design a system where the majority of players can stomp against other humans.
literally the opposite
SBMM causes players to quit because they get matches that give predictable outcomes, and either they're not good enough to move up (quit) or they have to nolife to move up (quit)
non SBMM gives highly variable outcomes where occasionally the shitter wins (fun) and if they don't win they can simply put it down to the nolife guy being a virgin who plays 24/7. seeing such a huge skill difference is either irrelevant or inspiring thus they keep playing (fun)
>SBMM causes players to quit
This is the opposite of player retention. You're saying a system that tries to evaluate and match players based on skill in a skill based competitive game makes less people play it.
Yes it does.
Literally just have the most basic situational awareness + reaction skill
Btfo 99% of fps players online and get called a sweat noob stomper etc
The truth is that the vast majority of gamers are lobotomized moron that only react to visual simulis with bright colors and nothing else
>when I win I deserve it
>when I lose it's my team's fault
Anti-SBMM arguments in a nutshell.
In your head maybe.
In this thread actually.
You mean all the posts explicitly telling you they want fair and fun games where stomps don't happen?
I mean the posts where "fair and fun games" under their criteria just amounts to games where you can never lose no matter what. The original post says they want "fun but even" games explicitly said they didn't want stomps where they LOSE. Because ultimately it's about how LOSING isn't fun, and blaming your losses on "SBMM", "EOMM"and everything else under the sun instead of your own skill.
>I mean the posts where "fair and fun games" under their criteria just amounts to games where you can never lose no matter what.
No it doesn't. You homosexuals are consistently told a fair and fun game means a close match, regardless of if you win or lose, yet you keep twisting it back into meaning "you just want to stomp" based on nothing but your own suspicious beliefs of the other person.
>You homosexuals are consistently told a fair and fun game means a close match, regardless of if you win or lose,
Except every example of an unfair unfair game is one where you lose. The argument is that sbmm somehow forces you to lose.
>Except every example of an unfair unfair game is one where you lose.
*one where you're stomped
I'm not engaging with your logic loop you've locked yourself into. Unfair games are stomps, whether inflicted by myself or inflicted upon me.
Not every player performs consistantly. Actually most don't. Any stomp could just as well be you having an off day than the match making.
>*one where you're stomped
In other words, one where you lose. Never when you're the one doing the stomping.
Your logic is blaming sbmm on your losses instead of your own skill. Simple as
I told you, I'm not engaging with your logic loop. You can keep deleting "stomp" from my posts, but it doesn't make you right.
It's one where you're stomped, which is just another way of saying one where you lost.
Your logic is shitty and flawed.
Claiming you're getting stomped doesn't make you right either. It's much more likely your gameplay is just violatile whether because of your play style or your level of gameplay tham that the matchmaking is actually screwing you.
>t's much more likely your gameplay is just violatile whether because of your play style or your level of gameplay tham that the matchmaking is actually screwing you.
it does this for literally most players, because it turns out humans are volatile and not a perfectly static number.
Which is why the number isn't static and changes with everygame you play.
and that's bad for the average player who just wants to have fun. if you're gonna respond with "you just want to stomp" then please frick off, you're not interested in actually discussing why sbmm is bad.
I'm not because it isn't. How is that even bad? Because the number accurately tracks you relative to other players? Are casual players not supposed to matched with other casuals close in skill level. Then who are they meant to play against? Everyone because you'll get the violatile stomoing gettinf stomped experience unless you're totally average.
>How is that even bad?
the average player does not play consistently, they have wildly fluctuating performances even on back to back games before sbmm is even involved. you cannot measure the average player, and in turn sbmm gives them wildly fluctuating games with no consistency on top of their already inconsistent performances.
They don't play consistantly to a point. Yes there are bad days and there are hotstreaks but even those are
consistant within the instance. The nature of any competetive game means that you don't go from noob to champion in 1 match. You may make high level moves, but those are balanced by the blunders. If you have played against noobs before you will see this in action.
>The nature of any competetive game means that you don't go from noob to champion in 1 match.
your mistake is assuming the average player is chasing rank and looking to improve.
A noob should never play a champion. That's the whole point of why sbmm is bad. These two players should never encounter each other.
And they rarely ever do
Because that only ever happens with sbmm apparently. Do you honesly believe purely random match making means low levels never meet high levels. If anything they're more likely too because high levels are more dedicated and queue more than casuals.
>Whether inflicted by myself or upon me
Bro are you moronic?
If you think your losses are "inflicted" on you rather than something you're responsible for, you are moronic.
A stomp is an affliction, it is the SBMM failing to do its job. Again, it doesn't matter if I'm the one stomping, or getting stomped. You can try and twist this all you want, SBMM is not doing what it's meant to be doing. Stomps should never happen, yet it's all we see.
>yet it's all we see.
It’s not all I see. That’s weird. Could that possibly be nothing more than your personal anecdote?
>Again, it doesn't matter if I'm the one stomping, or getting stomped
It's just a pure coincidence that every example is of the former scenario not the latter.
always thought skill based matchmaking is the same in FPS and fighting games.
i was educated in one the previous threads and FPS shouldnt even be called that. it has nothing to do with matching skills.
Most of the systems in all the big games are usually EOMM that's based entirely around certain stats and engagements, and their #1 goal is just player retention, not actually creating equally skilled matches. But most people don't know what the frick EOMM is or means, so people just resort to calling everything SBMM as an umbrella term.
The most important stats in these EOMM systems are ping, winrate, and leave rates.
Their #1 goal is just player retention, which means trying to create equally skilled matches. Less people would play if they were actually forced to play such uneven matches, because uneven matches makes the game less enjoyable, which is counter intuitive to retaining players
>The most important stats in these EOMM systems are ping, winrate, and leave rates.
As someone who has been top 1% in a few FPS games with these systems, I can safely say that ping is very often disregarded. The amount of times I have been placed on servers with 2x or 3x my normal ping is too many to count.
>SBMM prevents stomps!
>Then why do we see nothing but stomps both in and against our favor over and over?
>lol get good
>The whole point of SBMM is you face people on your level
>Stomps imply a massive skill disparity
I don’t get stomped very often because even if I’m losing I do my best to win any way thus making the match far more even than if I just gave up. Did you try doing that?
ffxiv pvp has random matchmakimg outside of ranled game and its truely fricking hell to play and see, and youblearn to recognize players by name and know before the match even load if you will lose or win
idk about other games but in Apex it never works. You can have a 0.5 k/d, win one game and suddenly you're getting railed by three-stack preds.
I don't know how you homosexuals don't understand the basic concepts of SBMM.
>if you win a lot and rank up the game thinks you're ready to fight tougher opponents
>if you keep winning more than losing you will continue to climb
>if you lose more than winning you will drop down
>if you get about a 50% winrate you're at your current skill level and will need to make an active effort to improve in order to climb
If by tougher opponents you mean "top rank players with several thousand hours" versus your measly dozen, then yes, SBMM works like that and it's fricking moronic.
>if by tougher opponents you mean [ridiculous exaggeration]
No I don’t
Unironically spend some time with Apex Legends. A team of randoms should never be in the same lobby of a three-stack group of predators.
>>if you win a lot and rank up the game thinks you're ready to fight tougher opponents
You clearly don't understand it yourself. SBMM/EOMM will not give you tougher opponents to fight after you have been on a winning streak. It will give you moronic teammates instead.
Either way the game is more challenging so the system is working as intended
>grandmasters in copper lobbies in overwatch is "challenging"
This is what gen z actually believes
That’s probably just because the game is so dead it’s scraping together whatever players it can find
Is this board just filled with literal children now?
>Apex Legends
>Overwatch
As much as we like to meme here, neither of these games are close to being dead in terms of matchmaking.
>game dev damage control
Halo infinite had diamonds and golds in the same lobbies when it first launched. It's still a problem.
>SBMM/EOMM will not give you tougher opponents to fight after you have been on a winning streak.
Yes they will.
Also, carrying is a skill. If you don't want to end up on a team with players who are worse than you are, stop queuing up solo.
>Yes they will.
No, they won't. It goes by brackets instead. The more you write, the more painfully obvious it is that you don't even play these types of games.
>>if you get about a 50% winrate you're at your current skill level and will need to make an active effort to improve in order to climb
And that's the crux of the problem. I and most other people are not here to improve or get better, that's why we're queuing in Casual. Yet SBMM makes every single match a glorified ranked game, and that leads to one side often trying much harder than the other in a setting intended to be relaxed. If you don't try, you get stomped. You don't change your playstyle, you eventually hit a point where you not trying stomps people trying even less than you, so now you're ricocheting back and forth between stomping and getting stomped. In a casual setting, that is the antithesis of fun.
When people say they want close, casual games where it's obvious either team could have won based on a 2-5% difference, that's what they mean. This isn't code speak for "I want to stomp." If I wanted to stomp, I'd not be trying to keep a casual experience.
Why are you playing a competitive team based pvp game if you want to relax? When I want to relax I play a game I know won’t be too challenging. Make it make sense.
You're not addressing the points be made.
I am. You’re upset that you can’t relax because the game requires you to “try hard” in order to not get stomped. Why play such a game when you want to relax?
You're directly contradicting your own belief that SBMM works. If every player in the lobby isn't trying and intends for a casual experience, because they're all on the same skill level according to SBMM, a stomp wouldn't happen. The casual match should be ending rather close. But we both know this doesn't happen.
It works if players are trying their best to win, in other words, applying their own skill. If you want to be causal, and not apply your own skill, naturally a system that measures skill won’t favour you and you should play a casual game without that system.
WELL GEE WIZ WHY DON'T YOU NAME A FEW
Dark Souls 1 2 and 3
Any PvE game
Cool, except this explicitly ignores how SBMM exists even in the most casual of games like Fall Guys and Mario Kart.
Saying "just play a multiplayer game without SBMM" is like saying "stop drinking water."
If you’re just trying to relax, why are you so upset about losing in fricking Mario kart and fall guys? Clearly you can’t handle losing
>Once again, the SBMMtard conflates simply losing with losing horribly or being stomped, implying a wide gap in the lobby's skill levels between players
Yeah, I take issue when my casual ass in Mario Kart gets matched with people who can perfectly hop scotch drift around every corner more often than when I face people on my level.
Explain how you’d face more people on your level without SBMM than you would with it
Not that guy, but back in the CS 1.6 days you could find scrims/matches/mixes on IRC by saying you were very low/low/med/high/very high/pro, and you'd basically get better matches than modern day SBMM systems in FPS games 9/10 times.
Eventually it became even better when you had third party websites that would track stats and actually attempt to make matches that were as fair as possible, rather than attempting to optimize for "player retention" like SBMM/EOMM does.
Does SBMM retain your attention?
I'm not entirely sure what you are attempting to ask.
Well you clearly don’t like SBMM. I’m assuming it doesn’t retain your attention. So it seems wrong to say that SBMM is specifically designed for player retention and not to match players of equal skill
>So it seems wrong to say that SBMM is specifically designed for player retention
Why? You are using me, a single person, as an example, as opposed to the millions of people that it does keep. Not to mention that I have also fallen for SBMM previously.
You should stop playing online competitive multiplayer games where skill is a factor if you don't want to be matched against people based on skill at all.
>Saying "just play a multiplayer game without SBMM" is like saying "stop drinking water."
It's more like "stop drinking tea if you hate tea"
>Why are you playing a competitive team based pvp game if you want to relax?
>Queue: Casual
Do you know what casual means? Fortnite is played by and marketed to children yet it has one of the swingiest, sweatiest SBMM systems going.
If you play casual winrate doesn't matter. The matches don't have weight so takes the losses and wins in stride.
OK let me rephrase it, why do you play games with SBMM if you hate SBMM so much?
Do you always engage in discussions you literally know nothing about?
Do you always avoid responding to arguments you have no repense to with inane homosexualy questions?
>why do you play games with SBMM if you hate SBMM so much?
That's like asking why do I breathe air. Every modern multiplayer game has SBMM. Racing games have it, fighting games have it, strategy games have it etc.
Why are you playing a pvp game when you want to relax? The purpose of pvp is to compete, the exact opposite of relaxation.
I never had this issue back then with Halo 2 or 3. I was able to play casual and relax, gen z
Why can’t you play casual game modes and relax now? You lost games back then and still relaxed. You got stomped back then and still relaxed. Why can’t you now?
>You lost games back then and still relaxed. You got stomped back then and still relaxed.
No, no I didn't. There is one singular instance where I can think of pre-2015 where I got stomped so hard it actually put me in a downer, and that was when the literal #1 helicopter pilot in Battlefield 2: Modern Combat on Xbox was in my lobby, HellfireWZ or whatever his name was, and he singlehandedly decimated my entire team. 99% of my games were fair and square.
Sounds like you just miss the days when you got easy games against players of lower skill
Yeah sure, my 0.97 KD and 50% winrate, clearly I was just revelling in beating up bad players. You dumb frick, I was the bad player. I was still having fun and fair games.
Yet you can’t now and it’s all le algorithms fault and not maybe that you’re just not a kid anymore
>No SBMM
>Had fun and fair games with a 50% winrate
>SBMM
>Don't have fun and fair games
Hm, gee, what could it be that is suddenly shitting up my experience?
Don’t people whine that SBMM is “forced 50/50”
Yes, but the difference is literally the forced part. Before, your winrate was determined by time investment and the average skill of the most common player who you would, naturally, face the most often. SBMM ensures you fight who it "believes" it's on your level, but that's facetious because that's an ever fluctuating metric. There's a reason even bad/below average players complain about SBMM, humans are good at perceiving patterns, and it's obvious SBMM is fricking with you to shift your numbers.
>SBMM ensures you fight who it "believes" it's on your level, but that's facetious because that's an ever fluctuating metric.
Do you think the system should not match people based on their ELO, simply because not everyone is equally skilled at chess and chess skills can fluctuate?
Well that depends what you mean by Chess right now, because do you mean competitive speed Chess or casual Chess? There is a stark difference in the expectations of both. Should ELO be factored into casual Chess where the intention is to have fun and often learn or even just be stupid? The kind of casual Chess where you frick with your opponent by moving one of their pieces when they aren't looking and both of you understand this is all for laughs?
>Well that depends what you mean by Chess
Chess is chess anon, you're introducing ambiguity where there wasn't any to being with.
A competitive game is a competitive game except when it has casual modes which they always do. You cannot claim a game is only competitive in nature.
Holy ZOOMER.
A game where you play against other people are by definition competitive games, even if there are casual modes. You're still competing against other people even if you're not chasing ranks
This is a lame gotcha. There is a clear difference between the definitions of a casual game and a competitive game. Nobody sweats it out to Mario Party.
Yes they do
No, It's factually 100% true. A game you play against other people is competitive by definition. Throwing in unranked matches doesn't change that fact.
No, this is an asinine definition that's akin to saying all video games are RPGs because you play a role. A terminology so broad it loses all meaning.
>You cannot claim a game is only competitive in nature.
Why not?
>The kind of casual Chess where you frick with your opponent by moving one of their pieces when they aren't looking and both of you understand this is all for laughs?
You mean those friendly games you play in private lobbies with friends and not with anonymous strangers?
>You must be at least 18 to post on Ganker.
Humans don't percieve every patten only a few. Pychologically we already know humans tend to prioritize negative patterns like losses or stomps over positives patterns This fact alone calls into question a massive number of these complaints because instinctually you are biased.
>naturally
Doesn't exist.
A matchmaking system that doesn't account for skill at all will result in more lopsided matches and stomps, not less.
>A matchmaking system that doesn't account for skill at all will result in more lopsided matches and stomps, not less.
I've played video games for nearly 30 years. Stomps are more common now than ever in the era of SBMM in literally everything.
Cool story bro.
Is that why all my matches are either me going 30/2/7 or 2/12/1?
You thinking this won't happen without any skill based matchmaking is hilarious. At least have the balls to condem matchmaking over custom lobbies.
>Why are you playing a pvp game when you want to relax? The purpose of pvp is to compete, the exact opposite of relaxation.
Pure zoomer mindset, please have a nice day.
I played factorio with friend yesterday to relax and it didn't have sbmm, why can't you?
>Every game with SBMM is intended to be competitive
No.
>SBMM in ranked
Obviously
>Hidden SBMM in casuals
Fricking why? Why does every mode need to be a rat race where you're constantly sweating your ass off?
Oh you want to sell $20 Nicki Minaj skins and your in house psychologist says its the best way to manipulate players. Of course.
Why do you feel the need to sweat your ass off to preserve an invisible rank in a casual game mode?
SBMM is all fun and games until it starts throwing you in matches with blatant as frick cheaters. I honestly think the whole thing was implemented to coral cheaters to play against each other and the top legit players just bounce back and forth from cheater match to none cheater match. It's a fricking nightmare and ruins every game with that gay shit.
>SBMM is all fun and games until it starts throwing you in matches with blatant as frick cheaters
This happens when the game thinks your cheating and/or high ranks are overrun with cheaters
what sort of homosexual plays games 24/7 to play some other sweaty homosexuals 24/7 lmao
absolute loser
I play games a few hours a week so I can dab on other morons who are bad at games
only some loser TSM virgin who made his entire life video games actually gets insecure because people want to spend their time having fun and not playing virgins like him kek
it's really the icing on the cake that this happoid reject half korean freak has nothing else in his life that he had to make this tweet to cope with being a loser
the rest of his tweets are pure comedy
the musings of an incel with literally nothing else but video games relying on korean reflexes and a failed life to boost his fragile ego
Zoomers defend ''SB"MM as being skill based when we all fricking know its not skill based. Its like trying to argue with people that believe the WWE isn't scripted.
We know you THINK it’s not skill based because it makes you feel better about yourself when you lose
https://patents.google.com/patent/US20160005270A1/en
And that prevents you from having fun because…?
>Okay its not actually skill based and is designed to manipulate you so you buy skins but that prevents you from having fun because…?
So it doesn’t prevent you from having fun? So there’s not issue and we’re done here?
>Its skill based you're just mad because you lost
>Okay its not skill based but you can still have fun when daddy activation decides its your turn to have a fair match so its okay
>nooo you don’t understand le algorithm is why I lost it’s not my fault it’s not it’s not it’s not
Read the patent.
I read it. Now prove that’s how every SBMM game works
If SBMM was actually SKILL BASED matchmaking, then we wouldn't have people constantly complaining about SBMM. Everyone would just be having fun with their respective games and enjoying their matches.
The fact that there has been so much controversy surrounding SBMM/EOMM in every single game that it's in, should tell you that something is not functioning properly. (hint: it's because it's optimized for player retention, not game enjoyment).
Yes we would. It’s a very basic idea, people blame match making when they lose because it means they don’t have to confront their own failures
Is that why you have old Halo developers literally explaining how modern SBMM is a far cry from how it was initially designed in the past?
So how do you explain that complaints about SBMM virtually didn't exist before like 2015, despite games having had systems like that before that? Where were all the complaints about matchmaking systems before that?
In the distant past where neither of us can remember them. Doesn’t mean it didn’t happen
>2015
>distant past
Are you an 18 year old zoomer?
>If SBMM was actually SKILL BASED matchmaking, then we wouldn't have people constantly complaining about SBMM
This doesn't make any sense. People blaming their lack of skill on SBMM doesn't mean the system is somehow not skill based.
>People blaming their lack of skill on SBMM doesn't mean the system is somehow not skill based.
If your matches consistently end in stomps, either for or against, for your skill level, which will often be fixed completely after 50+ games, SBMM has failed.
That’s not my experience. Anecdote vs anecdote who wins?
>That’s not my experience.
Not the guy you are arguing with, but he is 100% right. In fact, I would like for you to list 5 games you have played with SBMM/EOMM systems where you DIDN'T regularly experience unfair matches.
How is that going to change it from being anecdote vs anecdote?
Just answer the question instead of dodging it. Name 5 games with SBMM/EOMM systems you have played where you DIDN'T regularly get completely unfair matches.
And after I do that you’ll say “no you’re wrong” and it’ll STILL be anecdote vs anecdote you dumbass I know how this shit works this isn’t my first day on the internet
Name the 5 games. Stop dodging.
League COD DOTA Halo Fortnite
>League
>COD
Stomps literally happen constantly in these games. In fact, stomps happen so often in LoL that "FF15" has literally been a meme for ages.
>DOTA
I haven't played in a couple of years, but this one is valid. I don't remember stomps regularly happening.
>Halo
I only played Infinite for a dozen hours, so I can't comment on that one.
>Fortnite
This is a BR. Not really a valid game to bring up in these kinds of discussions.
Very bad examples.
Isn’t that weird. Remember how I said it’d still be your anecdote vs my anecdote. And there it is. Huh. Strange how I knew that would happen. homosexual.
>Remember how I said it’d still be your anecdote vs my anecdote
Except that you brought forth League of Legends as an example of a game where stomps don't happen. Meanwhile "FF15" is literally a gigantic meme because so many of the matches in that game end up being completely one-sided, to the point that people just want to leave ASAP.
You are a fricking dishonest moron who can't admit that you were wrong.
Yea and in my anecdote ff at 15 rarely ever happens and most games are not stomped. It’s still anecdote vs anecdote until you find some statistics that say otherwise you blithering wienersucking moron
Advance Wars By Web
> for your skill level
Found your problem
This is a false choice, they're both the same scenario. Actual skill based games where unfair games happening regularly are not games optimized for player retention.
Let me present you two scenarios:
>Scenario A): developers optimize their game to have the most player retention possible, even at the cost of having unfair games happening regularly
>Scenario B): developers optimize their game to have the most fair games possible, even if that would go against all the known human psychology studies and patents that these big companies have
Which one do you think happens in modern video games?
The champion player didn't gain any skill for shitting on the copper. He didn't learn anything.
The copper player got shit on and didn't gain any skill because he got domed before the match even started. He didn't learn anything.
Sbmm is "skill based" in name only. It's not skill based. It's microtransactions based.
How did the champion player get champion if the matchmaking is rigged?
Nobody is arguing that good players can't rank up, people are arguing that the system itself isn't codunctive to consistently fun, balanced games.
Then stop playing those games
Because the champion plays all day. The shitter will leave once he bought everything from the store. The champion is still forced to lose when he should be winning most of his matches.
Yeah it seems pretty natural that someone who plays a lot would be good at the game and thus be high ranked
Depends on the type of rigging. For example, in Halo 5 it was rigged to give you a 50/50 win rate, but the rank displayed on your screen was more or less the same as your mmr. So despite your artificial win rate, you were the rank you were supposed to be at. Whereas in Halo infinite, you could be an actual onyx stuck in platinum or even gold. In cod, sbmm goes so far has to rig your ping, hit detection, audio, etc.
The moron Black person zoomer above me claimed that it isn't skill based if everybody in the lobby is roughly the same rank. It's only skill based if it's there's a combination of the top 1% and the lowest. They're mind broken
The only evidence that sbmm isn't skill based is that you got paired with people who caused you to lose.
SBMM is for losers that are too low IQ to realize the system is not skill based at all and isn't even fun
imagine how fricking moronic you have to be to sacrifice fun for skill and not even get skill back lmfao
Nearly always the MVP lose anyways
>nu uh its you, youre the reason ur team is losing
SBMM is a perfect example of morons developing video games with no IQ to understand the bigger picture
chaos is fun
variance is fun
predictable communism is the antithesis
>>BUT ITS FRICKING SKILL BASED
no, its genetics based. all you're doing is removing all the fun randomized factors and just putting a bunch of virgins at the same level to produce predictable outcomes over and over again
all you virgins who hate metahomosexualry but literally reproduce it by sucking off SBMM is hilarious
SBMM is the DEFINITION of metahomosexualry
to the degree that each division in SBMM has its own predictable metahomosexualry
only low IQ uncreative homosexuals with no personality love SBMM
anyone with a brain loves the randomized chaos of non SBMM
Imagine someone complaining that they have to play hockey against players within their own league rather than a hodgepodge of players from all leagues and ages from peewee to the NHL
>SBMM is the DEFINITION of metahomosexualry
No it isn't.
>predictable communism
lol
>this is sbmm working as intended
Lol
Lmao
As opposed to non SBMM games where you’d NEVER see a scoreboard like this
Broccoli haired, Black person zoomers will defend this.
>that guy that brings up anecdotes on a fricking image board
Oh yeah, let me just bust open all my carefully prepared statistics and citations.
What else are you supposed to say when someone presents their experience that contradicts your experience as evidence for their argument?
"I agree to disagree"
Or
"Frick off and die" like a normal person and leave it there
Duh
You’re right but it’s frustrating when people use their subjective experiences as evidence for arguments and I’m too autistic to just let it go
>it’s frustrating when people use their subjective experiences as evidence for arguments
You're on a fricking image board
That is the very fricking nature of this site
Then what the hell is the point of arguing if you’re just going to say “I feel this way so you’re wrong to feel the opposite way”
Welcome to the internet fricko
I quit For Honor because outside of duels it started matching me with the absolute worst teammates possible to try and force a 50% win rate. I'd go 20/4 and have all of the captures on my team with teammates going 2/8 and shit. It was absurd.
A k/d of 5 isn't that good.
You guys really spent 600+ posts whining about shit that wouldn't be a problem if you just manned up and played 1v1 games. This doesn't have to be an issue at all, it's entirely self created.
But then how can I relax?
(tn: “relax” means get carried by good players as we stomp shit players)
>sbmm is working just fine
You literally have Halo 2/3 devs talking about how modern sbmm isn't great.
https://twitter.com/MaxHoberman/status/1726560291641786707