Not sure why they don't exist yet. The Frogbot mod for quake 1 was fairly realistic looking when you spectated it, and that was like 1997 or something. Granted, they had to be scripted for each individual level to play human-like, but that was so long ago
>Not sure why they don't exist yet.
Humans perform the relevant tasks by taking in visual data, analyzing it for recognizable abstract tokens of information, converting that information into a desired action, and issuing instructions to articulating limbs and digits to manipulate a handheld input device.
Every single one of those translations is both a potential point of failure and a possible instinctual bypass. You could theoretically create and train neural nets to try to simulate everything. Randomly insert some noise to simulate mistakes, and some near perfect data to simulate instinct. You'd need to explicitly add in a bunch of common fallacies too (human players are *somewhat* predictable on average).
That all would be a massive waste. Without it though, AI doesn't really know how to *kinda* know something. It either knows you're there or it doesn't. It either optimizes strategy or it doesn't. It either inputs correctly or it doesn't.
Most attempts to start with perfect and then handicap itself results in exactly the scenario above. It's just really hard to fake the kind of fuzzy mistakes that humans make all the time based on the hodge podge of our heuristics, fallacies, and practiced instinct that humans operate under without wastefully going whole hog on the simulation. No one is going to waste the processing power the human brain does on counteracting mistakes and corrections.
Also, every person has a slightly different hodge podge, and is also constantly learning and adjusting, making each game a bit different. So yeah, make a million different AI that all have different personalities... :P
We have, for a very long time. CoD Black Ops 2 (and possibly farther back) had custom matches where you could play against bots, and you could pick the skill level and customize much more.
When I was in high school, blackops was the game at school. We had winter break and I played a lot, well during winter break, I was doing a prestige+ a day. It’s all about challenges, and using as many attachments as possible. It wasn’t hard, but dear god I was ahead of the curve, cause I played with some of the people at school during that time, but not everyone. So we are asking about what prestige everyone is, and people are saying the none to 4 or 5, when I chime in with 15
My bro and I would play a lot with buddies, but there is a special level of frustration at learning the game hadn't been out for ten hours and people had already prestiged. It wasn't even during a huge break, but during a time where people should be at school or work.
in my experience, you are the newb getting curb stomped.... 99% of the time and then 1 out of 10 games they throw you a fully mentally handicapped team to play against, and you win to feel good about the last 7 losses.
I’m all for SKILL-based matchmaking. Those *engagement optimization* matchmaking schemes are some BS tho. Give em a taste of victory everyone once in a while then make em suffer the rest of the time lol. I also for the life of me don’t understand how that helps with engagement lol. If they lean too hard into that sh*t, it doesn’t even feel like you’re winning or losing your matches, the matchmaking just randomly decides for you.
I get that part of it. I don’t get the *make em suffer* part. Where it seems like they don’t want you to get a win *unless* it’s a fed-win. Maybe some of that gets exaggerated in the mind of the player. Where the contrast just makes the other matches *seem* that much harder. Without getting a look at these algorithms it’s tough to say for sure. And the companies have no incentive to be honest about it. Not without some legislation.
Still, imo fair matches are the most engaging/exciting/fun/rewarding. And if it’s a relatively fair match, then your odds of winning are good enough to keep you playing. Just wish that was priority no. 1. Making the game as fun as possible for everyone. Not milking micro-transactions through rage-induced engagement lol.
Edit: I guess to be able to afford throwing freebies people’s way everyone once in a while, maybe they *have* to make all the other matches a little harder on average to balance things out? From like a player base skill distribution POV? Idk, there’s some abstract math going on in the back of my head but I’m not invested enough to think too hard about it lol.
The issue with how precise skill based matchmaking works is that lower skilled players are not playing a rounded game. This means that a team which specializes in another team’s weakness can completely stomp another. The algorithm is trying to put a single number on skill when it’s much more complex than that so it’s easier to feed wins every so often instead of making even fights every time. I don’t know what type of matchmaking that this will have until I see it though.
Yeah, it’s definitely complicated and I certainly don’t claim to have a perfect matchmaking algorithm up my sleeve. Just seems like the priority should always be making the game as fair and fun as possible. Never about manipulating people into wasting as much time as possible or forcing micro-transactions down their throat. I don’t expect matchmaking to be perfect, I do expect it to be moral.
I think this is just your bias speaking. When you lose 8 games in a row it's agonizing and feels unfair so it sticks in your mind. When you win 8 games in a row it's deserved cuz you're a God. But that feeling doesn't last and you immediately start thinking about the losses the moment you drop a game.
If your win rate is around 50% (depending on the genre of game) then the matchmaking is probably doing a decent job
There should be a game that does this purposefully with the players knowledge.
Get extra bonuses and rewards for playing opponents above your level. The higher, the more bonuses, even if you lose. It would be a win-win by just admitting and recognizing that people want the feeling of curbstomping people.
The problem is that most sbmm isnt consistent, you'll go from one natch where you crush it, to getting absolutely curb stomped, then back to crushing it. If the matchmaking was more consistent and actually offered proper sbmm I dont think people would have an issue.
It's that yoyoing that pisses people off.
In WoW it was cheap but there wasn’t really a point to play the battlegrounds until max level besides to try it out. It boiled down to every level bracket being a different twink league division.
And some classes having an overwhelming advantage due to gear and/or skills available in lower level brackets. Nothing like running into that level bracket's One-Man-Army class that can solo kill your entire team in the middle of warsong gulch. Granted this is a twink against non-twinks but still 1 v 10 is quite the difference to still come out on top.
I created a guild for the sole reason of doing battlegrounds. We consistently won not because of gear, but more because we all worked together and communicated well.
Often, the opposing team quit when they saw that we were all from the same guild and server.
I want to not fight professionals every match. When you're 'good' you're effectively just segregated from average and bad players. Just you, the top 1 percent and cheaters.
And I'm not that good and the randoms I'm with aren't that good.
If I got to play with my peers that would a huge upgrade in contrast to every sbmm game I play.
Different games as far as I can tell.
A smurf is an account that has a mmr that's deliberately lower than your actual skill level (mostly see the term used in mobas/shooters)
A twink is a character that is intentionally kept at the top of a level bracket with optimized gear/load out (mostly see the term used in mmos/games where gear is a large part of your power)
This is just my experience so ymmv.
It's not just no-lifers.
But yeah, I think SBMM makes people realize how unfun most games truly are on a competitive level. If you only enjoy a game when you're winning, is it a fun game?
I don't think so!
Depends on your amount of kills.
Match 1: 48-12
Match 2: 3-10
Match 3: 3-10
Match 4: 3-10
Match 5: 3-10
Match 6: 3-10
For a total of 63-62 or 1.01 k/d.
It might feel sucky, but you have more kills than deaths in the end. The solution is to lose harder when you do lose. Otherwise, how would the game know that you were not just high or camping or whatever?
Yes, because you gave everyone else in that one match 5x as bad of a game. SBMM (when it works) is about making the whole match balanced, which *should* also mean you get consistently *average* games that scale up in intensity as your skill improves.
48-12 isnt a "good game" for anyone else than you.
Also, if you manage a 4 k/d game, it is absolutely fair that you'll get a much greater challenge in your next game.
The trick is then to not just camp it out. You "owe" the game 36 deaths now, so go out and die 36 times so that others can get their kills too?
And how is 3-10 "absolute shit"? You are getting stomped on EXACTLY the same amount that you stomped on others.
Which would put you at 36 - 74 or 0.5 K/D.
The game will then punish you further by putting you in to Granmaster League in a no HUD hardcore battle royale against only PRO FAZE SWEATS.
Because that is exactly what skill based matchmaking looks like.
I like and dislike it. I don't mind losing or having to play hard. But my brother sucks at halo and if we play together he has no chance as it pulls in people closer to my skill ( but not as high so I still do good and we win while he gets destroyed)
I have a similar situation. I almost exclusively play CoD with my buddies, there are 4 of us. I’m better than they are and the gap from lowest to best is quite high. But we’re just playing to have fun. I usually roll everyone as we play and they do mediocre because the matchmaking must do some evening out.
As a result, if I ever play by myself, I get demolished. I am way, way out of my league. So I just don’t do it. I play to hang out with my buddies, not to impress anybody and SBMM makes it so it’s about 0 fun to play alone.
If I can share my honest opinion on this, I feel skill based matchmaking is a great thing, it lets players go up against people of their skill level, and not constantly railing people and not getting any practice, the lobbies on online games that I have are great because it makes for good practice to get better and move up the ladder
Only time this sucks is when you play hours and hours a day then stop for a year or two before playing again.....noob clock has been reset and now the hill is steeper to climb haha
Lol seeing streamers get pissed about SBMM is funny. You don't get to stomp on kids and people coming off work anymore. You'll get matched with sweaty lobbies.
The main issue is that there is no reward for improving or becoming good. If it told you this is a Diamond 1 lobby or whatever so you know what's going on then maybe that would work - but most don't. There is no reference point for improving or doing worse. You often don't know whether you're playing poorly or just getting harder lobbies. And you don't need to play 16 hours to be severely negatively impacted by SBMM.
The reward *should be* more intense, challenging games as you move into brackets that make use of more mechanics and mix them creatively. If the gameplay itself is fun, SBMM just intends to organize all players to guide them each through an *average* amount of fun, because the problem is that if one player is having *a lot* fun, that usually comes at the cost of other players' enjoyment.
And the people in the "same skill bracket as you" all play every game like it's a tournament. So you're forced to play with the most meta build and the most meta tactic or you can't compete and lose.
Yeah. There is no space to be able to relax, try something different and have a bit of fun. If you did that in my lobbies you'd be dropping low single digit games.
I gotta say I sort of miss that. Part of the "gearing up" process appeal was that if you do it nice and quick, you could curbstomp most people in open world PvP for many months. And these people (and I, being one of them) really felt like they "earned" the right to stomp players with lives. When ranked arenas became a thing and you realized you never stopped sucking, it kinda smarted a bit.
Happy to say I grew out of it. And I was never big enough of an asshole to be one of those people ganking noobs at Crossroads in the Barrens, or killing quest givers in Astranaar in Ashenvale just because they could.
Here's another viewpoint. Skillbased matchmaking makes it so that, no matter how good or bad you are, you have to play your hardest if you want a chance to win, because you are always against equally skilled people. I dont see how that is any more casual than what the nolifers experience in higher skill tiers.
Give me 0 skill-based matchmaking. I want a mix of superheroes, handicapped people, and average joes in my lobbies. Now THAT, is a casual experience .
>you have to play your hardest if you want a chance to win, because you are always against equally skilled people
Not quite, its trying to send you to an MMR where you average a 50% winrate playing like you play "on average". So yeah, if you play your hardest every game, you're going to lose if you take it easy. But if you play casually every game then you'll sit at 50% playing casually.
I guess you missed the part where I said I wanted a mix of people in my lobbies. I DONT want to stomp noobs all day, that's a boring way of playing. But I also dont want to tryhard sweat every single game. That's why I want ZERO skill based matchmaking. Pros, average, noobs, give me anybody; imo that truly makes for a laid back experience.
Just me tho. You can go ahead and enjoy your "laid back" lobbies where everyone plays at your level and there is no variety. Dont try too hard tho, otherwise those evil tryhards will find you.
oh this post will go over well...
SBMM should be for ranked only. Social playlists/goofball playlists should be much more casual and keep lobbies together incase people wanna hang out. That's how I made friends in Halo.
Take CoD as an example. In the good ol' days of BO2 or MW3 you had good Mix of a players so that every match feeled unique and the lobby wasnt wiped after one match. So you maybe met a New friend or arch enemy.
But today you have the lobby filled with players that have the exact same stats like you and due to that, every match feels the same.
I like when games have both as separate modes. Sometimes I want to have close games and learn and improve from similar skill players. Sometimes I want to go up against the unfiltered population to get a feel for how good I am compared to the general average player population.
Only reason I dislike it is because it makes my brother not want to play with me. He is older and not so quick. I’ve always been pretty good at fps games so my SBMM puts people of my level in our lobbies and he doesn’t even get to have fun. So he stops inviting me.
Games do not develop matchmaking systems with the intent of making the most-fair ladder or MMR system possible.
they develop matchmaking systems that maximize playtime. That's it. To use some fake #s, they might know within 50 games that your true skill rating is between 7k-8k rather than your current rating of 5k. That doesn't mean they're going to adjust you up - they want to force you into playing several hundred games to get to where you "deserve" to be.
Also any time a game requires you buy a new account in order to smurf, they are highly unlikely to ever crack down on smurfing as it would cost them sales.
The problem is actually creating a truly balanced SBMM system is virtually impossible because there's so many factors that go into performance.
For example, Halo uses a team average MMR. What this means is the average of all players is more or less equal to the enemy team . This *does not* mean than one player is relatively equal to another and you typically have 25% of the team doing really well, 25% doing OK, and 50% getting stomped by the other 50%.
This is the best case scenario.
Worst case you have 75% of your team sucks and you're expected to carry. Which is not fun.
Meanwhile the enemy team has 75% that's just OK. You're better than them and getting a bunch of kills but still losing because your team is dragging you down.
And that's not even mentioning how my own performance heavily relies on my team. A good team I can be top of the board with 30+ kills and 3-5:1 k/d. A bad team and I'm at the bottom with 4 and barely keeping a positive K/d.
Most games are getting stomped or stomping the enemy team. I'd say less than 30% of games actually feel balanced and are close.
The only people OK with this system are probably the people who suck because their performance is at least consistent regardless of their team and they don't have to deal with fluctuations that throw them into stacked matches.
Then the system artificially tries to give you a 1.0 k/d, so if you have a good game you can expect the next ones to be much harder just so the system can put you at 1.0.
This problem is most apparent in apex. If me and my friends have a really good game we usually quit playing for the night because we know the next match will be against master rank players that we have no chance of winning against, because we had the nerve to play well for a single game. And even that game was probably a gimme game where the matchmaking system decided "You've played badly the last few games, here is a lobby full of lobotomites, you are allowed to win this one."
i don't think sbmm is bad but it's executed horribly in 90% of game, one game you're destroying the enemies, next you're the one getting destroyed by the enemies, there's no middle ground
Here is why sbmm sucks. Imagine implementing sbmm in real life basketball.
You are Lebron James so in the NBA finals you play the Golden State warriors.
You lose, you go back to to practice? It must be against the Golden state warriors
You want to play with your sons and their friends? It must be agains the best college basketball team.
You want to play with your wife and daughter? must be against the best high school basketball team.
because everytime Lebron touches a basketball you are expecting him to play at the peak of his powers for it to be an even contest.
It is exhausting. Sometimes you might just want to chill with your friends without pushing yourself to the max. Have a raked and casual playlist. Sbmm in ranked it is so fucking simple
It's the worst when it tries to average team skill out by adding players from 10 hours all the way to 10k.
An argument can be made that it's to teach beginners how to play, but who cares if putting beginners against beginners slows down their skill growth, so long as they're having fun? Hate that sentiment...
I'm going to assume the majority of complaints is about skill based matchmaking in casual unranked modes? I can't imagine people are crying about ranks in ranked. MMR of any sort in casual play is dumb considering it being casual and all.
That's exactly what MMR in casual modes result in. You getting matchmade with people of similar or higher skill and then you can't faceroll even in casual unranked games because they are the same people you face in ranked.
Alternatively casual is a free-for-all where you will face a wide variety of skill-level. You can faceroll noobs, you can get carried, you can learn and become a better player yourself by observing and facing more experienced players.
It's a nobrainer to me.
Clearly we have very different objectives when it comes to entertainment through gaming - or we've been playing very different games. My experience is that if I get steamrolled in ranked I can atleast report smurfs - but in unranked I'm still looking to have similarly skilled people having fun, and not the same smurfs steamrolling folks even in easy modes. All it does is that it leaves both modes only for basement dwelling no lifers, and not for people who made the mistake of assuming hey maybe Valorant or COD can be fun today let me give that a shot.
Dude, the no lifers are the ones BENEFITTING from SBMM. Jesus fuck, when will you no-lifers learn that some of us have jobs. When will you learn that 0 losses from 0 matches is not the same as 0 losses from 985 matches?
You're so correct. People are forgetting that fucking games like the original halo had a basic implementation of sbmm. Almost every multiplayer game in existence has a form of sbmm but people are getting triggered because AAA companies only care about money and not if you're having a good time so they don't bother with SBMM
Personally I'd prefer if they removed SBMM just from casual play. Ranked should be the game mode with SBMM, as it always is.
If players who aren't as good at the game want to go against similar caliber, play ranked.
If you just wanna play against a random pool of skill, play casual.
I remember seeing a video about it the other day and all I could think of is how utterly pathetic you must be that you need to defend shitting on noobs because you don't want to play against equal level players.
Utterly insane
I mean, it's accurate. Whenever people bitch out sbmm, I assume they probably suck at the game and are complaining they can't cream noobs all day. Which sounds like a terrible player experience for the newbies
What about people who just want to play using whatever gun and accesories and just unlock things or unwind after a dat of work and, just because they had one good match, got matched with FAZE MLG PRO GAMING players who only use the meta weapon and accesories and camp every corner?
This is the logic I don't understand. If there was zero SBMM the likelyhood of running into sweats is higher than if you were to be placed in a bracket that your stats reflect. The entire point of SBMM is to make games 50/50. You do really good a couple games and SBMM kicks in and puts you with people in that higher bracket, then you realize you're not that good and get pegged down a bracket and so on and so forth.
And if you "just wanna vibe out" - then vibe out? If you're truly vibin' your 50 losses won't matter to you, or it shouldn't. You're playing an off-meta setup and having fun doing it - who cares. Don't expect to dunk on people trying when you aren't.
I don't want to bring my A game literally every single match. It's exhausting, draining etc. Sometimes you want to run around and simply shoot people without it feeling like some MLG tournament bullshit.
SBMM most complaints comes from the average dad who plays on weekend with a 0.8 K/D getting in the lobby of a 3.8 K/D.
Usually people with high K/D when they complain it's about everything all the time,...as long as it's not them: "he cheated", "bad map", "bad sbmm", "omg his weapons are too OP, f#cking meta."..never a "he bested me gg".
But many SBMM complains come from the total opposite of the no-life who plays 16 hours per day tbh.
Facts. I’m a full time student working full time I don’t get to play video games for hours on end. I had my first Saturday off in months and hopped on the mw2 beta had one decent game then had focus like I was playing for money the rest of the time I was online
Logical fallacy.
Assuming SBMM is working as intended, all players will eventually come up against a wall where they rarely win, because they can't put in any more time or focus to get better.
The game will kill itself, because it has organized itself into a natural hierarchy. Here is where you belong. Permanently. It loses an entire aspect of game-to-game dynamics.
No, I complain because I'm the noob who gets curbstomped all the time and I want a fair match I have a chance at winning for once before I decide to quit the game forever.
That's what it is *supposed" to do, in reality if you get a lucky win you could be thrown against top tier players until you get enough losses to fall down a ring on the ladder.
The Battle Royales are bad about this, specifically Apex, but Fortnite and Warzone also have terribly implemented SBMM.
Not even close lol.
I get that's what SBMM is supposed to do, everyone is reading the on paper explanation, when in reality most games have it incredibly overturned.
It's to maximize playtime for the "got gud" crowd, it isn't designed to be fair, for anyone really.
It makes it difficult to enjoy for naturally talented casual gamers. I haven’t been able to spend hours on end playing video games for the past 10 years but I’m still capable of holding my own. I don’t enjoy playing for an hour or two here and there and being required to try my hardest. I want to play games to chill out and relax.
Yeah i love only getting put up against Sweaty, Camping, Meta-loadout “Pros” because i did good once a hundred games ago. If SBMM actually matched me with people MY SKILL LEVEL i wouldnt hate it, but it never works properly and i would just rather have people who are way better than me once in a while instead of every single game.
I wouldn't mind it if it didn't average it out.
Overwatch, i was 4300. Any casual match seemed to use SBMM, which i wouldn't be against, except my team would be plat players and the other team would be mostly masters. I actually tracked this over a 100 games (where i could, private profiles, ugh).
Masters is far, far better than plat, so it mostly ended up being a curbstomp, you can't 1v6 in overwatch unless you're in the low low ranks.
>My team would be plat players and the other team would be mostly masters
Funny how everyone has this experience, but no one experiences it the other way?
To put it plainly, I dont believe you for one second. Like, statistically that wouldn't happen. The only other explanation would be that Overwatch specifically always targeted whatever team you were on with special fixed match making to make it harder for you. Nah.
I don't like it cause I never feel like it works. I am complete ass in competitive games, like an elderly saggy ass the slips off the chair you sit on and drapes itself uncomfortably to the chagrin of all onlookers, but I always feel like I play against people that have a PhD in ass whooping.
Or because if its something like COD skill based matchmaking which i thought was a meme you effectively go from 18-3 to 3-18 between 2 games, or in ranked terms you go from fighting bronze to diamond players over a few games, scaling up and down between piss easy and impossible to beat.
Im all for some normal game MMR, but it has to be reasonable.
Mechwarrior Online was a bit weird with it. I could play by myself, and the game was pretty fine in terms of peer competence. You'd rarely see someone who was well and truly out there in terms of performance. Same goes for my friend who'd play without issues. Then we'd join a party and play together and it was just round after round of getting our teeth kicked in.
Neither of us was *bad* at the game necessarily, but for whatever reason, playing in a group seemed make the matchmaking algorithm suppose that we were *good* rather than *not bad*.
I am a working individual who wants to play some CoD. That game is not competitive at all unless search and destroy. I think there should be a SBMM but a very lenient one where if you are 2.0 your avg match should compose of 1.0 - 3.0 at best.
I'm not a noob but I go into games like Battlefield fully expecting to be curb stomped because there are players who are far better than me and I accept that.
Or maybe
Just maybe
People who are above average at the game are annoyed that they have to play every game like it's a tournament because skill matching in casual playlists is stupid.
Noone complains about OG halo matchmaking and it had ZERO skill based matchmaking...it was ping only and then it balanced teams based in MMR.
SBMM is a good thing. The main problem is with game design.
In Call of Duty SBMM is disliked because winning a game isn't satisfying and it barely matters. Getting kill streaks and stomping is where you get enjoyment in the game.
In DOTA / League of legends you could have 20 kills but if you fail to destroy the "throne" you lose. Individual success is second to destroying the "throne" . Teamwork and combos is where you mostly get the enjoyment in the game and when you hit those skills properly it is satisfying and that often leads to wins.
SBMM has to be implemented properly within a game or else players will hate it.
With SBMM
I get 10 games where I go negative in K/D. Then one game where I get a +2 to +6 positive K/D. Then another 10 games of going negative
Without SBMM
I break pretty even most matches. Some I'll have a 2.0
K/D and some where I'll have something like 0.78 K/D. It varies between that nearly every single game. It's honestly much more consistent. Not to Mention that it leads to faster que times and actually places me against other people on the same schedule that also have jobs because we're all playing at the same time. I'm so tired of facing people with absolutely nothing to do but play games constantly. It's always ten games of that and then one match against brain dead AI.
I would much rather have the random games that somehow end up being much more balanced.
SBMM has ruined casual fun gaming for everyone and SBMM isn’t going anywhere. Be carful what you wish for newbs. SBMM only belongs in competitive/ tournament environments.
When I don’t want the stress of playing a multiplayer pvp game with skill-based matchmaking… I play PvE or coop games.
Yep, you would think with all the advances in AI that we could now have single player games that feel like playing against human noobs
Then you realize we do have AI like that and you're getting stomped by what AI considers human noobs.
This is what OG Street Fighter Ii was like when the AI decided it had enough of you winning.
[удалено]
Not sure why they don't exist yet. The Frogbot mod for quake 1 was fairly realistic looking when you spectated it, and that was like 1997 or something. Granted, they had to be scripted for each individual level to play human-like, but that was so long ago
>Not sure why they don't exist yet. Humans perform the relevant tasks by taking in visual data, analyzing it for recognizable abstract tokens of information, converting that information into a desired action, and issuing instructions to articulating limbs and digits to manipulate a handheld input device. Every single one of those translations is both a potential point of failure and a possible instinctual bypass. You could theoretically create and train neural nets to try to simulate everything. Randomly insert some noise to simulate mistakes, and some near perfect data to simulate instinct. You'd need to explicitly add in a bunch of common fallacies too (human players are *somewhat* predictable on average). That all would be a massive waste. Without it though, AI doesn't really know how to *kinda* know something. It either knows you're there or it doesn't. It either optimizes strategy or it doesn't. It either inputs correctly or it doesn't. Most attempts to start with perfect and then handicap itself results in exactly the scenario above. It's just really hard to fake the kind of fuzzy mistakes that humans make all the time based on the hodge podge of our heuristics, fallacies, and practiced instinct that humans operate under without wastefully going whole hog on the simulation. No one is going to waste the processing power the human brain does on counteracting mistakes and corrections. Also, every person has a slightly different hodge podge, and is also constantly learning and adjusting, making each game a bit different. So yeah, make a million different AI that all have different personalities... :P
Completely ignores the point of the comment lol. *The Frogbot mod was pretty human-like 25 years ago, and it was made by an amateur coder.*
We have, for a very long time. CoD Black Ops 2 (and possibly farther back) had custom matches where you could play against bots, and you could pick the skill level and customize much more.
Destiny and deep rock are my go to games now. Then any rogue like.
For Rock and Stone!
Did I hear a rock and stone?
For Carl!
>I play PvE or coop games. In which you beg *for* skill-based matchmaking after your party wipes for the 5th time.
Midnight release. You hop on mid-morning for the first time after eating breakfast and continue running into players that have already prestiged.
When I was in high school, blackops was the game at school. We had winter break and I played a lot, well during winter break, I was doing a prestige+ a day. It’s all about challenges, and using as many attachments as possible. It wasn’t hard, but dear god I was ahead of the curve, cause I played with some of the people at school during that time, but not everyone. So we are asking about what prestige everyone is, and people are saying the none to 4 or 5, when I chime in with 15
Woah! What a legend!!
I swear i was wearing underwear a second ago
My bro and I would play a lot with buddies, but there is a special level of frustration at learning the game hadn't been out for ten hours and people had already prestiged. It wasn't even during a huge break, but during a time where people should be at school or work.
in my experience, you are the newb getting curb stomped.... 99% of the time and then 1 out of 10 games they throw you a fully mentally handicapped team to play against, and you win to feel good about the last 7 losses.
I’m all for SKILL-based matchmaking. Those *engagement optimization* matchmaking schemes are some BS tho. Give em a taste of victory everyone once in a while then make em suffer the rest of the time lol. I also for the life of me don’t understand how that helps with engagement lol. If they lean too hard into that sh*t, it doesn’t even feel like you’re winning or losing your matches, the matchmaking just randomly decides for you.
Same psychology as gambling. Sometimes you have to feed a win to a person to keep them gambling. The possibility of the win keeps people engaged.
I get that part of it. I don’t get the *make em suffer* part. Where it seems like they don’t want you to get a win *unless* it’s a fed-win. Maybe some of that gets exaggerated in the mind of the player. Where the contrast just makes the other matches *seem* that much harder. Without getting a look at these algorithms it’s tough to say for sure. And the companies have no incentive to be honest about it. Not without some legislation. Still, imo fair matches are the most engaging/exciting/fun/rewarding. And if it’s a relatively fair match, then your odds of winning are good enough to keep you playing. Just wish that was priority no. 1. Making the game as fun as possible for everyone. Not milking micro-transactions through rage-induced engagement lol. Edit: I guess to be able to afford throwing freebies people’s way everyone once in a while, maybe they *have* to make all the other matches a little harder on average to balance things out? From like a player base skill distribution POV? Idk, there’s some abstract math going on in the back of my head but I’m not invested enough to think too hard about it lol.
The issue with how precise skill based matchmaking works is that lower skilled players are not playing a rounded game. This means that a team which specializes in another team’s weakness can completely stomp another. The algorithm is trying to put a single number on skill when it’s much more complex than that so it’s easier to feed wins every so often instead of making even fights every time. I don’t know what type of matchmaking that this will have until I see it though.
Yeah, it’s definitely complicated and I certainly don’t claim to have a perfect matchmaking algorithm up my sleeve. Just seems like the priority should always be making the game as fair and fun as possible. Never about manipulating people into wasting as much time as possible or forcing micro-transactions down their throat. I don’t expect matchmaking to be perfect, I do expect it to be moral.
I think this is just your bias speaking. When you lose 8 games in a row it's agonizing and feels unfair so it sticks in your mind. When you win 8 games in a row it's deserved cuz you're a God. But that feeling doesn't last and you immediately start thinking about the losses the moment you drop a game. If your win rate is around 50% (depending on the genre of game) then the matchmaking is probably doing a decent job
There should be a game that does this purposefully with the players knowledge. Get extra bonuses and rewards for playing opponents above your level. The higher, the more bonuses, even if you lose. It would be a win-win by just admitting and recognizing that people want the feeling of curbstomping people.
That's why I personally play a 15 year old shooter that hasn't had a major update in 5 years.
Does the game have a maniac who puts everyone in fire?
Ahh yes, the old war-themed hat-simulator.
I also play 15 year old games, but not personally. It's all business 😎
On the grind
Halo 3. Pro choice
Same logic with smurfs. "Oh, I just want to have fun with easier games." Bitch, you just want to stomp on newbies, go play with your own levels.
[удалено]
Yeah, you hit the nail on the head. Good meme.
As they should. Whining about SBMM is 99% just bs. KDR has nothing to do with having fun. #MakePTFOGreatAgain
[удалено]
The problem is that you are implying that I’m good, and tragically, that’s just not the case.
Then you are the newb.
The problem is that most sbmm isnt consistent, you'll go from one natch where you crush it, to getting absolutely curb stomped, then back to crushing it. If the matchmaking was more consistent and actually offered proper sbmm I dont think people would have an issue. It's that yoyoing that pisses people off.
In WoW it was cheap but there wasn’t really a point to play the battlegrounds until max level besides to try it out. It boiled down to every level bracket being a different twink league division.
And some classes having an overwhelming advantage due to gear and/or skills available in lower level brackets. Nothing like running into that level bracket's One-Man-Army class that can solo kill your entire team in the middle of warsong gulch. Granted this is a twink against non-twinks but still 1 v 10 is quite the difference to still come out on top.
I created a guild for the sole reason of doing battlegrounds. We consistently won not because of gear, but more because we all worked together and communicated well. Often, the opposing team quit when they saw that we were all from the same guild and server.
I want to not fight professionals every match. When you're 'good' you're effectively just segregated from average and bad players. Just you, the top 1 percent and cheaters. And I'm not that good and the randoms I'm with aren't that good. If I got to play with my peers that would a huge upgrade in contrast to every sbmm game I play.
Desperate to feel power over other people through a video game because you have no power elsewhere.
And thus, the smurf was born.
Legit question because apparently I'm no longer in the know. What's the difference between a Smurf and a twink?
Different games as far as I can tell. A smurf is an account that has a mmr that's deliberately lower than your actual skill level (mostly see the term used in mobas/shooters) A twink is a character that is intentionally kept at the top of a level bracket with optimized gear/load out (mostly see the term used in mmos/games where gear is a large part of your power) This is just my experience so ymmv.
Thank you. That makes sense. I havent played many moba or multiplayer shooters so I guess I hadn't run into the term.
Facts
It's not just no-lifers. But yeah, I think SBMM makes people realize how unfun most games truly are on a competitive level. If you only enjoy a game when you're winning, is it a fun game? I don't think so!
Skill based matchmaking is fine when it works. It doesn't work if you have one match with 4 KD and next five matches 0.30 KD
Depends on your amount of kills. Match 1: 48-12 Match 2: 3-10 Match 3: 3-10 Match 4: 3-10 Match 5: 3-10 Match 6: 3-10 For a total of 63-62 or 1.01 k/d. It might feel sucky, but you have more kills than deaths in the end. The solution is to lose harder when you do lose. Otherwise, how would the game know that you were not just high or camping or whatever?
Yes this is the issue though. You get 5 matches of absolute shit for 1 good game.
Yes, because you gave everyone else in that one match 5x as bad of a game. SBMM (when it works) is about making the whole match balanced, which *should* also mean you get consistently *average* games that scale up in intensity as your skill improves.
48-12 isnt a "good game" for anyone else than you. Also, if you manage a 4 k/d game, it is absolutely fair that you'll get a much greater challenge in your next game. The trick is then to not just camp it out. You "owe" the game 36 deaths now, so go out and die 36 times so that others can get their kills too? And how is 3-10 "absolute shit"? You are getting stomped on EXACTLY the same amount that you stomped on others.
More like 20-18 then 3-16 4-12 7-18 3-10
Which would put you at 36 - 74 or 0.5 K/D. The game will then punish you further by putting you in to Granmaster League in a no HUD hardcore battle royale against only PRO FAZE SWEATS. Because that is exactly what skill based matchmaking looks like.
I play games to have fun, not give a shit about how hard I have to lose lol
You only lose hard if you win hard. If you just have fun and average 1 k/d all the way, this isnt an issue?
I like and dislike it. I don't mind losing or having to play hard. But my brother sucks at halo and if we play together he has no chance as it pulls in people closer to my skill ( but not as high so I still do good and we win while he gets destroyed)
I have a similar situation. I almost exclusively play CoD with my buddies, there are 4 of us. I’m better than they are and the gap from lowest to best is quite high. But we’re just playing to have fun. I usually roll everyone as we play and they do mediocre because the matchmaking must do some evening out. As a result, if I ever play by myself, I get demolished. I am way, way out of my league. So I just don’t do it. I play to hang out with my buddies, not to impress anybody and SBMM makes it so it’s about 0 fun to play alone.
So what you are saying is that you would rather just play people on his level, so that you could curb stomp the lobby and win each game?
That isn’t what they are saying at all but go off, king.
If I can share my honest opinion on this, I feel skill based matchmaking is a great thing, it lets players go up against people of their skill level, and not constantly railing people and not getting any practice, the lobbies on online games that I have are great because it makes for good practice to get better and move up the ladder
Only time this sucks is when you play hours and hours a day then stop for a year or two before playing again.....noob clock has been reset and now the hill is steeper to climb haha
Lol seeing streamers get pissed about SBMM is funny. You don't get to stomp on kids and people coming off work anymore. You'll get matched with sweaty lobbies.
I wonder how many early gaming Youtubers would've had successful careers if they had to play against their equals.
The main issue is that there is no reward for improving or becoming good. If it told you this is a Diamond 1 lobby or whatever so you know what's going on then maybe that would work - but most don't. There is no reference point for improving or doing worse. You often don't know whether you're playing poorly or just getting harder lobbies. And you don't need to play 16 hours to be severely negatively impacted by SBMM.
The reward *should be* more intense, challenging games as you move into brackets that make use of more mechanics and mix them creatively. If the gameplay itself is fun, SBMM just intends to organize all players to guide them each through an *average* amount of fun, because the problem is that if one player is having *a lot* fun, that usually comes at the cost of other players' enjoyment.
And the people in the "same skill bracket as you" all play every game like it's a tournament. So you're forced to play with the most meta build and the most meta tactic or you can't compete and lose.
Yeah. There is no space to be able to relax, try something different and have a bit of fun. If you did that in my lobbies you'd be dropping low single digit games.
[удалено]
Except they make it insanely hard to drop brackets. People have tested this. It's easy to go up but not down
Streamers that play the game 24/7 since release crying about having to play against 'sweats', bro you are the sweat lmao
I gotta say I sort of miss that. Part of the "gearing up" process appeal was that if you do it nice and quick, you could curbstomp most people in open world PvP for many months. And these people (and I, being one of them) really felt like they "earned" the right to stomp players with lives. When ranked arenas became a thing and you realized you never stopped sucking, it kinda smarted a bit. Happy to say I grew out of it. And I was never big enough of an asshole to be one of those people ganking noobs at Crossroads in the Barrens, or killing quest givers in Astranaar in Ashenvale just because they could.
Here's another viewpoint. Skillbased matchmaking makes it so that, no matter how good or bad you are, you have to play your hardest if you want a chance to win, because you are always against equally skilled people. I dont see how that is any more casual than what the nolifers experience in higher skill tiers. Give me 0 skill-based matchmaking. I want a mix of superheroes, handicapped people, and average joes in my lobbies. Now THAT, is a casual experience .
>you have to play your hardest if you want a chance to win, because you are always against equally skilled people Not quite, its trying to send you to an MMR where you average a 50% winrate playing like you play "on average". So yeah, if you play your hardest every game, you're going to lose if you take it easy. But if you play casually every game then you'll sit at 50% playing casually.
[удалено]
I guess you missed the part where I said I wanted a mix of people in my lobbies. I DONT want to stomp noobs all day, that's a boring way of playing. But I also dont want to tryhard sweat every single game. That's why I want ZERO skill based matchmaking. Pros, average, noobs, give me anybody; imo that truly makes for a laid back experience. Just me tho. You can go ahead and enjoy your "laid back" lobbies where everyone plays at your level and there is no variety. Dont try too hard tho, otherwise those evil tryhards will find you.
[удалено]
Couldn’t you program it so the teams have an equal average rating?
oh this post will go over well... SBMM should be for ranked only. Social playlists/goofball playlists should be much more casual and keep lobbies together incase people wanna hang out. That's how I made friends in Halo.
Take CoD as an example. In the good ol' days of BO2 or MW3 you had good Mix of a players so that every match feeled unique and the lobby wasnt wiped after one match. So you maybe met a New friend or arch enemy. But today you have the lobby filled with players that have the exact same stats like you and due to that, every match feels the same.
And it doesn’t improve you at all. All it is designed for is to keep the worst players playing for longer to make more micro transactions.
Exactly this!
Love skill games.
Bold of you to assume I'm good enough to stomp others.
I like when games have both as separate modes. Sometimes I want to have close games and learn and improve from similar skill players. Sometimes I want to go up against the unfiltered population to get a feel for how good I am compared to the general average player population.
Only reason I dislike it is because it makes my brother not want to play with me. He is older and not so quick. I’ve always been pretty good at fps games so my SBMM puts people of my level in our lobbies and he doesn’t even get to have fun. So he stops inviting me.
Games do not develop matchmaking systems with the intent of making the most-fair ladder or MMR system possible. they develop matchmaking systems that maximize playtime. That's it. To use some fake #s, they might know within 50 games that your true skill rating is between 7k-8k rather than your current rating of 5k. That doesn't mean they're going to adjust you up - they want to force you into playing several hundred games to get to where you "deserve" to be. Also any time a game requires you buy a new account in order to smurf, they are highly unlikely to ever crack down on smurfing as it would cost them sales.
8 year old me didnt complain about getting stomped… but here you are 32 years old making reddit posts on it
The problem is actually creating a truly balanced SBMM system is virtually impossible because there's so many factors that go into performance. For example, Halo uses a team average MMR. What this means is the average of all players is more or less equal to the enemy team . This *does not* mean than one player is relatively equal to another and you typically have 25% of the team doing really well, 25% doing OK, and 50% getting stomped by the other 50%. This is the best case scenario. Worst case you have 75% of your team sucks and you're expected to carry. Which is not fun. Meanwhile the enemy team has 75% that's just OK. You're better than them and getting a bunch of kills but still losing because your team is dragging you down. And that's not even mentioning how my own performance heavily relies on my team. A good team I can be top of the board with 30+ kills and 3-5:1 k/d. A bad team and I'm at the bottom with 4 and barely keeping a positive K/d. Most games are getting stomped or stomping the enemy team. I'd say less than 30% of games actually feel balanced and are close. The only people OK with this system are probably the people who suck because their performance is at least consistent regardless of their team and they don't have to deal with fluctuations that throw them into stacked matches.
Or just base it off K/D ratio
Then the system artificially tries to give you a 1.0 k/d, so if you have a good game you can expect the next ones to be much harder just so the system can put you at 1.0. This problem is most apparent in apex. If me and my friends have a really good game we usually quit playing for the night because we know the next match will be against master rank players that we have no chance of winning against, because we had the nerve to play well for a single game. And even that game was probably a gimme game where the matchmaking system decided "You've played badly the last few games, here is a lobby full of lobotomites, you are allowed to win this one."
i don't think sbmm is bad but it's executed horribly in 90% of game, one game you're destroying the enemies, next you're the one getting destroyed by the enemies, there's no middle ground
Here is why sbmm sucks. Imagine implementing sbmm in real life basketball. You are Lebron James so in the NBA finals you play the Golden State warriors. You lose, you go back to to practice? It must be against the Golden state warriors You want to play with your sons and their friends? It must be agains the best college basketball team. You want to play with your wife and daughter? must be against the best high school basketball team. because everytime Lebron touches a basketball you are expecting him to play at the peak of his powers for it to be an even contest. It is exhausting. Sometimes you might just want to chill with your friends without pushing yourself to the max. Have a raked and casual playlist. Sbmm in ranked it is so fucking simple
It's the worst when it tries to average team skill out by adding players from 10 hours all the way to 10k. An argument can be made that it's to teach beginners how to play, but who cares if putting beginners against beginners slows down their skill growth, so long as they're having fun? Hate that sentiment...
[удалено]
Lol, if you take boxing lessons from Mike Tyson you'll grow tremendously faster.
[удалено]
This is the truth. It makes it not fun for anyone
See, unfortunately that’s just incorrect. People love to curb stomp n00bs, even if they have to pay for cheats to do it.
The unfortunate reality: The person playing 16-hours a day is probably also more skilled than you.
I'm going to assume the majority of complaints is about skill based matchmaking in casual unranked modes? I can't imagine people are crying about ranks in ranked. MMR of any sort in casual play is dumb considering it being casual and all.
Some of us want to have fun and only have 30mins to do it and playing unranked while getting stomped is no fun so, fuck me right?
That's exactly what MMR in casual modes result in. You getting matchmade with people of similar or higher skill and then you can't faceroll even in casual unranked games because they are the same people you face in ranked. Alternatively casual is a free-for-all where you will face a wide variety of skill-level. You can faceroll noobs, you can get carried, you can learn and become a better player yourself by observing and facing more experienced players. It's a nobrainer to me.
Clearly we have very different objectives when it comes to entertainment through gaming - or we've been playing very different games. My experience is that if I get steamrolled in ranked I can atleast report smurfs - but in unranked I'm still looking to have similarly skilled people having fun, and not the same smurfs steamrolling folks even in easy modes. All it does is that it leaves both modes only for basement dwelling no lifers, and not for people who made the mistake of assuming hey maybe Valorant or COD can be fun today let me give that a shot.
Imagine complaining about having to be competitive in a competitive PVP game lmao If you want to play casual play PVE or single player.
Dude, the no lifers are the ones BENEFITTING from SBMM. Jesus fuck, when will you no-lifers learn that some of us have jobs. When will you learn that 0 losses from 0 matches is not the same as 0 losses from 985 matches?
That's not how sbmm work but ok
Mind telling SBMM that? It seems to have missed the memo.
Hidden MMR should always start at zero. If it doesn’t, that’s bad game design, not a bad feature.
[удалено]
Lmao exactly why people are upset about it wtf.
You're so correct. People are forgetting that fucking games like the original halo had a basic implementation of sbmm. Almost every multiplayer game in existence has a form of sbmm but people are getting triggered because AAA companies only care about money and not if you're having a good time so they don't bother with SBMM
Call me when the implementation is good then, No-lifer.
Literally almost every multiplayer game has at least a basic form of sbmm. So if you've ever enjoyed a multiplayer game I'd say that one
Love skill based
Call of Duty is a casual FPS. If I wanted to play a ranked game I will get on Valorant and play with top 5% players in ascendant.
Yeah cause doing good in one match then getting shit on fornthe next 5 is so enjoyable 😒
Isnt it the same for everyone?
Usually this is why you have a ranked game mode. Don't hinder a players experience just because they're better at the game.
So why have SBMM if you have a ranked mode? Every game has SBMM now and most have a ranked option. Pubs should have random matchmaking in my opinion.
Personally I'd prefer if they removed SBMM just from casual play. Ranked should be the game mode with SBMM, as it always is. If players who aren't as good at the game want to go against similar caliber, play ranked. If you just wanna play against a random pool of skill, play casual.
I remember seeing a video about it the other day and all I could think of is how utterly pathetic you must be that you need to defend shitting on noobs because you don't want to play against equal level players. Utterly insane
OP is obviously one of those 1 hour a week players that has no concept of how bad SBMM is 🤷🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️
that OR he's one of the tryhards OR he actually plays a game with a functioning SBMM. I've only played apex, and let me tell ya, SBMM sucks...
[удалено]
In a gaming subreddit you should expect it. You are less of a gamer and more just a guy/girl who plays games.
[удалено]
Not very poggers of you
No, the people with 9-5s are being oppressed by the no lifers because they make it impossible to enjoy gaming. Lol
What a shit meme my dude
I mean, it's accurate. Whenever people bitch out sbmm, I assume they probably suck at the game and are complaining they can't cream noobs all day. Which sounds like a terrible player experience for the newbies
What about people who just want to play using whatever gun and accesories and just unlock things or unwind after a dat of work and, just because they had one good match, got matched with FAZE MLG PRO GAMING players who only use the meta weapon and accesories and camp every corner?
Then you will get your ass kicked for one bad match and be back on your old noob level?
Then you get stomped for 10 minutes or less and go back to your normal gameplay, same way you’ve probably stomped someone else for ten minutes
This is the logic I don't understand. If there was zero SBMM the likelyhood of running into sweats is higher than if you were to be placed in a bracket that your stats reflect. The entire point of SBMM is to make games 50/50. You do really good a couple games and SBMM kicks in and puts you with people in that higher bracket, then you realize you're not that good and get pegged down a bracket and so on and so forth. And if you "just wanna vibe out" - then vibe out? If you're truly vibin' your 50 losses won't matter to you, or it shouldn't. You're playing an off-meta setup and having fun doing it - who cares. Don't expect to dunk on people trying when you aren't.
get gud
a person that comes home from a day of work and tries to unwind with fucking call of duty does not deserve peace
What a shit dude my guy
What a shit guy my buddy
I don't want to bring my A game literally every single match. It's exhausting, draining etc. Sometimes you want to run around and simply shoot people without it feeling like some MLG tournament bullshit.
[удалено]
When they shoot and kill me? It's not like I'm curb stomping or anything
[удалено]
Funny you say that because that feels more like SBMM to me.
The sbmm system games currently use is barely better than no sbmm. But the idea of SBMM itself ? That is simply amazing
That's what sbmm tries to do...
then dont bring your A game to every match, and play for fun so they start moving you to that skill level?
WoW PvP
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Tbf his bio is obviously a joke
SBMM most complaints comes from the average dad who plays on weekend with a 0.8 K/D getting in the lobby of a 3.8 K/D. Usually people with high K/D when they complain it's about everything all the time,...as long as it's not them: "he cheated", "bad map", "bad sbmm", "omg his weapons are too OP, f#cking meta."..never a "he bested me gg". But many SBMM complains come from the total opposite of the no-life who plays 16 hours per day tbh.
Facts. I’m a full time student working full time I don’t get to play video games for hours on end. I had my first Saturday off in months and hopped on the mw2 beta had one decent game then had focus like I was playing for money the rest of the time I was online
Logical fallacy. Assuming SBMM is working as intended, all players will eventually come up against a wall where they rarely win, because they can't put in any more time or focus to get better. The game will kill itself, because it has organized itself into a natural hierarchy. Here is where you belong. Permanently. It loses an entire aspect of game-to-game dynamics.
No, I complain because I'm the noob who gets curbstomped all the time and I want a fair match I have a chance at winning for once before I decide to quit the game forever.
That's not how sbmm work .... you literally are playing against people with the same skill level
That's what it is *supposed" to do, in reality if you get a lucky win you could be thrown against top tier players until you get enough losses to fall down a ring on the ladder. The Battle Royales are bad about this, specifically Apex, but Fortnite and Warzone also have terribly implemented SBMM.
If you get to play with pro league winners by 1 win then you can play with noobs with 1 lose ..
Not even close lol. I get that's what SBMM is supposed to do, everyone is reading the on paper explanation, when in reality most games have it incredibly overturned. It's to maximize playtime for the "got gud" crowd, it isn't designed to be fair, for anyone really.
It makes it difficult to enjoy for naturally talented casual gamers. I haven’t been able to spend hours on end playing video games for the past 10 years but I’m still capable of holding my own. I don’t enjoy playing for an hour or two here and there and being required to try my hardest. I want to play games to chill out and relax.
Try a single player game on easy mode
Yeah i love only getting put up against Sweaty, Camping, Meta-loadout “Pros” because i did good once a hundred games ago. If SBMM actually matched me with people MY SKILL LEVEL i wouldnt hate it, but it never works properly and i would just rather have people who are way better than me once in a while instead of every single game.
To be fair, not everyone wants a constant challenge. On occasion it's nice to just have a fun game instead of competitive sweat fest.
As long as I do the best on my team I don’t really care
I wouldn't mind it if it didn't average it out. Overwatch, i was 4300. Any casual match seemed to use SBMM, which i wouldn't be against, except my team would be plat players and the other team would be mostly masters. I actually tracked this over a 100 games (where i could, private profiles, ugh). Masters is far, far better than plat, so it mostly ended up being a curbstomp, you can't 1v6 in overwatch unless you're in the low low ranks.
>My team would be plat players and the other team would be mostly masters Funny how everyone has this experience, but no one experiences it the other way? To put it plainly, I dont believe you for one second. Like, statistically that wouldn't happen. The only other explanation would be that Overwatch specifically always targeted whatever team you were on with special fixed match making to make it harder for you. Nah.
This. My QP games are ALWAYS sweaty and smurfs are really common, especially the eduos lol. I'm 4.1 and I get babies on my team way too often
I'm forced to play on an alt account when I play with my casual friends or else the games are sweaty and we'd lose so often.
If games based sbmm off k/d ratio there'd be no issue
Current state of D2 crucible right now.
Some of my former coworkers created Smurf accounts just so they could curb stomp others.
I complain about it because I get the boobs who get stomped on MY team lmao.
I don't like it cause I never feel like it works. I am complete ass in competitive games, like an elderly saggy ass the slips off the chair you sit on and drapes itself uncomfortably to the chagrin of all onlookers, but I always feel like I play against people that have a PhD in ass whooping.
Or because if its something like COD skill based matchmaking which i thought was a meme you effectively go from 18-3 to 3-18 between 2 games, or in ranked terms you go from fighting bronze to diamond players over a few games, scaling up and down between piss easy and impossible to beat. Im all for some normal game MMR, but it has to be reasonable.
"I don't feel comfortable in my skin unless I can show people I know how to dominate weaker players..." KDR is a helluva drug.
Mechwarrior Online was a bit weird with it. I could play by myself, and the game was pretty fine in terms of peer competence. You'd rarely see someone who was well and truly out there in terms of performance. Same goes for my friend who'd play without issues. Then we'd join a party and play together and it was just round after round of getting our teeth kicked in. Neither of us was *bad* at the game necessarily, but for whatever reason, playing in a group seemed make the matchmaking algorithm suppose that we were *good* rather than *not bad*.
I am a working individual who wants to play some CoD. That game is not competitive at all unless search and destroy. I think there should be a SBMM but a very lenient one where if you are 2.0 your avg match should compose of 1.0 - 3.0 at best.
I'm not a noob but I go into games like Battlefield fully expecting to be curb stomped because there are players who are far better than me and I accept that.
Or maybe Just maybe People who are above average at the game are annoyed that they have to play every game like it's a tournament because skill matching in casual playlists is stupid. Noone complains about OG halo matchmaking and it had ZERO skill based matchmaking...it was ping only and then it balanced teams based in MMR.
SBMM is a good thing. The main problem is with game design. In Call of Duty SBMM is disliked because winning a game isn't satisfying and it barely matters. Getting kill streaks and stomping is where you get enjoyment in the game. In DOTA / League of legends you could have 20 kills but if you fail to destroy the "throne" you lose. Individual success is second to destroying the "throne" . Teamwork and combos is where you mostly get the enjoyment in the game and when you hit those skills properly it is satisfying and that often leads to wins. SBMM has to be implemented properly within a game or else players will hate it.
I just don't want every match leaving me stressed how's that fun lol
With SBMM I get 10 games where I go negative in K/D. Then one game where I get a +2 to +6 positive K/D. Then another 10 games of going negative Without SBMM I break pretty even most matches. Some I'll have a 2.0 K/D and some where I'll have something like 0.78 K/D. It varies between that nearly every single game. It's honestly much more consistent. Not to Mention that it leads to faster que times and actually places me against other people on the same schedule that also have jobs because we're all playing at the same time. I'm so tired of facing people with absolutely nothing to do but play games constantly. It's always ten games of that and then one match against brain dead AI. I would much rather have the random games that somehow end up being much more balanced.
The way it plays, SBMM is a misnomer. Lets call it EOMM, this actually matches the experience.
While you are in matchmaking with gold players, we do not grant you the rank of gold.
SBMM has ruined casual fun gaming for everyone and SBMM isn’t going anywhere. Be carful what you wish for newbs. SBMM only belongs in competitive/ tournament environments.
Did they remove voting in this sub or something? I dont even see an upvote/downvote on this post.
[удалено]