Depend, technicaly one should expect his stats to get worst as they climb the ladder and ultimately get to play against player of similar skill level. It depend on how good / fast the system is at knowing your skill level.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Skill Based Match Making
- Thread starter catboy
- Start date
Do you feel like you can't have fun but lose in unranked matches with your non-meta loadouts? Winning in those matches doesn't actually matter, does it? So why does being competitive matter?
Your suggestion is for players who don't want to get stopped is to go play ranked instead of the intended casual modes of play? 🤣
It is accurate in a world where SBMM is working perfectly as intended, which was the original point I was responding to, and the crux of what I've been saying. Hell, the person I responded to even said that streaks shouldn't even be in modern Call of Duty. Which, if we're going to have very strict SBMM is absolutely true. No one should be getting streaked on because the games should be as evenly matched as humanly possible. It may be possible for the top 1% of players to earn them, but why even have the streaks if only 1% of the player base (hypothetical number) can even earn them? They were designed to be a reward for players, and as a goal for all players to chase.
If SBMM is designed to make all games super close and competitive, then it's intent is to keep all players as close to even in kills and deaths with the winning team coming out with a slight edge. Is that not the design intent for SBMM? To make games as even as possible? So in that scenario no oneshould be earning those streaks. Nuclears shouldn't even exist, because it's going to make the people who have their game end to one feel bad.
Also, TDM is absolutely the place for Nuclears. A Nuke typically ends the game by killing all the opposing players...which is the goal of TDM to begin with. What game modes are you seeing people drop Nukes in? If it's anything other than TDM then it's actually in direct conflict with the goal of the game mode. If someone is going 30 and 0 in hardpoint, then something is weird, or that person isn't playing the objective.
I think its the worst in Overwatch every QUICKPLAY match is an E-Sports final might aswell be playing ranked. But smurf accounts also throw the entire thing off randomly you will have a level 6 on your team and the other. But the other is a smurf so now your stuck carrying a team of noobs against pro level players.
Its a surefire way to get harassed by the losers you find in higher ranks, and you have to play with them in normals now
Rocket League uses its internal MMR system for ranked and unranked games. Let's say you have a MMR of 1000 then you'll get matched with other players with the same'ish MMR (980-1020) in ranked while you get matched with people between 800 and 1200 in unranked. Fully removing the underlying MMR system for unranked matches would result in matches that end with a score of 50 to 0.
Afaik pretty much every (competitive) game use SBMM for both ranked und unranked modes to avoid those extreme pub stomps.
I agree with you on that. I don't know what else to say, though. Much of it is me pouring hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of hours (thousands over the years) into FPS games and Battle Royale. I have a good understanding of when I'm playing somebody worse than me, at my skill level, or above my skill level. The people that are wiping me in these matches are shockingly better than I am. Like if I was a Division II basketball player, I'm going around with my other D-II players having a good time, and then LeBron James enters the gym. And then I get dunked on and the game ends hahaha.
I like SBMM.
I usually play solo so I don't want to see massively lopsided teams and I'm not invested enough to want to play ranked.
I can't imagine a game like Siege not having SBMM in casual, it would be absurd.
I usually play solo so I don't want to see massively lopsided teams and I'm not invested enough to want to play ranked.
I can't imagine a game like Siege not having SBMM in casual, it would be absurd.
It's a psychological thing. There was a time when these players weren't good at a particular game and they got the shit kicked out of them. But they pressed on, got better and started seeing "their name in lights". It's quite the narcotic-like effect. Now they have to be on top or else the game isn't fun anymore. It doesn't feel right. They can take a loss or two here and there, but they want to dominate their competition at a much greater rate.
So what do they do? They seek out the weak and avoid the strong.
Why get shot by a better player when you can shoot 3 potatoes who don't even know how to lead a shot. Watch the way they play - they populate areas where noobs go and employ strategies that counter newer players because that gets them the kills. That gives them the endorphins. That gives them what's missing in their lives. It's very much like in a wild animal setting, the middle sized predators feed on smaller animals and injured prey. They stay the hell out of apex predators' ways because they know that they are but a snack. The Wild doesn't have skill based matchmaking, and I guarantee you that if they did, the scavenger animals would be the ones complaining the most. Nothing to scavenge on in a kingdom of equals.
If you want to "relax" or "just chill" or "not be sweaty", go play against bots and set the difficulty to easy. That's really what you are looking for, even though you won't admit it to anyone - most of all yourselves.
So what do they do? They seek out the weak and avoid the strong.
Why get shot by a better player when you can shoot 3 potatoes who don't even know how to lead a shot. Watch the way they play - they populate areas where noobs go and employ strategies that counter newer players because that gets them the kills. That gives them the endorphins. That gives them what's missing in their lives. It's very much like in a wild animal setting, the middle sized predators feed on smaller animals and injured prey. They stay the hell out of apex predators' ways because they know that they are but a snack. The Wild doesn't have skill based matchmaking, and I guarantee you that if they did, the scavenger animals would be the ones complaining the most. Nothing to scavenge on in a kingdom of equals.
If you want to "relax" or "just chill" or "not be sweaty", go play against bots and set the difficulty to easy. That's really what you are looking for, even though you won't admit it to anyone - most of all yourselves.
So the implication is that social pressure from complete strangers forces players to not be able to enjoy whatever loadout or play whatever character you want to run? In unranked playlists?
dope insights.
I wonder how many non-EA games have some form of this. From a business perspective, it makes perfect sense. Customers who stop playing your game are customers who don't buy cosmetics or expansion packs.
Now this is what I was looking for, actual research into why SBMM is bad. Now I understand the argument, I can see why people would be upset at this.
Is that really crazy to believe with how toxic gaming communities can be?
It's not like most cods have a viable ranked playlist to differentiate anyway.
In a game like Warzone, there is no "unranked". I straight-up don't use certain weapons (AK47, Mk2 Carbine, Dragunov, etc.) because they just aren't worth the time or effort. I'd like to try to use something off-beat, but if you're not using certain loadouts (example being monolithic suppressor, ranged barrel, commando grip, VLK sight, 60 round mag), you might as well forfeit certain encounters.
SBMM only really work in theory. Skill distribution is largely a bell curve, as soon as you're a moderately above average player it just starts to fuck you over instead; in order for a game to find a match for you it either needs longer MM waits or just matching you against people outside your skill bracket instead.
I think newbie divisions vs everyone else in non-ranked is the best solution. Keep the very newest away from the most experienced for a while, then let randomness do it's job the rest of the time. Given the distribution of skill, anyone in the middle 50% of players will see far more people in their skill than they will others, and those outside of the curve shouldn't play against people way above them too often.
SBMM is what ruined Apex for me, as soon as I was in the uncomfortable position of being quite far above average, but nowhere near a top player, the game became impossible, because it was just matching me against people several times better than me in every match; it's a system that actively makes the game less fair for certain players.
Sadly, it's impossible to discuss because you always get a bunch of people driveby posting "lol u just wanna stomp people" when the reality is, we're sick of getting fucked over repeatedly and having to face off against players far better than us. It's game ruining.
The other issue with SBMM is you're asking an algorithm to correctly and accurately judge, with a single number, how "good" a player is. You could have a fucking army of data scientists trying to figure out a good way to accurately quantify that, but it's just not possible. Especially as a game gets more and more complex. It's like a BR game - who is "better", the player who wins 50% of their matches but loses most their gunfights, or the player who takes risks and gets a ton of kills, but doesn't win as often? There's so many variables, it's a purely subjective assessment baked into an algorithm. It's a fundamentally imperfect and biased system.
I think newbie divisions vs everyone else in non-ranked is the best solution. Keep the very newest away from the most experienced for a while, then let randomness do it's job the rest of the time. Given the distribution of skill, anyone in the middle 50% of players will see far more people in their skill than they will others, and those outside of the curve shouldn't play against people way above them too often.
SBMM is what ruined Apex for me, as soon as I was in the uncomfortable position of being quite far above average, but nowhere near a top player, the game became impossible, because it was just matching me against people several times better than me in every match; it's a system that actively makes the game less fair for certain players.
Because 99% of the systems don't work; if you're above average the systems break completely. I've never played an SBMM game that has actually sucessfully made me play against people my level, as a decent but not excellent player. I can smash the average player, get destroyed by high rank players, but I never seem to get put against people I can just have a good game against once I've been playing enough to get decent.
Sadly, it's impossible to discuss because you always get a bunch of people driveby posting "lol u just wanna stomp people" when the reality is, we're sick of getting fucked over repeatedly and having to face off against players far better than us. It's game ruining.
The other issue with SBMM is you're asking an algorithm to correctly and accurately judge, with a single number, how "good" a player is. You could have a fucking army of data scientists trying to figure out a good way to accurately quantify that, but it's just not possible. Especially as a game gets more and more complex. It's like a BR game - who is "better", the player who wins 50% of their matches but loses most their gunfights, or the player who takes risks and gets a ton of kills, but doesn't win as often? There's so many variables, it's a purely subjective assessment baked into an algorithm. It's a fundamentally imperfect and biased system.
Last edited:
Not a fan. but it ain't going anywhere. I've seen countless amount of backlash about sbmm and devs simply won't budge after literally years of complaints. which means the tweets about player retention stats behind the scenes must be true. money or potential money from ppl sticking around to buy overpriced skins is all that matters to devs. ranked modes are unironically less sweaty than pub games in 2020. and the experience of playing with friends is still a nightmare. they don't care
IMO the excuse for why people don't like SBMM are just shitty to me. I love it and it's fun for me to play on equal footing with other players. This whole I want to pub stomp new bad players and discourage them from playing the game is just garbage to me.
I hope more of this is common. I played a lot of Battle Operations 2 on PS4 and while I'm not the best, I hate my team i feel sometimes is like 2 ranks below me. When I carry the team, and im average, it sucks.
It is and it isn't crazy.
In a game like Overwatch, I can definitely imagine it. Picks are telegraphed and strengths and weaknesses of characters are well known. But most games are not designed like Overwatch. In most games, people are not necessarily even aware of your loadout and are busy trying to beat the enemy.
Maybe players should consider muting people if someone typing or yelling "you suck!" is enough to make them not want to do what enjoys them in unranked play.
Sounds like a balance problem?
Sounds like a community filled with losers? Can they not be muted? Your fun shouldn't be restricted to what someone else wants you to play in unranked lobbies. If winning at all costs is what matters to a player queuing a match, they should be queuing for ranked play.
implication of social pressure? I said it in my post. These people will literally harass you
and Dota 2.
Can't speak for other games or their implementations, but League and Dota 2 are proof positive that SBMM works and works well. Queue time issues notwithstanding.
Thing is ... they balance the weapons quite often. Every single streamer, content creator, pro, and reddit user immediately goes and weapon tests everything until people identify what is Meta and what isn't. It happens within 24 hours. They've done a better job of having the Meta shift from a singular weapon (first the Grau, then the Bruen) to a class of weapons (Kilo, M4, M13, CR-56, and AN94 now). But if you're using a gun from that class of weapons, you can create an off-Meta variant if you're in the business of having fun. However, an inevitable 50-150 meter fight WILL break out at some point and if you don't have the right stuff, you're going to lose.
pretty much every game does
Connection based matchmaking is a thing and is what Destiny currently has after too many complaints about long queue times with the old SBMM
I see. That sucks for Warzone, then, because there is no "unranked" play list to go do whatever in.
CBMM - Connection-based match-making. Just pairs up people who have the best pings with one another to ensure the lowest possible latency between players. Irrespective of skill. In this form of matchmaking, a player in their first game could be playing against Shroud.
In some games, like MOBAs, the gulf between newcomers and vets can be -immense-
cods a bit weird because it bases the sbmm on the party leader especially so on the multiplayer side of modern warfare, its easily exploitable to play in a lower skill bracket. some games im playing a team of terminators where I cant even spawn. Especially on tdm.
Also as an aside it seems as an objective-based mode player SBMM really has no idea what to do with you sometimes. I played a ton of Domination in MW2019 and I actually play the objective, so I'd go like 12-25 but be responsible for 90% of our points that won us the match, and I would just get thrown into all kinds of weird lobbies on both ends of the spectrum.
No, I'm saying if "Ranked" is the super tight SBMM most games are leaning towards now, then people who don't want to "get stomped" or whatever can go play that and it's the exact same experience as now, then people who don't give a fuck and just want to get into quick matches and not worry about the meta or skill levels can play unranked. There's not really a reason that they can't offer both experiences (a tight SBMM ranked and a free-for-all no SBMM unraked), at least for major modes in most games like TDM etc. Sometimes I want to sweat, sometimes I want to play with friends and level up a pistol. /shrug
No, I'm saying if "Ranked" is the super tight SBMM most games are leaning towards now, then people who don't want to "get stomped" or whatever can go play that and it's the exact same experience as now, then people who don't give a fuck and just want to get into quick matches and not worry about the meta or skill levels can play unranked. There's not really a reason that they can't offer both experiences (a tight SBMM ranked and a free-for-all no SBMM unraked), at least for major modes in most games like TDM etc. Sometimes I want to sweat, sometimes I want to play with friends and level up a pistol. /shrug
I wonder how much if differs in something like a MOBA where it's pretty much entirely a team effort, and something like Call of Duty where traditionally really good players have been able to carry entire teams? Typically the loudest enemies of strict (or any) SBMM in the Call of Duty community are people who are capable of, and regularly have carried entire teams themselves. The funny thing is, they're also the same ones who complain about having 'bot' team mates.
Modern Warfare 2019 had no separation between Ranked and Unranked, and I found it pretty frustrating personally. I think SBMM should exist at some level, but it seemed far, far too strict in public matches of MW (which is literally the only thing available to play).
EDIT: As others have said too, COD tends to base it's SBMM on the party leader when you queue with friends. So if you have friends at a wide variety of skill levels (which we all do) someone is going to either have a super easy lobby, or friends are going to get crapped on. Which is even worse when it's supposed to just be regular public lobbies you're queuing for.
You are not getting paired with "incredibly skilled players" unless you yourself are incredibly skilled. In the CoD community specifically, people are complaining that they are being placed in matches where they "need to be sweaty" not because they are being put in matches where they are getting stomped, but because they are being put in matches where they are playing against people of equal skill. That's why the people complaining about SBMM tend to be the more dedicated members, because being held to a K/D of near 1 because they're being forced to play against people just as skilled as them hurts their egos. And then the secondary argument they have is that it hurts the community because the less-skilled players won't know how to "git gud" unless they're being pub stomped, which "brings down the overall skill of the community", not realizing that SBMM has been around probably about as long as they've been playing the series.
I've been playing CoD for well over a decade at this point. At no point in time have I ever felt that SBMM made the games "sterile and less fun".
Don't mind it at all. In my experience I I like some challenge in my FPS games.
Not opposed to it being released but the whining about it by pro players of all people is annoying.
Not opposed to it being released but the whining about it by pro players of all people is annoying.
I think SBMM is mostly a good thing if implemented correctly.
Someone ITT described a system where ranked is within 20 pts of MMR and public is within 200 pts of MMR. That should be how it is. MMR should also be visible to the player, it helps rationalize things.
MW2019's MMR is based on your previous 5 game performance(research done by XclusiveAce and Drift0r), which is way too huge of an over correction. If I'm on a heater for a few games that doesn't mean I should be rubberbanded up to a skill bracket that I'll likely get stomped in.
SBMM and matchmaking should be done on the life of the account with decay after inactivity. Currently there is too much incentive to "reverse boost" for players to get into easier lobbies for a few games then repeat. I know some people that would try to snipe to purposefully tank K/D so they'd get easier lobbies after a few games.
Someone ITT described a system where ranked is within 20 pts of MMR and public is within 200 pts of MMR. That should be how it is. MMR should also be visible to the player, it helps rationalize things.
MW2019's MMR is based on your previous 5 game performance(research done by XclusiveAce and Drift0r), which is way too huge of an over correction. If I'm on a heater for a few games that doesn't mean I should be rubberbanded up to a skill bracket that I'll likely get stomped in.
SBMM and matchmaking should be done on the life of the account with decay after inactivity. Currently there is too much incentive to "reverse boost" for players to get into easier lobbies for a few games then repeat. I know some people that would try to snipe to purposefully tank K/D so they'd get easier lobbies after a few games.
Agreed. Honestly MW2019 is the first game where I really felt like the SBMM was really a bit too much (although the kind of fucked weapon balance at that game's launch aka you use the M4/725 or you're usually dead really didn't help). The much proclaimed curbstomps didn't happen nearly as often in the older days that I think some people remember or think they did. This is arbitrary, but if MW2019 had like a ~15% less severe SBMM *OR* didn't punish groups of varying skill levels as much I don't know we'd be having this conversation about SBMM to the extent it's been floating around since MW2019's launch. I'm guessing a lot of older players came back after lapsing to MW2019 and it didn't feel like the "good old days" or something.
Pretty much. I'll throw a fun gun in there now & then, but the fun always ends when the match gets serious and the 25-kill God Squad is firing laser beams into my eyes and suddenly my 2-round burst SMG is a literal NERF gun. Then it's back to your garden variety meta weapons.
Some games do it terribly is the problem, like Overwatch tries to match so you get a 50/50 win/loss rate, but 9/10 matches you either stomp or get stomped, only 1/10 feels like a fair fight with even teams.
This whole post is going to sound VERY braggy, but that's not my intention...
I'm probably better than, like, at least 75% of players in most of the FPS' I play, and I love SBMM (in most cases). I hate games that aren't competitive at all and you just mindlessly play the game and SBMM at least ensures most games will at least be competitive. And it's not even "a sweatfest". I can get 25+ kill games in Halo 5 and the game will still be close because it has GOOD matchmaking. Yeah my teammates are probably 2 years old and this is the first FPS ever, but I can still dominate and the score will end up close. GOOD SBMM, in my experience, allows me to play casually and put up insane stats, but still forces me to think and play my best because it successfully averages your teammates and still makes winning difficult. That's how good SBMM should work.
In Battle Royales however, I'm not sure how I feel about it, mainly because I generally play with IRL friends who are about average or slightly worse than average, and they hate playing with me because of the skill of opposing players. I have yet to play a BR with good SBMM implementation when playing with players much worse than you.
I'm probably better than, like, at least 75% of players in most of the FPS' I play, and I love SBMM (in most cases). I hate games that aren't competitive at all and you just mindlessly play the game and SBMM at least ensures most games will at least be competitive. And it's not even "a sweatfest". I can get 25+ kill games in Halo 5 and the game will still be close because it has GOOD matchmaking. Yeah my teammates are probably 2 years old and this is the first FPS ever, but I can still dominate and the score will end up close. GOOD SBMM, in my experience, allows me to play casually and put up insane stats, but still forces me to think and play my best because it successfully averages your teammates and still makes winning difficult. That's how good SBMM should work.
In Battle Royales however, I'm not sure how I feel about it, mainly because I generally play with IRL friends who are about average or slightly worse than average, and they hate playing with me because of the skill of opposing players. I have yet to play a BR with good SBMM implementation when playing with players much worse than you.
I'm so confused about this issue. Like are the only people complaining the people who just want to pubstomp? Because SBMM to me has no flaws. You get matched against people your own skill level so you have the most fun. Games that are too hard or too easy are no fun at all.
Ive played numerous games where I do great, and then get paired against enemies who are significantly better than me. SBMM often doesnt feel like an equal showcase of two enemies. I dont want to, nor do I, get placed in lobbies where the enemy is incredibly obviously bad or new. But I do feel like I get placed in lobbies where the opponent is far superior to me.
But you're right that a lot of COD players want to pubstomp. COD is inherently a game about that so when they cant do it they get mad and blame SBMM. And yes, players who complain about it are hilariously complaining that they have to play against people equal to them.
However, I always get a really mixed bag in COD where I feel like some games are way too hard and not fun. I want to play against people as good as me. That means sometimes I can do really well against them and sometimes I have bad games. But I have often felt that I've been put into games where I'm clearly not as skilled as my opponents.
I also play Siege, and OW and in those games, the competition feels fair because I play ranked mode. I've rarely felt like I've matched with players who are overly skilled (except when Im playing against obvious smurfs). But in COD, it's always a mixed bag. It's just not fun when the game feels like it actively punishes you and puts you in a lobby where it feels like they overestimate your skill.
I don't understand. If it is based on skill then all the good players are playing against other good players. Sounds like they are upset because they are not the best player in the lobby anymore.
Now the people who heated SBMM are quiet since they got what they wanted and the people who Connection Based Matchmaking (CBMM) effects most negatively complain instead. SBMM hater put up with it for a while at that point so they got really loud by the time they changed it so I guess its sort of less complained about now. I personally don't care which is used but there was never going to be a change that was universally agreed on for that.
If the implementation is done well, it's great.
Worst example I know of: Any and all NHL games (EASHL mode which is like FIFA Pro Clubs). E.g. if you are in Division 3 (out of 10), you are only matched against teams in Divisions 3, 2 and 4. Unfortunately the player count in that mode is often low enough to make you search for at least half an hour to be matched against a team that meets this requirement even though plenty of other teams in other divisions may be searching. It's so terrible and it still blows my mind year after year.
Worst example I know of: Any and all NHL games (EASHL mode which is like FIFA Pro Clubs). E.g. if you are in Division 3 (out of 10), you are only matched against teams in Divisions 3, 2 and 4. Unfortunately the player count in that mode is often low enough to make you search for at least half an hour to be matched against a team that meets this requirement even though plenty of other teams in other divisions may be searching. It's so terrible and it still blows my mind year after year.