Board 8 > skill based matchmaking (sbmm) in multiplayer games

(+) Yeah! (+)

i came across this and saw that this was a relatively big debate recently. apparently the new Call of Duty Alpha adds in SBMM which caused a sizable amount of backlash. i was confused as hell because it seemed like everyone was mad SBMM was in and i could not understand why SBMM was a bad thing and was confused that SBMM was something else entirely than what it sounded like.

But no, skill based matchmaking is what it sounds like. It is when the game puts you in a match with other players of similar skill level. Apparently the majority of the playerbase as well as big community members are against this. The main argument I've seen is something along the lines that it punishes higher skill players by giving them matches where they are forced to try against players of similar skill.

This is one of the most baffling things I've ever heard because it sounds like "i only want to beat up on weaker players" and it seems like everyone thinks they're always in the position of being the higher skill player and not the one getting farmed by a higher skill player. Apparently, because the game does not have a ranked mode, every game for these higher skill players are unenjoyable because they have to "sweat" (the new? tryhard basically) against people of similar skill.

i don't play shooters so maybe someone who does can offer some perspective on this? Kind of sounds like the games are just shit if the only way most people can have fun is if they are playing against people worse than them and there's not even a ranked mode.

https://twitter.com/_MagnoliaEclair/status/1307165123711315968

it sounds like call of duty players are like exactly what you'd expect them to be like

edit: ok i actually read the tweets. i was very wrong. they're as whiny and privileged as i thought but even stupider

---

SBMM is... fine. What a weird whine.

---

from what i can tell its just scrubs mad they cant pubstomp

makes for some decent scrubquotes at least

---

I dunno being stomped/stomping every once in awhile is fun

---

I don't know about FPSes, but a fighting game ranked mode without this would be just the worst.

---

eh, ranked in fighting games have mostly just been shit and why nobody cared about them. Netcode issues aside, like there was an understanding among the experienced playerbase that ranked in these games did not matter and it was why all the good players would have their own lobbies/rooms in the player rooms and kick out all the bad connections. you kind of just had to go looking for your own matches. ideally you would have been matched with players of equal skill with a good connection but the playerbase was already small enough that you kind of just had to settle for one or the other in cases.

but yeh badly implemented matchmaking doesn't make the idea of SBMM bad. i think that may be what's going on here in some cases where some may not be arguing against the idea but the implementation of it in these games.

https://mobile.twitter.com/toph_bbq/status/1307837573079789568

---

super bash mothers melee
---

SeabassDebeste posted...

super bash mothers melee

---

this is funny

any decent game these days would obviously do skill based match making...

but i do get the appeal of wanting stomps. it's just fun to own and exult in how good you are at the game. it sucks being reminded every game that you actually are the one that sucks because you play against other players of your level or better. i remember having so much fun in the Overwatch beta because nobody knew what they were doing so you could own a bunch of people if you figured out what you were doing. A year after release, everybody has figured out what they are doing.... so I'm struggling to keep up cause i actually suck at games. It was more fun when I was winning! Now I'm always struggling. It's the same in pretty much any game, like Valorant now. It's fun for me early when everyone sucks and I can win, but when everyone is good and I don't put in a ton of effort to keep up, it can feel like smashing my head into a wall.

So being able to be matched up with some noobs and own them can feel nice. Queuing up some dumb arcade mode and owning noobs because there isn't much match making in there feels good.

...but ultimately it's a false feeling. you aren't winning because you are good. You are just winning because you are playing against players who never really had a chance against you. They are having a bad experience because they have no chance, and you are denying yourself the chance to improve your skills by playing against other players of your skill. You can't progress your ability if you constantly play against bad players who can't beat you... you have to play against other good players and lose, so you can figure out why you lost and be better next time.

That tweet by that bowlingballs guy is absolutely hysterical because he could not possibly be more wrong

---

Apparently it's not even a new feature to the CoD series:
https://twitter.com/Gunboken/status/1307683785958395906
---

can't get over how "sweat/sweaty" is the go-to descriptive term here

just a bunch of children, not much more to see here

it does suck because people reverse boost so that they stay at a low skill level and beat up on noobs

they did in old CoDs at least. You would see people with a K/D ratio of like .1 going ham every game, and afk people every game going like 0-20

---

What's the difference between this and "ranked"? I would've thought they were the same general thing but people are talking like it's not.

Also lolwut

---

This is hilarious and pathetic.

---

I just assume all competitive games have it built in because why wouldn't they?

---

it's well known CoD players are only happy when they're mercilessly murdering people new to the game

---

Tom Bombadil posted...

What's the difference between this and "ranked"? I would've thought they were the same general thing but people are talking like it's not.

Also lolwut

Some games have a "ranked" mode and an "unranked" or casual mode and in some games the unranked mode doesn't use SBMM.
---

If the game punishes you for being good by putting you in with other good players and you lose, wouldnt that lower you down back into games where youre competitive but just dont ALWAYS win?

Like, I get the complaint if it meant that you would forever be stuck in some high tier pond where you were one of the littlest fish, but I assume your in-game skill level it calculates would try to keep you in a group where everyone is of roughly equal skill and it fluctuates based on your performance

I feel like these people think that the best way to get better at something is to be shamed into oblivion. Like you start a martial arts class and youre not taught anything but you have to beat black belts to advance.
---

Waluigi1 posted...

I just assume all competitive games have it built in because why wouldn't they?

Because if skill mattered, why would people buy better boosts?
---

Tom Bombadil posted...

What's the difference between this and "ranked"? I would've thought they were the same general thing but people are talking like it's not.

Also lolwut

Ranked tends to come with rewards, so that gameplay mode tends to be a different animal than a general lobby. If I play ranked Apex and lose, I am further away from my goal/incentives. And that's OK if I like the games, but you do have a lot of players who play to the system.

Apex also has a tiered system where once you reach Silver/Gold/Plat/etc then you cannot fall into the previous tier. There are sub-tiers within those, but, if you're a borderline Gold/Plat player, you'll get stuck in Platinum 4 and the game mode is somewhat ruined for you.

---

i can understand why people are against this, to be fair - if "git gud" is the price, then smashing people is the reward

but if it's less fun to play the game vs people of your skill level, that's probably a sign that others aren't having fun playing with you, either
---

The best excuse I've heard against SBMM is that by prioritizing skill over connection, the quality of the game decreases.

As far as CoD goes, it may have less to do with winning/losing and more to do with calling in big killstreaks.

---

Isn't the big thing in COD to brag about your K/D? Seems like that will take a hit if you can't beat up on newbs.

---

I would much rather have a ranked mode and a casual mode where the ranked mode does skill based matchmaking and the casual mode does not. I don't really see the problem with this and it should satisfy everyone?
---

Like to me that was already the fundamental difference between the two modes in the first place, in other games.
---

i would think that even in casual/unranked mode you would want some type of SBMM. maybe with looser boundaries and prioritizing connection more but you wouldn't want the majority of your games in casual mode to be getting stomped either.

people make different accounts and smurf anyway regardless.

Also, CoD has had ranked in the past, but it was 4v4, and certain perks and killstreaks were restricted. So if you want SBMM you can't even play 6v6? That's whack

---

i haven't played fps games in a long time, but do play a lot of stuff with mmr (rocket league, starcraft 2)

i actually do understand their complaint. there's a time and place for matchmaking, and there's a time and place for more lobby-based play

multiplayer lobbies don't really exist anymore, but unranked play can simulate a piece of that feeling, and i think it makes a lot of sense for large free-for-all or large team-based games to have that sort of setting

---

Basically the streamers and youtubers were mad about it because they couldn't pubstomp and thus couldn't get the kind of footage they typically relied on for their videos. They complain about it online then all their followers and fans unquestioningly parrot the complaints

---

Personally, I don't think you need SBMM to make new players have fun. Just make your game more fun.

Old casual deathmatchy games like Quake certainly didn't have SBMM, and when you were bad at the game, you'd be low on the scoreboard usually, yeah, but you'd just focus on getting some kills, and focusing on getting better every game. And it was great.

And since who you were playing with was so random, you'd sometimes get high on the scoreboard anyway, even rank 1. Especially if you had a lucky match or were really warmed up.

The problem with games today is that their designs focus too much on "Victory" and "Defeat", the games reward you massively for victories, and make you feel like crap when losing. Designers realized this problem, but rather than making the games more fun, instead they implemented SBMM to ensure every player gets the same percentage of Victories (in a team game, 50%), since Victories are the only source of Fun.

But now there's no reason to get better--you're always going to get 50% victories, except with each victory, your MMR goes up, and you now have to put more energy in, to get the same amount of fun (50% fun).

---

any reasonable online game has some type of sbmm in all queues. For non ranked it could be way more lax but having nothing to sort the people who are really bad at the game from the ones who are even just average at it is a good way to get a lot of people to just quit.


---

UltimaterializerX posted...

So heres the thing. In the hands of a legitimate company, matches based on MMR (or elo, or SBMM, or whatever you want to call it) is the way to go. Look at League of Legends.

In the hands of Activision-Blizzard, it is 100% manipulated. They have literal patents on it.

what do you mean by manipulated?
---

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/10/activisions-patented-method-to-drive-microtransactions-with-matchmaking/

Activision has a patent on matchmaking systems to try and encourage people to spend money. One example given is pairing a player who likes sniper rifles with a more experienced player with a cool sniper rifle in hopes that the first player is encouraged to buy the rifle for themselves. If they do buy the rifle, they then get matched to maps where the rifle is particularly good in to try and reinforce the idea that it was a good purchase. It is unclear to what extent, if any, they have implemented this in a game. As of late 2017 they claim they have not implemented it yet.

I wouldn't really call this a form of skill based matchmaking since it isn't trying to match players based on skill.
---

SBMM that actually bases matchmaking off skill and puts you with/against people around your skill is fine.

Close games are a lot more fun than games where you absolutely stomp the other team, or get stomped yourself.

Unfortunately, more and more games aren't using SKILL based matchmaking, but matchmaking that attempts to keep you at an even win/loss rate.

Take Rogue Company as an example.

Our 4 stack will start the night off, get one or two lobbies where we roll people, and it's not fun.
Then we get put with people actually around our skill, and win or lose, the games are close, they're fun and we hav a blast.

Then, the game decides it's time for us to lose, and we get put up against full stacks that are leagues above us in terms of skill where we literally can't even get out of spawn. We end up stuck in those matches (even being put against the same team multiple times) for HOURS.

The first example sucks. The last example sucks. The middle is where the fun is, but those games are so few and far between.


---

I'll still never forget the time where I was playing with a friend back when I actually played Xbox (and had Xbox Live), and the two of us queued up in the 3v3 matches in Modern Warfare, but apparently the system just would not put us on the same team (even though we were connected both in game and through the call). We got paired up between two pairs, one group was honestly even weaker than my friend and I in general, either one of us could play better than either of the guys on one team. The others were way better than the two of us. We kept being matched with these two teams, and basically just would get swapped back and forth between which team we were on because of the matchmaking.

It was so predictive that the two of us decided just to use the grenade launcher equip on each other and the opponents until we got bored of playing the game in general.

---

My favorite thing in CoD was joining a match and being pummeled by someone who went 55-3.

---