Poll of the Day > Do you like skill based matchmaking?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Personally I like random. I like going from challenging games to rooms filled with newbs to beat them into the ground. Most matchmaking games have a tendency to get sweaty.

---

I also prefer random. I think it's mostly because I'm not consistent from match to match with how good I am.

Smash Bros is what really stands out. The matchmaking in SSBU is discouraging because I feel like I only win about half the time. I won a lot more in SSB4.

---

Random. It's annoying to do well and be stuck with all sweaties.

---

I want to be consistently matched against other players at my skill level. It boggles my mind how many players prefer to get matched against 10 year olds to stroke their ego.

---

funkyfritter posted...

I want to be consistently matched against other players at my skill level. It boggles my mind how many players prefer to get matched against 10 year olds to stroke their ego.

It's not even that. And full of yourself much?

For me, it's a case of not wanting to play in parties or mic up and if I got matched with only other good players every game, I'd be up against dudes in parties using mics because that does have advantages and boost performance so it's gonna happen. Then I'm gonna get railed on a lot more up there because my choices will handicap me until I fall back down and lift myself up again, repeat. It's not fun. It actually does throw the balance off.

---

Raddest_Chad posted...

It's not even that. And full of yourself much?

For me, it's a case of not wanting to play in parties or mic up and if I got matched with only other good players every game, I'd be up against dudes in parties using mics because that does have advantages and boost performance so it's gonna happen. Then I'm gonna get railed on a lot more up there because my choices will handicap me until I fall back down and lift myself up again, repeat. It's not fun. It actually does throw the balance off.

Pairing solo players up with and against parties is a completely separately issue. It's also a very solvable one, which is why in games like Dota the matchmaker will balance party compositions of each team in addition to ranks.

E.G. If you queue up in a party with a friend there will be a duo on the opposing team as well.

---

I am very bad at any game with skill based matchmaking.
Dota apparently implemented solo matchmaking a little over a year ago. Very good addition and shows how bad i truly am.

---

funkyfritter posted...

Pairing solo players up with and against parties is a completely separately issue. It's also a very solvable one, which is why in games like Dota the matchmaker will balance party compositions of each team in addition to ranks.

E.G. If you queue up in a party with a friend there will be a duo on the opposing team as well.

That's a fair point. But I doubt anyone is going to have SBMM and parties/solos for a PVP FPS.

---

Sometimes the ten year-olds are legit better than me lol

---

faramir77 posted...

The matchmaking in SSBU is discouraging because I feel like I only win about half the time.

Isnt that right where matchmaking should place you?

I have mixed feelings. The advantage to playing against people of a similar ability is that you're less likely to have lopsided matches. However, sometimes it's really fun to curbstomp weaker opponents and, tbh, you can often learn more by getting destroyed by a far stronger opponent than you could by playing at your own level. And, if we've learned anything from the WWE, 50/50 booking is boring.

---

funkyfritter posted...

to stroke their ego.

uhhh... no?

---

blu posted...

Isnt that right where matchmaking should place you?

To be completely honest, yes. But it becomes pretty tiring. Win, lose, win, lose, win, lose. My issue is that it seems that when I win, it then places me against someone that I'll likely lose against.

If I use different characters (which I always do), it makes it even more screwed up.

---

One problem I have is games with skill based match making that also have ladders or reward blocks that are only accessed once you get high enough.

A mobile game I am playing has a limited time run mini/side game that has ranks and each rank has access to other mini game aspects. The problem is it matches you with skilled based match making so it is very, very frustrating to climb the hanks for the higher end rewards.

---

Zeus posted...

And, if we've learned anything from the WWE, 50/50 booking is boring.

Because all WWE booking is Heel vs Baby Face to generate artificial hype and to get the crowd to cheer on a specific entertainer. Don't act as if WWE is an actual competitive sport when it's not.

---

Skill based.

What is the point of having shithead teammates?

---

I don't play any games withauch functions

skill based obviously, I play competitive pvp games because I like to learn and improve, and I can't do that if I keep playing against armless children.

Kotenks posted...

TIme played should be in consideration. When I started playing Overwatc, I got matched up with people who had been playing for years. I didn't know the meta. I was doing decent because I was used to other shooters. People were yelling at me for not picking certain characters. I hadn't been playing long enough to understand why to pick one person over another. I shouldn't have been in games with those players.

Meta tryhards are in every skill level.

---

Halo 2 was optimal IMO.

Skill based matchmaking for ranked, random for unranked. And specifically the ranked version had no certainty value, you just lost or gained xp based on the level difference and placement on your team. I remember with halo 3's trueskill you could actually get an account stuck if you did it right because you'd make the formula certain that you were at the correct rank. I did that to a friends account. He was level 33. I won over 50 games in a row, he was still level 33. In order to actually unstick it, you had to just not play on it for a while.

The issue with a single "trueskill" rank is that you do maintain a 50-50 win loss and that goes against what feels correct. Our brain intuits that if we get better, we will win more and if we suck ass, we will win less. It's even a major incentive to improving like "oh damn, I hate losing all the time, I'm gonna get better so I can win". However, it's hard to really feel like your getting good when you just idle around a 50% win rate. Maybe it goes up to like 55% when you are getting better but you can barely feel that at all.

In the non skill matchmaking system, win ratio is effectively your rank and if you put in enough time, you will almost always win and that feels good.

I personally enjoy destroying my opponents as opposed to a hard fought victory most of the time. I'm fairly certain most people do.

---

If Cod teaches you anything it's to hate SBMM. It's for sweats, by sweats, and abused by sweats.

---

I think skill based matchmaking has a long way to go. ELO systems are bullshit if you can spend 12 matches finishing top 10 or even top 5 to gain 6 points only to have one match go badly from a lucky snipe or hacker to fall like 30 points.

It's the entire reason I quit pubg mobile around s10.

---

Skill based matchmaking is nonsense "Oh you lost 5 games in a row? Usually because of feeders on your team? Here face 3 matches where you beat the enemy in 10 minutes because they don't have any clue what they're doing! Oh you won those three matches? Here have 7 completely unwinnable ones!" Not even getting into smurfs.

Haven't played LoL or DOTA in ages because of it. It's not fun because you basically never get a match where it's a legitimate toss up if your team is going to win or lose.

I like what they did on mortal kombat x. It gave a ranking and a likelihood percentage of a win and u could decide to accept or decline.

BlackScythe0 posted...

Skill based matchmaking is nonsense "Oh you lost 5 games in a row? Usually because of feeders on your team? Here face 3 matches where you beat the enemy in 10 minutes because they don't have any clue what they're doing! Oh you won those three matches? Here have 7 completely unwinnable ones!" Not even getting into smurfs.

Haven't played LoL or DOTA in ages because of it. It's not fun because you basically never get a match where it's a legitimate toss up if your team is going to win or lose.

I think this is more a problem of so many variables in MOBAs. I've had a few times in LoL where I get the EXACT same 10 players 2 games in a row and they go completely differently. Both blowouts but for the opposite team the 2nd time. The difference between a feeder and the guy carrying your team is often times like 10 hp at level 3 and these people aren't the fucking math geniuses you'd have to be to actually calculate that out.

I guess what I'm saying is even if you have perfect skill based matchmaking in a MOBA you'd still end up with mostly blowouts just cause of the nature of the game. Hell, even in pro where teams are super coordinated and safe and play very risk averse, you still see it happen a lot.

And then to add on to that, the irrationality to have solo queue in a game where coordination matters so much is crazy.

---

Depends strongly on the game.

Hunt: Showdown - max team size of 3, meant to be a balanced experience, has ELO based matchmaking.

Escape from Tarkov - team sizes anywhere from 1-6 (or more with coordination), meant to be a random experience where anything can happen, no matchmaking system whatsoever.

---