- cross-posted to:
- brainworms@lemm.ee
You must log in or register to comment.
As a casual who didn’t start playing shooter games until late, if it wasn’t for SBMM I wouldn’t be playing them at all.
The real evil is engagement based matchmaking. I don’t want to beat players even newer than me every time I haven’t won in 20 games, and I certainly don’t want to be steamrolled by players who have been playing their whole lives when the same happens to them.
Yep, neither one is fun. I run into this issue with some mobile games - the matching algo is sometimes ludicrous - like 25% of either team gone in the opening moments.
Obviously, the arguments people make against it don’t even make sense
i want easy games, i don’t want people as good as me in the lobbies
then just tank
but I have to tryhard
“I want a non-consensual power fantasy.”
“I want to have fun at someone else’s expense. I want them to have an absolutely miserable time and for me to be the one who’s making it happen. I’m a bully, you see”
This is why I left Overwatch, they watered down the matchmaking so hard that it’s just random MM today.
Browsing through the PDF, I’m getting the vibe that their way of measuring “skill” is weird. They claim to use multiple methods of measuring, they list a few obvious ones that they’ve found to be bad, but they don’t say which ones they are using because “we are constantly iterating on our performance metrics to optimize the player experience per game-mode”.
Elo-like systems tend to adjust skill based on the chance of winning current match X win/loss, but they’re not (just) doing that. I wonder if they have a few weird metrics that look good on paper/in the lab but don’t feel good in play.