HeisenbergFX4
Member
You see how many different lobbies you can queue into already?
Player base is split a lot of ways as is and I think COD could handle one more queue
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Activision Blizzard released a 25 page study with an A/B test where they secretly progressively turned off SBMM and and turns out everyone hated it
Player base is split a lot of ways as is and I think COD could handle one more queue
HeisenbergFX4
Member
k/d is so easy to manipulate by sitting in a dark corner and going 5-1 every map
People not playing objectives is why I play TDM or Kill Confirmed 99% of the time when I am solo
Humans are weird that way - reminds me of the good old days before Match Making where you made a room description in some games and watch people get in.
I've repeatedly made rooms that called for 'no newbies allowed' and predictably - almost everyone joining was a beginner.
Naturally - to test this further I flipped it and started playing in rooms titled 'beginners only' - not only that led to almost no beginners in the rooms, the amount of high end players joining was just ridiculous. I think that was the first time I ended up playing matches against multiple players within top 100 globally
I guess they just love whaling on newbs or something - I dunno...
Last edited:
dsp
Member
I used to play Enemy Territory at the highest "pro" level and I can't even imagine how annoying that would be. We had dedicated casual pub servers just for people at our level and even then some beta trash would accuse you of botting.
Saying the top 10 percent weren't as affected is nonsense. Playing with unskilled players is not helpful for anything except as an ego boost.
Saying the top 10 percent weren't as affected is nonsense. Playing with unskilled players is not helpful for anything except as an ego boost.
IntentionalPun
Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
Sure, just saying it's a pretty drastic change.
It's not "one more queue", it's double the queues.
Last edited:
Pegasus Actual
Member
Rocket League has some advantages as far as matchmaking.
- Smaller teams, 1v1, 2v2, 3v3 being the competitive modes means that your 'skill' contribution is relatively larger and easier to solve for
- People are almost always playing the 'objective', no weird metagames where you're trying to unlock gold camos for every gun leaving you playing with a trash-tier weapon and thus performing worse than normal
- Far greater depth in the game in terms of mechanics and tactics.
- COD lobby always boils down to I WENT 12-4 AND YOU WENT 8-12 YOU FUCKING SUCK. Not always, but generally Rocket League players have a concept that you can contribute to plays without scoring goals, and that good defense helps win games.
Segregating 2+ k/d players into their own lobbies just instantly brings them back under 2 k/d.
You're playing to win in lobbies where most of the time most of the players aren't really playing to win. Some won't play to win at all. Others will notice they're losing halfway through and engage try-hard mode.
In COD, Search & Destroy was usually semi-competitive. Though actually getting bomb plants down wasn't that common and it usually ends up being more of a round based TDM mode.
They've done various competitive modes over the years, though I'm not sure what they've done lately. I thought Black Ops 2 competitive was pretty good, but not that well populated. The MW reboot had the 2v2 Gunfight mode which I really enjoyed, but Cold War pretty much ruined the concept, don't know where it went from there.
For my part I moved on to Rainbow 6: Siege for my competitive FPS fix. Just better designed for people to try to win, and far more depth to the gameplay. Granted it can be even dare-I-say more toxic than COD at times. But there's a sense of progression to learning and improving at the game that doesn't really exist in COD.
Mr Reasonable
Completely Unreasonable
Even collecting the tags is too much to ask for with a lot of people!
On topic, I think there's probably enough people who are rated roughly as skilled as you are and with enough variables in the game, I don't find it hard to believe that people can regularly have games where they do well or they do badly.
Either way, even if it was dramatically swinging one way and the other, game to game, I'm ok with having some games where I'm top of the scoreboard and sometimes the bottom.
Better that than steamrolling a bunch of noobs, which despite protestations (edit: not directed anyone here), is what at least some players want, imo.
Last edited:
HeisenbergFX4
Member
Yeah I never want to get on a steamroll noobs left and right, might as well play against the bots
I just hate when I get on a roll I know coming up very soon SBMM is going to predetermine I am about to get my teeth kicked in
ChuckeRearmed
Member
How many online shooter games did you have 10-15 years ago? Now you have no shortage of online fps including big ones. In 2010? COD and what Battlefield (at best?).
Now you have tons and tons online games with living huge communities in various genres.
clarky
Gold Member
10- 15 years ago?
Halo, Titanfall COD, Battlefield, Destiny, Counter strike, TF2, Planetside, Killzone, Quake.
Thats just off the top of my head.
Shit loads.
Last edited:
Audiophile
Member
Random is still fairest and the most fun once you cut your teeth and achieve a baseline level of skill. Keep a protected bracket of course and then keep heavier SBMM to ranked playlists.
The whole "skilled players just wanna stomp people" thing is a strawman for most. It's more to do with the absurd predictability with how the game swings one way or the other, the game ends up playing you and it's completely inorganic.
Everyone had to sweat and overcome difficulty, getting their arse handed to them early on in most games, but you get better steadily and become a better match for a larger chunk of the playerbase as you go, it evened itself out in a much more natural way and it'd soon make for casual fun.
With SBMM as they have it now you have a good game or two and then you get it hard to the point it's insurmountable, then you have a shit game and it's back the other way for another round or two. Getting a variety of difficulty levels at chance gives you shot a overcoming moderate odds. Rapid switching between too easy and ridiculously hard means there's minimal chance at working your way up. The problem is, people who push and try to do better and expand their capabilities get pushed further and further into this swinging back and forth while mediocre players just sit happily in the middle doing alright.
The more initiative you have the more your get punished, it's not a case of "oh you should just get better", it's a case of there being no chance to ramp up. With a random approach you get a bunch of those chances scattered in there.
Everyone eventually settles into a pocket where people who are trying have whiplash getting it too easy or having too extreme a challenge, then people who aren't really trying or developing stagnating with basically no challenge at all one way or the other.
I know tonnes of people who played COD and none of them play it anymore. The bulk of the loyal core fans have given up after years. SBMM is about retention of the fickle masses to satisfy the algorithm and maximise monetisation in the short-term.
The whole "skilled players just wanna stomp people" thing is a strawman for most. It's more to do with the absurd predictability with how the game swings one way or the other, the game ends up playing you and it's completely inorganic.
Everyone had to sweat and overcome difficulty, getting their arse handed to them early on in most games, but you get better steadily and become a better match for a larger chunk of the playerbase as you go, it evened itself out in a much more natural way and it'd soon make for casual fun.
With SBMM as they have it now you have a good game or two and then you get it hard to the point it's insurmountable, then you have a shit game and it's back the other way for another round or two. Getting a variety of difficulty levels at chance gives you shot a overcoming moderate odds. Rapid switching between too easy and ridiculously hard means there's minimal chance at working your way up. The problem is, people who push and try to do better and expand their capabilities get pushed further and further into this swinging back and forth while mediocre players just sit happily in the middle doing alright.
The more initiative you have the more your get punished, it's not a case of "oh you should just get better", it's a case of there being no chance to ramp up. With a random approach you get a bunch of those chances scattered in there.
Everyone eventually settles into a pocket where people who are trying have whiplash getting it too easy or having too extreme a challenge, then people who aren't really trying or developing stagnating with basically no challenge at all one way or the other.
I know tonnes of people who played COD and none of them play it anymore. The bulk of the loyal core fans have given up after years. SBMM is about retention of the fickle masses to satisfy the algorithm and maximise monetisation in the short-term.
ShadowLag
Member
SBMM is dogshit. If I do slightly good and have a couple fun matches in a row, suddenly the next 10 matches I'm up against the literal best god tier players in the world for no reason.
That said, why in the hell isn't it just a checkbox to give players the matchmaking experience they want?
That said, why in the hell isn't it just a checkbox to give players the matchmaking experience they want?
POKEYCLYDE
Member
It's not that gamers don't like SBMM, it's the fact that their algorithm uses SBMM to "keep players playing".
They use SBMM to rig matches. They've studied how long players can get stomped on before they call it quits, so they'll put you in higher skilled lobbies for a bit before matching you against scrubs. A cycle of frustration and dopamine designed to keep you playing.
If SBMM was actually used properly, similar skilled players playing against each other, it would be great.
They use SBMM to rig matches. They've studied how long players can get stomped on before they call it quits, so they'll put you in higher skilled lobbies for a bit before matching you against scrubs. A cycle of frustration and dopamine designed to keep you playing.
If SBMM was actually used properly, similar skilled players playing against each other, it would be great.
Audiophile
Member
As implemented it's not a pragmatic system for encouraging players to improve in realistic ways. It's basically an equity solution to get the majority of players into little comfort zones for player retention and subsequent monetisation. At the expense of punishing players who actually try to evolve their game.
diffusionx
Gold Member
SBMM is used to enforce a 50% win rate. You never really feel any sense of progression because you spend half the time stomping and half the time getting stomped. Like, if my skill level is 500, half my games are against 250s, and half my games are against 750s. If I improve to 750, half my games are against 500s and half my games are against 1000, but it looks exactly the same to me. This was exactly mexperience with Cold War... And yet I played a LOT of Cold War. So I was part of the problem, but it was a fun game. It was exactly the same situation in MW2 but I didn't play that long because that game sucked.
I remember there were times when, like, I had a bunch of good games in a row and just knew I would get destroyed the next game... And I was destroyed the next game. When you can set your watch to SBMM's algorithm, then that's a problem. They need to find a way to make it less obvious.
I remember there were times when, like, I had a bunch of good games in a row and just knew I would get destroyed the next game... And I was destroyed the next game. When you can set your watch to SBMM's algorithm, then that's a problem. They need to find a way to make it less obvious.
Last edited:
Itchy Tickles
Member
SBMM makes sense to most, and the ones who complain about it the loudest are usually the ones who are happy to kill less skilled / experienced players over and over, but cry when they get the odd wake up call. How do you expect to get better if you don't get challenged?
I swear I've seen some of them comment with stuff like this, "it's not fair I get punished for being good. What's the point in being good only to then get matched against better players?" It's quite strange.
Oh boy, look at this quote from the CoD subreddit "SBMM is one of the biggest anti-gamer things in the entire industry and its painful that its actually defended by some morons."
They sound like the players / streamers who actually race amongst themselves to reach max prestige on day of release, which might explain their thought process or lack of it. Speedrun to max level and feel like you are superior, then when people catch up at their pace and beat them, it's SBMMs fault.
Though I suppose SBMM is bad when it effects people who make noobtube videos or videos of them getting 3 nukes a night. Poor wee creatures, breaks your heart.... bro!!!!
I swear I've seen some of them comment with stuff like this, "it's not fair I get punished for being good. What's the point in being good only to then get matched against better players?" It's quite strange.
Oh boy, look at this quote from the CoD subreddit "SBMM is one of the biggest anti-gamer things in the entire industry and its painful that its actually defended by some morons."
They sound like the players / streamers who actually race amongst themselves to reach max prestige on day of release, which might explain their thought process or lack of it. Speedrun to max level and feel like you are superior, then when people catch up at their pace and beat them, it's SBMMs fault.
Though I suppose SBMM is bad when it effects people who make noobtube videos or videos of them getting 3 nukes a night. Poor wee creatures, breaks your heart.... bro!!!!
HeisenbergFX4
Member
I was playing online FPS in the late 1990s, Delta Force to be exact
People forget how many great shooters there have been outside of COD and BF
Arma is another that comes to mind and PUBG start in Arma 2 as just a mod was a great shooter
clarky
Gold Member
Aye, since the birth of online play there has been no shortage of games to shoot people in.
I was addicted to Quake Arena back in the day.
Last edited:
CLW
Member
There’s a difference between being a triggered snowflake influencer online and the general gamer.
If I read correctly people play more (what actually wants) with the skill system in place no amount of crying from the twitch streamers can change that
TerribleAtThisGame
Member
I play a ton of Hunt: Showdown. Their Quickplay mode doesn't allow SBMM and it's half-dead and when it isn't it's a no-lifer Giga Chad player steamrolling the entire lobby while brandnew players try to learn the game.
If I consistently had to play against top tier teams, I'd probably drop the game.
If I consistently had to play against top tier teams, I'd probably drop the game.
Winter John
Member
If it wasn’t for that damn SBMM I would be top 5 in the world. Instead I keep getting matched with sweats, cheats and bums with potato internet connections. It’s the only explanation for why I’m pretty much last in every match.
LegendOfKage
Member
Call of Duty doesn't have skill based match making, it has retention based match making. It sets you up to lose as much as possible, until the statistical point where you need to win or you'll stop playing the game. If that doesn't sound like good game design to you, then I suggest never playing call of duty.
Dorfdad
Gold Member
Play three games and shut down for the night lol! It’s always that 4th game I try to win and pushes me to loses. I have a hard time getting off with loses so I play more just to keep punishing myself! It’s a sickness
RagnarokIV
Battlebus imprisoning me \m/ >.< \m/
I hate fighting in brown and black belt brackets.
If only there was a way I could beat up on white belts with no challenge.
Also, unrelated but SBMM in COD sucks!!
If only there was a way I could beat up on white belts with no challenge.
Also, unrelated but SBMM in COD sucks!!
Bry0
Member
I like to think of it as the “Reddit effect”
Phase
Member
For games like UT and BF I just played good player run servers, so SBMM didn't apply. So what did the Halo games have? Because those were some of the most fun MP games I ever played, and I played all levels. From social slayer and BTB to level 50 snipers, slayer, rumble pit/lone wolves.
Last edited:
Soulja
Member
As a guy who loves playing domination, I would like to see objective based match making. I'm sick of being in lobbies full of people who have zero interest in planing the objective and only care about K/D. I would also like to see match making based on playstyles. I'm an old skool cod player and I can't slide and jump all over the place and I would like to play against similar players aka old people.
clarky
Gold Member
Jump based matchmaking, that's a new one.
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
I dont get why its that hard to give gamers a choice between SBMM (competitive ranked) and no SBMM (random unranked lobbies). COD is a game with so many players, you'd still have tons of gamers in each mode.
For gamers ho care a lot about stats, track two sets. One for each type.
For gamers ho care a lot about stats, track two sets. One for each type.
Last edited:
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
As for a non-gaming example, it's like golf.
If your company does annual golf tournaments, SBMM is like your group of 4 is a preset team by the organizer based on skill level. Good players are a team and bad players are a team. No-SBMM is everyone in the office making their own groups whether teammates are good or suck. It'll end up being based on who you like playing with regardless of skill level.
Depending how competitive you are and how much variety you want to see in a foursome, you'll like one or the other option.,
Last edited:
clarky
Gold Member
I think the theory goes without any form of matchmaking at all, all you end up with are the very best players and everyone else just moves onto something else.
Then you player base just keeps getting smaller as time goes on because new players just get dunked on and drop your game.
I feel like their should be tight SBMM in ranked and then very loose SBMM in the casual modes. A nice middle ground.
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
That assumes a bad player keeps losing. Good players can happen on any team and carry the match. So even bad players can win too.
The best option is give gamers two sets of lobbies. Or one set of lobbies but still give gamers a choice between SBMM and no SBMM. In this situation it wont be perfect, but there will be tons of people choosing one or the other, which would at least help so the end result is a middle ground.
clarky
Gold Member
I like SBMM when its done right, just i don't like the current version of it in COD. The Ranked playlist is, oddly enough vastly more enjoyable, as long as you can handle the sweat.
It would be nice to be able to jump into the regular games and chill but the MM is way too aggressive.
Interesting if they did turn it off completely, id like to see how it plays. I don't believe a word of what Activision says in regards to that article..
Last edited:
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
Or just make an unranked mode with no stats tracked. Lets face it, a lot of gamers care about stats. Thats why they try so hard to win and rack up k/d and kills.
Just have a super casual playlist where gamers can join in and play how they want win or lose, and zero W/L, stats and XP tracked. Just goof around for hours all night and not worry one bit how it affects your stats.
Cant be that hard to implement.
clarky
Gold Member
Have you played Xdefiant? I personally don't like the game but that has no SBMM at all. Curious to see how that's working out for them.
HeisenbergFX4
Member
Don't
People have been asking for an explanation of SBMM for how long and it took them this long to write up that?
Have been told something that even figures in on this experience based MM is how much money you have spent inside the game
Meaning if someone has not spent much they are often paired with whales in the pregame lobby so you can see their fancy skins hoping to sell more
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
I play TDM most of the time as it's the easiest mode to understand and you dont have to worry about people goofing around Objectives Modes only going for kills. But it doesn't even have to be that complex for people to not play well.
Even in TDM, there can be a good sniper on the other team or they got tons of UAV and CUAV. Nothing from teammates to counter it. So I always make a class with smoke bombs to piss off snipers or a rocket launcher to take down enemy killstreaks.
Personally, I dont think 95% adjust their secondary weapon or throwable. They just leave it at a default pistol and default grenade in those slots.
Last edited:
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
Nope. Havent tried it.
LegendOfKage
Member
Thread title should be changed to "Massive corporation explains that the manipulation techniques they use for player retention and profit are actually a good thing, according to the report that they wrote, based on the the research that they conducted."
clarky
Gold Member
More that i think there is more to it that they are telling us. If the first few matches of the day were how it worked period, i'd have no issues.
I think someone in the thread earlier nailed it, its retention based matchmaking.
You know from experience how it works.
Last edited:
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
No doubt.
And thats why COD does those showboaty lobbies where it shows everyone and what everyone's character looks like. To tease people to look into mtx skins.
HeisenbergFX4
Member
Its out there the average player has a less than .9 k/d and you are right they want to protect the masses
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
It's totally retention. Although for gamers who dont like SBMM, it'll piss off those gamers.
But I noticed like many of you the first few atches I do fine, but then by the 5th match it oddly seems harder. So they give gamers a gimme to give gamers some happy matches to keep them around.
No different than dating apps. If you dont use them, what they often do when you first load it up is the first 5-10 matches are hot chicks. They purposely put in your face ones that are either fakes, or they are real profiles who got tons of swipe rights. So they know there's good chance you'll like them too and swipe right. It keeps you using it. Then by chick #8, you notice it goes back to normal looking women. You swipe left 10 or 20 times in a row and quit the app. Rinse and repeat the next day.
If the algorithm truly put in women you want based on what youre looking for and distance, you'd get tons of normal women immediately from the first pic you open the app daily. But if you swipe left for pages you'll lose interest and quit the app for good. But if they inject those 10 hot ones every day, it teases you to stick around hoping one of them likes you back.
Last edited:
![[Sigma]](/data/avatars/m/701/701747.jpg?1726376545){kind=avatar}
clarky
Gold Member
Totally off topic but you just reminded me of that Ashley Madison documentary where are the chicks on the app are either bots or a fat bird in the office. That was fucked up. Best con i've seen I a long time.
Sorry for the derail. Carry on.
Last edited:
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
Quick side derail too:
My buddy worked at a dating site company. Not only are a lot of those popular sites owned by the same handful of companies, but if you sign up on one it's shared across all the sister sites.
And a lot of profiles are fakes created by the company. Of course, they will skew to good looking people. My buddy knows very well as he was in the marketing department.
efyu_lemonardo
May I have a cookie?
I don't even play CoD but have to commend Activision for not only conducting such a thorough study but also releasing it to the public. That level of transparency is rare in this industry.
clarky
Gold Member
Matchmaking seems to be the bain of all our lives, regardless. lol.
clarky
Gold Member
I think there's a lot missing from what they have presented here. But it is nice to see them at least pretend to be honest.