• missingno@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    I don’t think that analogy makes sense. The parent and child would be two players with a massive skill gap between them. The point of matchmaking is that you don’t match them against each other to begin with, rather than asking the parent to hold back.

    • azertyfun
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      But some people like (or at least romanticize) that they got to have that uneven experience with their parent/child. And when the parent holds back, the analogy still holds from the POV of the child who is matched with an “even opponent”.

      I understand the point of SBBM, but it is not the only valid way to do matchmaking (all that is actually required from a balance perspective is evenly matched teams).

      Your comment’s underlying hypothesis is that uneven skill matchups are bad. I challenge that hypothesis. In a game with large teams, facing the whole breadth of the skill distribution is a different, but nonetheless rewarding experience that makes skill improvements much more concrete and satisfying than a different badge color. I’m not saying it’s the superior way and that SBBM is evil, but the original commenter asked for reasons why people would like non-SBMM and I don’t think non-SBBM is evil either.