The paper goes on to confirm what has, to me, always been the most obvious reason to have SBMM: random matchmaking primarily benefits really good players, and disproportionately sucks for average-skilled players.
Yeah exactly. I avoid pvp like the plague these days.
Somewhere there is a fascinating talk that breaks down how modern matchmaking is designed to manipulate the players’ experience - give them less skilled players they can destroy which feels good, make a little boring stretch which will create a hunger for something to happen which can then be filled by microtransactions, and so on. Some company (Blizzard?) actually has a patent on it.
How does it suck for average players? Because you think you’re good and must suffer playing with people who aren’t; even though you ain’t either? 🤨
You didn’t read the post right. Non SBMM sucks for the average player because half the players you encounter will be better than you. Good players may enjoy this system because they will be put against mainly players worse than themselves.
Under a good system, every rank except for the absolute top and absolute bottom should have that “problem.” If you are where you should be, you would statistically only be winning around 50% of the games you play. If you ought to be lower, you’d lose more. If you ought to be higher, you’d win more.
It sounds more like the issue is bad for the average player, not skill wise but the average person playing the game, doesn’t want to ever be stuck in a rank or go down; they want to feel like they’re getting better all the time by winning all the time.
Your first paragraph, I generally agree with, the second is tangential. They’re looking at whether they prefer randomized games or games with SBMM. Not, is there a way to make players feel like they’re always improving or what’s the best way to have randomized games without SBMM. Just, do people enjoy SBMM or not. based on the informal study by Activision, people generally prefer SBMM, whether they know it or not.
