SgtWaffleSound t1_ja8ri9m wrote
I was playing on my girlfriend's overwatch account one time. She doesn't play shooters very much and I've been playing them since I was like 10 years old. The difference in skill in the lobbies I was getting was overwhelming. These were people who had trouble with basic mouse movement and controls. I was destroying the entire team by myself, they literally couldn't do anything to stop me. If every game was like that, I'd imagine a lot of people would just stop playing.
det3ct t1_ja8wd5k wrote
and this is where you don’t realize that you’re in that bracket, so you’re only going to play against other bad players.
i think they’re should be only one protected bracket, and that’s for the players you played against, but after that it’s free game.
i’ll use the base statistics to say that in a game like Call of Duty, i think everybody who has a .80 KD and below should be bracketed off and protected, but after that it is completely and entirely random, and connection based. the odds are, with the amount of average players in the game, those .90kd players aren’t even going to see way better players than them anyway because there’s way less better players queuing at the same time as them.
Judge216 t1_ja8w19y wrote
But if there is no rating then it's essentially random or matched by connection quality or something so by definition it couldn't happen every game.
Mrkancode t1_ja8wm7b wrote
There is a way higher percentage of lower skilled players than high skill players. With no SBMM then medium to high skill players can take advantage of the randomness to steamroll players who don't have a chance. If this is "fun" for you, go play single player.
xaria187 t1_ja91gxr wrote
You just contradicted yourself tho. If most players are low skilled than having no sbmm doesn’t matter cause majority of the time they will play against other low skill players.
LetsGoChamp19 t1_ja97yb3 wrote
But all it takes is 1 higher skilled player to ruin the fun for the entire lobby. His team won’t get many kills because he’s taking them all and the other team won’t stand a chance
Mrkancode t1_ja998o6 wrote
No. You just don't understand how much 1 good player can carry a multiplayer game.
xaria187 t1_ja9im3b wrote
The likelihood is low. Connection based matchmaking has always been more fun.
Mrkancode t1_ja9jyl9 wrote
>The likelihood is low.
No it isn't. You're wrong.
>Connection based matchmaking has always been more fun.
No it isn't. You're wrong.
Git gud.
Judge216 t1_ja9xg1y wrote
I think he's right on both accounts. Ranked has a place but so does social, meaning random matchmaking. The arguement that a low skill player is gonna quit the game because they get stomped by someone much better in a random lobbey is silly because if they want to be matched against someone their skill level they can play RANKED. I just miss the halo 3 days of ranked social split where social was the wild west. You could get a game with guests on your team or the enemy team, a team of complete beginners or a team of sweats, it was fun as hell. A person who is gonna quit the game after getting stomped is not the player to cater to, trying to protect them is silly, they are not gonna sustain the game. The reality is microstransactions have curbed game design in an attempt to maximize player base.
Mrkancode t1_jaa0ziz wrote
>The arguement that a low skill player is gonna quit the game because they get stomped by someone much better in a random lobbey is silly because if they want to be matched against someone their skill level they can play RANKED.
This is redundant. Casual players play casual modes to avoid competitive play. You are suggesting more casual players should play more competitive modes to avoid casual games.
>hell. A person who is gonna quit the game after getting stomped is not the player to cater to, trying to protect them is silly, they are not gonna sustain the game.
This is a straw man. This isn't about retaining new players. It's about providing a consistent experience for everyone who plays it across the board in as many situations as possible.
>just miss the halo 3 days of ranked social split where social was the wild west.
Yeah this was super cool except the lobbies would have to reset and we would spend 45 seconds loading because a salty player left the game and the whole time the host could just walk around and rack up kills on everyone while the rest of the lobby was black screened. That's why myself and probably you too rarely touched social because it was toxic as hell. Everyone played ranked to avoid losers who rage quit or mic spammed. Which only adds to my point.
I loved halo as well but you're looking through rose tinted glasses.
Edit: remember, the goal is to have as many people with a 50% win rate as possible. If your wr is above 50 and you're complaining about SBMM, you're actually a fucking child.
xaria187 t1_ja9zywf wrote
I am good that’s why I hate sbmm. Only bad players benefit from it
Mrkancode t1_jaa2fns wrote
Lol. No. You started good and can't improve. That's why as your skill rank climbs, you get worse. The players you go against at higher ranks are legit better at getting better and that's why you feel worse. Theres a reason devs ignore you guys. You are a very small minority of the community and you're just yelling at the sky because you don't understand why everyone in the game doesn't die as soon as you look at them. It's a you issue. Be introspective for fucks sake. There's coaching vids for every game under the sun where this topic is discussed in detail. But you wouldn't know because you don't care about getting better. As far as you're concerned, you're the best. And that's the issue. You're not.
[deleted] t1_jaa4wgk wrote
[removed]
Mrkancode t1_jaa608m wrote
Because it's universally been great for multiplayer. There's A GDC talk about how it has improved the overall performance of players across gaming in general because it forces players to adapt to remain competitive. But some people can't adapt and stay competitive. They don't know how to get good and then they throw a tantrum and tell everyone it's the games fault they got wrecked. Imagine being that immature. Must be embarrassing.
Rev1is t1_jabpv3f wrote
It takes only one higher skill player(doesnt even have to be top tier) to ruin the fun for new players. If you need to go on killstreaks agaisnt players who barely know how move around, make a custom lobby with bots.
DaveAndJojo t1_ja93t7o wrote
If you’re in the bottom 10% of players there’s a 90% chance you are going to get your ass handed to you without mmr.
Casual means exactly that. “Casual”.
Play casually. You will get easy lobbies and difficult lobbies. An issue I see is that many players take casual too seriously. When they’re down they switch to their sweat set up or main. They stop going for fun plays and start playing like it’s the MLG world championships because someone else is casually beating them.
Let go. If you lose, good! You get an easier lobby. If you win, good! Someone who is better than you will beat you.
If you fight to win every casual match you’re going to eventually get to the point where it feels like sloppy comp.
McTheoran OP t1_ja8s1ff wrote
Yes. That wouldn't be every game, and it never was back when. Having a entry level list/mode would be ideal for this.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments