Edit: it’s a meme y’all, chill out. The original was “stop doing math”, it’s not supposed to be serious.

  • EnsignRedshirt [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    3 months ago

    SBMM is fine as an option for 1v1 games, but it’s so bad for team games. It actively foments toxicity between players, and it often doesn’t even work that well. I remember playing League of Legends and only one in maybe five or ten games was actually good. The rest were ruined by leavers, smurfs, toxicity, or just bad matchups that made the games lopsided. You win as many of those games as you lose, but winning lopsided games gets old.

    It doesn’t help that a lot of these games aren’t even that much fun to begin with. A good game should be fun whether you win or lose, but a lot of these games are only really enjoyable if you’re winning. The play gets overshadowed by the competition and skinner box mechanics, leaving a hollow experience for the vast majority of players.

    • SeekTheDeletion [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      3 months ago

      The rest were ruined by leavers, smurfs, toxicity, or just bad matchups that made the games lopsided

      leavers

      just ban them after a couple offenses

      smurfs

      matchmaking system should be able to detect smurfs (high KDAs, high win rates, other metrics) and boost their hidden ELO very quickly - thus making them no longer smurfs

      toxicity

      just ban them after a couple offenses

      bad matchups

      matchmaking makes this better, not worse. without skill based matchmaking you would have even more lopsided games with even more disproportionate skills

      Seems like the real issue with League is Riot’s unwillingness to permaban players and enforce its rules, instead trying to retain the toxic players forever and coddling their behavior with special queues. Part of this is that toxic players pay just as much (if not more) money than other players, and the other part is that it would be expensive to hire enough GMs to actually review all the cases of toxicity in chat. The problem isn’t the matchmaking, it’s riot being cheap

      • EnsignRedshirt [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        Seems like the real issue with League is Riot’s unwillingness to permaban players and enforce its rules

        Agreed. It’s possible to solve these problems, but Riot didn’t care enough to solve them, or they had an underlying motivation to keep toxic players around. It does seem like a problem that’s not unique to Riot, though. I think there are some structural issues in these games that makes it easy for companies to ignore the player experience in favor of just keeping people playing. It’s probably similar to all the attention economy websites where they don’t care if you’re getting value, they only care that you’re still on the platform.

    • Grebgreb [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 months ago

      My recent experience with skill based mm in team games has been similarly bad. It feels like it uses a very bad flat score-like system that makes games quickly devolve into extremely lopsided slogs because the system thinks pairing a slightly higher ranked player with some number of slightly lower ranked ones is a good match for several average ones. Practically every game I played would have most of one team’s players doing exceptionally poorly with one or two doing exceptionally well, while the other, winning team would consist of mostly everyone doing averagely well.

      There is usually a very small window after updates where it feels like everything gets reset and then it’s possible to get some more enjoyable matches before it returns to the norm where you can probably determine who will win within the first few minutes.

      • EnsignRedshirt [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        3 months ago

        you can probably determine who will win within the first few minutes.

        This is a big part of the problem with a lot of these games, imo. The matches take too long to resolve, or have too much lead time to get to the part that’s actually fun and dynamic. It’s easy to criticize, but it’s a genuine problem if half of any given match is spent either ramping up or winding down to the natural conclusion, with the other half being the game that everyone actually wants to play.

    • Roonerino [they/them]@hexbear.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 months ago

      Yeah it makes a lot more sense for some types of games than others, RTS games are a good example. Even so, the lobby/custom game browser setup mostly worked fine for Red Alert 2 and Generals and Blizzard RTSes always had that option alongside the ranked modes.