It’s not a fair match because if they do good and learn, it punishes them by putting them in a match against far superior enemies. This was demonstrated in Call of Duty. You have so much evidence in front of you for this being a bad idea yet you don’t care.
1 Like
Telling you evidence based on facts with how the player base of a casual shooter, call of duty in this case, is not Anecdotal.
A new player shouldn’t be at 11.7, so that point makes no sense.
SBM does not work because it punishes progress. You can go look at player statistics for Call of Duty when they implemented it. No one enjoyed it.
1 Like
You seem to have a very weird impression of ranking system. A good system wouldn’t put you against better players just because of couple good games, it’s meant to put you against equal opponents.
Stop using a single game as an argument, just because it has been badly done, doesn’t mean a ranking system is a bad idea in semi-competitive game.
1 Like
SBM is not a ranking system. It simply takes your performance and tries to match it with other players. There are no ranks involved. I’m giving you evidence, yet you don’t listen. It did NOT work in Call of Duty and it won’t work here. You can’t just ignore an example because “it’s only one game”, that’s stupid. Skill Based Matchmaking won’t do anything but upset more players and it has done that in every game it has ever been implemented in.
Where is the incentive to improve and invest time getting better if you won’t reap the rewards and get ahead of the competition?
1 Like
Overwatch 2 is a casual shooter and rank based MM seems to work out fine.
Now we’ve 2 examples, one for and one against, hm what shall we do?
I can ignore your argument because it’s irrelevant. Badly implemented system is not an argument against the system. That’s like saying VAR in football (for example) is bad because refs are incompetent.
Literally no one likes Overwatch 2. Immediately disproven by this screenshot from steam.
2 Likes
At least be bothered to research why the game has overwhelmingly negative reviews if you’re going to use it as an argument.
They upset their Chinese playerbase. You can’t pull that trick on me.
We’re not doing the “that one doesn’t count” situation you want.
1 Like
So what does making Chinese people angry due to business decisions have to do with matchmaking and ranked system?
The entire game is bad. No one likes it because they screwed their player base over. Constant lies and Unfulfilled promises.
There are hundreds of videos talking about how bad the game is and the Matchmaker is one of the main points. You shouldn’t use a bad game’s main mechanic as an example of what’s a good mechanic. That’s a horrible idea.
Weirdly, their argument for matchmaking system being broken is because it’s bugged and high skilled players play against bad players :)
The absence of a skill-based matchmaking system means that less experienced players are matched against more experienced ones. This is essentially equivalent to forcing a newbie to play in an 11.7 br
Call of duty has skill based matchmaking, every damn game that boasts of being competitive has it. Even War Thunder has it own way.
Because it doesn’t work right. What are you not getting?
Where is the incentive to improve and invest time getting better if you won’t reap the rewards and get ahead of the competition?
I shouldn’t have to repeat this.
So does it not work right, because Skill based matchmaking it’s bad it’s core, or is it because it’s implemented badly?
Why should incentive be there in casual game? If you don’t call war thunder casual, well then.
CS:GO, LOL, DOTA2, Six Siege, Apex Legends, Valorant
A. It breaks fundamentally easily. All someone has to do is load into a match and leave or die three times to seal club easily.
B. It breaks the fundamental reason why we play games like War Thunder. Everyone plays to get better, but with SBMM, it strips that away and punishes you for playing well. This was proven in Call of Duty and several other games. SBMM does not work in practice.
I will quote it again because you keep ignoring it.
Where is the incentive to improve and invest time getting better if you won’t reap the rewards and get ahead of the competition?
1 Like
Call of Duty and War Thunder cannot be considered the same Valorant and Rainbow. Those games are fundamentally competitive while War Thunder is not comparable. There is no real ranking system to care about in War Thunder and you can play it casually and do well. Call of Duty is more of a couch game that you play with friends, so it isn’t comparable either. I have never played Valorant, but if it’s anything like CSGO, it has a ranking system that it prioritizes.
Unlike in Valorant or Call of Duty, in War Thunder, anyone can lose. Even the best player in the world fighting the worst team can lose. It’s fundamentally a horrible comparison to make.
Where is the incentive to improve and invest time getting better if you won’t reap the rewards and get ahead of the competition?
How is it fair for lesser skilled people to play against way better players?
See, I can bold questions too!
2 Likes
Because the better players took time to learn and should reap the reward of their work. This isn’t video-game socialism.
1 Like