Twitter Debates Usefulness of Skill-based Matchmaking After Streamer TimTheTatman Says He Won't Play People Of His Skill Level In 'Modern Warfare II'
Gamers of social media have entered the equivalent of a Greek forum (see: Twitter) to debate the merits of skill-based matchmaking in online games after noted Call of Duty streamer TimTheTatman said it was unlikely he'd play multiplayer on Modern Warfare II due to it having skill-based matchmaking.
Skill-based matchmaking, known in the community as SBMM, refers to the system some online multiplayer games employ to ensure that two players of roughly the same skill play against each other. Hypothetically, this ensures that new players won't get paired with seasoned vets and inevitably stomped over and over until they lose interest in the game. For higher-skill players, it ensures they always have a competitive, challenging match.
However, not everyone is a fan of the idea. In Tim's video, he explains that he thinks SBMM is "killing video games." Though Tim is good at Call of Duty, he doesn't want to get matched against what he calls "gigasweats" (i.e. people who try extremely hard to be good at the game) and would rather be able to play more casually.
SBMM has long been a contentious topic in the Call of Duty scene, but not everyone agrees with the hate the concept seems to get from prominent figures in the community. Some feel the distaste of SBMM comes largely from streamers who want to be able to showcase incredible gameplay by stomping newer players, which is obviously not the experience a notable portion of players will want out of the video game.
While a sizable portion of those weighing in on the debate found those complaining about SBMM to be whiners, others agreed that SBMM has frustrating flaws.
One commenter cut right to the heart of the issue and said what gamers not deep in the first-person-shooter subculture were thinking.
While the viral debate over SBMM rages, it seems clear that CoD players will have to learn to live with it if they want to continue playing. The system has been in place for multiple CoD releases and developers likely have no reason to ditch the system.
Share Pin
Moby The Duck
They say:
"SBMM is punishing me for being good by making me play against people that are better than me."
or
"I don't to be forced to play ranked with tryhards, I only play casually."
They mean:
"I want to only play against people that are worse than me to inflate my own ego."
Hysteria98
Well, he is right but obviously a fucking wuss, lmao. For the first 4 or 5 years, most people (on console) were atrociously bad at COD (which is bizarre, because the skill ceiling is low and it's incredibly easy to learn). Since I jumped into MW19 I get absolutely trounced and can't believe how much better most players are at it- mind you, hard to generalise from what was 3 million players to now the TENS of millions.
I'm not including crossplay PC players either, because they have an advantage right off the bat using mouse and keyboard, no WAY is there any chance of succession against them, lol.
Gumshoe
But without some kind of SBMM, wouldn't you just get put against even better players?
Gumshoe
I honestly don't understand why this is even considered an issue and nobody who is against it really explains why they think it is. Why would you not want to get matched against people of a similar skill level? Who do you want to be matched with instead? I haven't played online FPS games in many year now, but I was under the impression that if you want to play competively, you don't want to play people who are way better because they'll stomp you and you won't have any fun, and also don't want to play people who are much worse because it won't challenge you or make you get better (and if that's what you wanted, you'd be better doing single player on easy mode).
I get having problems with the implementation of SBMM. Like if it's a bit messed up and keeps pairing you with people way outside your level, but I don't know why the idea itself is considered bad.
Ravaryn
Feels weird to agree with Keemstar on something.
MegaValenX
Yeah, you're weird
hipnox
The irony and hypocrisy of these people always makes me laugh.
You don't want to get dunked on by "sweaty" players but are perfectly fine with newcomers getting dunked on by veteran players?
If you want a casual experience go play a PvE game. Otherwise git gud
Peanut970
It's harder to create consistently good content if you have to work for it. If you have to actually do extremely well for that 25 killstreak nuke, then you likely won't have as many videos out in as little time. Not that I think it's a good thing to try and avoid it, but still, I can see reason in it.
Nue7ra1
this really wouldn't be an issue if either A: custom servers with an easily used server browser were still the norm, or B: they didn't apply SBMM to casual modes. option C: would be to stop lying and admit that forced 50 is real and that it's engagement based matchmaking instead of skill based.
pocketlint60
What's forced 50?
Gumshoe
Hadn't heard of it before, but apparently it's an idea that the matching algorithm is designed to ensure you only win 50% of games. So if you win several games in a row, it will bump you up to a category high enough that you can't possibly win until you get back to your 50% win rate. It's a speculative idea that players believe exists based on their own anecdotal experiences, but developers all deny that any of their algorithms use this as a target. e.g. a DOTA 2 dev has said that it's not a goal of their algorithm, but a logical outcome of trying to match teams so that there is as close to a 50/50 chance of winning for each individual game:
https://win.gg/news/valve-dev-debunks-dota-2-players-forced-50-win-rate-theory/
big_king_smegma
If you're getting matched up against gigasweats, would that not mean that you, yourself, are a gigasweat?
I only partially ask this rhetorically; I didn't play a multiplayer FPS until I was maybe 18, so I'm kind of awful at them.
Phhase