Activision has published a 25-page white paper exploring the impact of skill-based matchmaking (SBMM) on its multiplayer lobbies, determining that SBMM is better for all players.
As spotted by indie game developer and consultant Rami Ismail, the report – which can be read in full on Activision’s official website – outlines an “amazing A/B test” where Activision “secretly progressively turned off SBMM and monitored retention… and turns out everyone hated it, with more quitting, less playing, and more negative blowouts”. Cover image for YouTube videoPlayStation live-service Concord won’t sell you a battle pass - would it be better if it did? PlayStation live-service Concord won’t sell you a battle pass - but would it be more successful if it did?Watch on YouTube
Activision announced plans to launch the series of white papers back in April, and has already considered the impact connections and Time to Match has on online play.
The most recent paper, however – entitled “Matchmaking Series: The Role of Skill in Matchmaking” – “shares a look at matchmaking inside Call of Duty multiplayer, including how we always work to create a balanced system for the benefit of all players. While skill is one of many factors in matchmaking; it is not the driving force behind Call of Duty’s matchmaking system”.
“Playing a better opponent may push players to become more proficient over time, but being severely outperformed in their matches, our testing has shown, instead leads players to quit matches in progress or to not play multiplayer,” Activision surmises.
It also confirmed that it whilst it was “considering a single core multiplayer playlist that does not use skill as a factor in matchmaking”, Activision believes “historical testing reveals that low- and mid-skill players would be unlikely to participate in such a playlist. As a match can only be created from players actively searching for a playlist, the likely result would be matches composed solely of high-skill players.”
The experiment, Activision opines, shows that the existing SBMM system allows a broadest range of players to participate in “all key parts of Call of Duty’s game design in core multiplayer”.
This “includes games where players can contribute meaningfully to their team, not only with wins, but for their own personal records and achievements”.
“The system strives for team balance, where players are not consistently on the wrong side of blowout matches. Players who frequently experience blowouts are seen to quit matches in progress and the game itself, which negatively impacts the experience for players of all skill levels,” Activision concluded.
“We will always strive to improve our approach to matchmaking to ensure that players of all skill levels are having the best possible experience. A healthy player population is good for everyone in the community.”
Further research papers into ranked played and “experimental methods” are expected later this year.
Just let players pick. Casual has no SBMM and just puts whoever into a match, and Ranked has SBMM. This has been a thing for a long time in online games.
As a very casual PvP person, what’s the issue with skill based match making?
When there’s someone super good in my game, who just destroy me without me even able to do anything, I do not enjoy it, but when it’s everyone with similar skill set, where even if I die / lose, I get a feeling I at least did something, makes me enjoy it.
I’m also a pretty casual PVP person, but my first tastes of multiplayer gaming were Counterstrike and Quake Arena so I’m familiar with the old ways. I think one of the arguments that (some) people make is that it turns every match into a sweat fest because your opponents should be decently matched to your skill level.
These people will suggest that a lack of SBMM would make casual play even more casual, since the variety of skill levels means that you might be able to steam roll your opposition on occasion, hopefully with more frequency than you are steamrolled yourself.
Personally, I feel like the people bitching and moaning about SBMM are just folks who really don’t like losing. When they are told there is a system in their game of choice that is intentionally trying to keep them around a 50% loss rate, they are not pleased with it’s inclusion. They don’t actually want to play a competitive game, they want to play the “I WIN” game, with a CoD skin.
Now, that interpretation isn’t very charitable, and I’m sure there are folks with very legitimate issues with the specifics of SBMM, but that’s the general vibe I get from many of the posts bemoaning the system.
When your MMR is high enough and the game you play has SBMM it can take a long time to find matches. Some argue that SBMM ruins practice and only puts you against people that you just can’t get any better at playing while increasing matchmaking times. This unfortunately promotes the smurfing culture, high skill players that create new accounts to stomp on lower skill players, thus ruining the experience for low skill players. Valve has recently taken a stand against smurfs in dota 2, but riot has yet to denounce any smurfing and I always see ads for league account sellers on twitch and YouTube to promote “lower MMR with all characters unlocked” or some shit, it’s absolutely disgusting.
The only people against this are the ones who get a very high level, then make a new account as a “noob” just to kill other new people very easily, frustrating new players in the process and then laughing about it in a yt video.
Unsurprised. I was involved in some great discussion on SBMM on Lemmy recently, and people’s issues with it, but this confirms what I suspected. SBMM is better for companies, maximizing player on-boarding and player retention, which is what’s necessary to get more players and revenue. Even if I honestly think it’s a worse experience than the old school way, and keeps me from personally enjoying these games.
I posted a video on here a bit back where a guy did a dive into the actual patents for the different SBMM and it was straight up disgusting what they do with it.
