Algorithms in Videogames Criticized for Choosing Fairly-Matched Opponents (msn.com) 163
Multiplayer games assign your opponents using "skill-based matchmaking," reports the Washington Post, "to fairly balance teams and maximize the enjoyment players get..."
But not everyone wants that. For example, the Post notes, "streamers want to put on a show." For Jordan "HusKerrs" Thomas, a popular streamer and competitive "Call of Duty: Warzone" player, skill-based matchmaking is a labor issue. It "negatively affects the top 1 percent of players/streamers the most because it forces us to 'sweat' or try hard for good content and to entertain our viewers," Thomas wrote in a Twitter DM. High-level play against skilled opponents in shooting games can be opaque or boring for casual audiences. By racking up high kill streaks or stringing together multiple crushing victories in less balanced matches, streamers can more clearly show off their skill to viewers....
Hate for skill-based matchmaking is hardly a phenomenon confined to top streamers or salty Call of Duty players. As awareness about these algorithms grows, communities in "Valorant," "Overwatch," "Apex Legends" and even more casual games like "FIFA" and "Dead by Daylight" have all, at one point or another, sharply criticized matchmaking for reducing their enjoyment of the game. In part, it's an easy scapegoat for frustrated players. As Vice's Steve Rousseau puts it: "The issue today is not that skill-based matchmaking exists, but that players are now aware of just how prevalent it is." Today, speculation about how matchmaking "truly" works has spawned several analyses as well as its own cottage industry on YouTube, where videos on the subject range from neutral explainers to rants delivered as if from the pulpit... The topic is a perpetual driver of viewership, in part because there are few satisfying answers available to players....
In a phone interview, popular "Call of Duty: Warzone" streamer and XSET content creator JaredFPS said he thought companies like Activision, the studio behind the Call of Duty series, base their matchmaking algorithms on more than a player's skill in any single game. "They know everything about you," said Jared, who requested The Post not publish his full name due to safety concerns. "They have information from every single Call of Duty ever made. They know how much money you've spent, they know if you spend money, they know if you use the buy station [in 'Warzone'] a lot ... the way your movement is, how many loadouts you buy ... they know all that information...."
As matchmaking strategies have advanced they have broadened too, using insights from fields like machine learning and data science to further refine player experiences.... Advanced statistics are then used to draw inferences about the plausible outcome of every game before it happens.
EA, Epic and Activision Blizzard are all "incorporating sophisticated techniques like machine learning to tune their matchmaking algorithms so that gamers are pitted against similarly skilled opponents." the Post reports.
But in the end what players are complaining about are their non-subjective player engagement metrics, and the Post calls that algorithm what it is: "a business strategy, designed to keep players coming back."
But not everyone wants that. For example, the Post notes, "streamers want to put on a show." For Jordan "HusKerrs" Thomas, a popular streamer and competitive "Call of Duty: Warzone" player, skill-based matchmaking is a labor issue. It "negatively affects the top 1 percent of players/streamers the most because it forces us to 'sweat' or try hard for good content and to entertain our viewers," Thomas wrote in a Twitter DM. High-level play against skilled opponents in shooting games can be opaque or boring for casual audiences. By racking up high kill streaks or stringing together multiple crushing victories in less balanced matches, streamers can more clearly show off their skill to viewers....
Hate for skill-based matchmaking is hardly a phenomenon confined to top streamers or salty Call of Duty players. As awareness about these algorithms grows, communities in "Valorant," "Overwatch," "Apex Legends" and even more casual games like "FIFA" and "Dead by Daylight" have all, at one point or another, sharply criticized matchmaking for reducing their enjoyment of the game. In part, it's an easy scapegoat for frustrated players. As Vice's Steve Rousseau puts it: "The issue today is not that skill-based matchmaking exists, but that players are now aware of just how prevalent it is." Today, speculation about how matchmaking "truly" works has spawned several analyses as well as its own cottage industry on YouTube, where videos on the subject range from neutral explainers to rants delivered as if from the pulpit... The topic is a perpetual driver of viewership, in part because there are few satisfying answers available to players....
In a phone interview, popular "Call of Duty: Warzone" streamer and XSET content creator JaredFPS said he thought companies like Activision, the studio behind the Call of Duty series, base their matchmaking algorithms on more than a player's skill in any single game. "They know everything about you," said Jared, who requested The Post not publish his full name due to safety concerns. "They have information from every single Call of Duty ever made. They know how much money you've spent, they know if you spend money, they know if you use the buy station [in 'Warzone'] a lot ... the way your movement is, how many loadouts you buy ... they know all that information...."
As matchmaking strategies have advanced they have broadened too, using insights from fields like machine learning and data science to further refine player experiences.... Advanced statistics are then used to draw inferences about the plausible outcome of every game before it happens.
EA, Epic and Activision Blizzard are all "incorporating sophisticated techniques like machine learning to tune their matchmaking algorithms so that gamers are pitted against similarly skilled opponents." the Post reports.
But in the end what players are complaining about are their non-subjective player engagement metrics, and the Post calls that algorithm what it is: "a business strategy, designed to keep players coming back."
No sweating for the 1%ers (Score:3)
Just let them fight 1500 jackalopes.
With a mini-gun obviously.
They just want to steamroll it. (Score:5, Insightful)
They are literally telling us it makes them feel bad to have to actually compete and they want the game developers to change the algorithm to match them with less skilled players so they have a better chance of steamrolling them.
This type of gamer may not actually enjoy competitive video games to begin with, and may only play them to be superior over others.
Re:They just want to steamroll it. (Score:5, Informative)
Most streamers are.. Well.. Attention whores. And them not always winning makes them feel inadequate, which negatively affects their self value.
You can see where it goes from there.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:They just want to steamroll it. (Score:5, Interesting)
I love video games. I play them a lot, and have for a long time. And I have never once felt the need to watch a stream of someone else playing a video game.
Re: (Score:2)
Most people who play football also watch other people playing football.
I play Mario Maker but also watch other people playing it. I learn from them, enjoy watching their skill and their struggles.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think there's anything wrong with watching gamers stream. I know a lot of people really enjoy it. It's just a personal decision about how I will spend my time.
I also watch a lot of sports, especially basketball, and I've never been any good at playing basketball.
Re:They just want to steamroll it. (Score:4, Funny)
I love video games. I play them a lot, and have for a long time. And I have never once felt the need to watch a stream of someone else playing a video game.
I watch sport but have never felt the desire to play sport. Does that mean that nobody should play sport and everyone should just watch sport instead?
Re: (Score:2)
To each his own.
I don't tend to watch streaming because of live stuff being to a different timetable. I like watching the youtuber Decino play doom. Sometimes it's nice to see a real expert showing you how it's done, pointing out the cool things you've missed, commentary on the level design and so on. Also, no screaming obscenities either which is something I would never watch.
Re: They just want to steamroll it. (Score:3)
"The gamers who complain about this kind of thing are just bitter that they can't steamroll every match and feel like the best player on the team."
And who's going to remember their "achievement" in a year? If they want to be a champ that will be remembered, they need to pick up a ball and work on winning the school championship.
But "work", so they won't do it.
Re: (Score:2)
But "work", so they won't do it.
Well then, how about the "less skilled" players get paid for being used as "streamer fodder"?
There are a lot of things that gamers have to "grind" to get in game. How getting some of that stuff in return for making the streamers look awesome?
Re: They just want to steamroll it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Pure selfishness. How do they think other gamers would feel if they're constantly matched with people who wipe the floor with them?
Re: They just want to steamroll it. (Score:2)
"video games to begin with, and may only play them to be superior over others"
Obviously because he's not superior in real life.
Re:They just want to steamroll it. (Score:5, Interesting)
https://www.theguardian.com/sp... [theguardian.com]
Re:They just want to steamroll it. (Score:4, Informative)
When I play a game I like to win. However I much rather have fun. If a streamer just flat out kills me because they are a showing off how they are so much better then a nube like me. Then I am forced to stop playing the game. If I lost in a fair matchup then knowing I had a chance I would keep playing
Re: (Score:3)
I stopped playing competitive online multi-player games like FPS or pvp because of these issues. If you do not play the crap out of a game, online is often very frustrating and just not fun.
I'd much rather play against the AI that I can adjust up or down depending on my mood. I still play unreal tournament 2k4 and in that game you can load up your matches with a range of AIs of different skill levels. You can rock some of them but also get rocked in return.
The game has a really awesome single player mode th
Re: (Score:2)
They just need to figure out how to make interesting content without winning all the time.
Super GT streams racing games, as well as kart racing in real life. He's not the best, he usually doesn't come first, but it's fun watching him learn and improve and commentate on the races.
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, if the matchmaking does its job well and ensures you always come back to the 50% win ratio, it would get very frustrating. No matter how much you improve your skills, you always lose half the matches. What's the point of trying to become a better player? You can get 100% enjoyment out of the game as a casual.
I suppose from a business perspective it's great to have tons of casual players that buy the game and then drop it in a few weeks for the next new shiny. But as a gamer, I would avoid
Re: They just want to steamroll it. (Score:2)
But that is life. You play at the school level, on an average winning 50% of all matches. If you're any good, you play with a club, for a town etc. , now against winners of all schools. Again, on an average you win 50% of all matches. Then if you're any good, you play at higher level clubs, again 50%. If you play for your country - averaging across all countries you again win 50% of all matches. But within the same country, you likely win in proportion to how good your country is in that game, in the recent
Re: (Score:2)
But while you're still at your school club for however many years, you can win a majority of matches and be known as someone who's skilled within the school. That's your reward for getting better. You don't get bumped into a city or national team overnight the way video game matchmaking works.
Re: They just want to steamroll it. (Score:2)
No matter how much you improve your skills, you always lose half the matches. What's the point of trying to become a better player? You can get 100% enjoyment out of the game as a casual.
Casuals don't win 100% of the time ... how does that even begin to make sense? They're playing against other casuals, they lose half the time, unless you play solo then you lose more than half because some dickweeds in a premade group are on the other team and none are on yours at least some of the time. So 40/45% win rate over thousands of matches is a pretty normal experience for solo players, sadly.
What's the point in getting better at a thing if you can't compete against beginners? Tell me you're not
Re: (Score:2)
It would help if you read my comment before replying. Nowhere did I say casuals win 100% of the games they play. They get 100% enjoyment out of it, which is to say, the same enjoyment as someone who tried to get better. Or maybe more, since everything's fresh when you're a new player and there's the fun of discovery.
A win rate target that actually encourages playing the game longer and becoming more skilled should be something like 30% wins for a noob, smoothly increasing up to 70% wins for a highly skilled
Re: (Score:2)
> The gamers who complain about this kind of thing are just bitter that they can't steamroll every match and feel like the best player on the team.
I complain and I am usually on the top of the leaderboard. The issues I have are based on faulty algorithm:
- The teams are unbalanced. One team is so OP hat the other team can't do anything but die. This is not fun for either team. If I am in this kind of situation, I would normally join the losing team to balance the game out, but algorithms don't allow this
Stupid (Score:2, Insightful)
This has to be the most stupid assinine comment I've read in a long time.
I was going to try to make a comically exaggerated version of it but the original basically speaks for itself.
Tough luck for the 'pro-gamers' (Score:5, Insightful)
If they want it easy load up a single player game and go to town with the easy setting - oh wait that won't draw viewership money. Well then work for your damn money instead of begging and whining about fair gameplay.
-in the distance you can hear the smallest of violins.
Re: (Score:2)
Many gamers don't like a fair fight. I don't see gaming as a legitimate occupation, and most importantly how is that fair to lesser skilled players.
If they want it easy load up a single player game and go to town with the easy setting - oh wait that won't draw viewership money. Well then work for your damn money instead of begging and whining about fair gameplay.
-in the distance you can hear the smallest of violins.
IMHO offline gaming has easy modes, online gaming is against the real world where there is always someone bigger and badder.
Re:Tough luck for the 'pro-gamers' (Score:5, Interesting)
online gaming is against the real world where there is always someone bigger and badder
The real world also stratifies competitors. Weight classes in boxing. Amateur, semi-pro, pro leagues, etc. Gaming is just catching up to the real world here, and the people that have been pwning newbs with abandon are just butt hurt.
If you're multimillion dollar a year streaming livelihood is based on unbalanced player matching then too bad; find something of value to do with yourself.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: Tough luck for the 'pro-gamers' (Score:2)
Can you imagine the Steelers bitching that the NFL is too hard, and it would be easier to show off their skill if they played the local high school team? The whole thing is hilarious.
These kids are learning a lesson that kids trying to go pro in sports have known for almost a century now: you can be extremely good, top 1%, and still not be good enough to "go pro." It may be that only the top 0.001% are good enough to make a living. The rest invest huge amounts of time and energy and end up selling used cars
What? No God-mode? (Score:2)
If you really want to impress your YouTube channel followers, you need God Mode.
But to make things fair, every time you invoke God Mode, you have to play the next two weeks in Insane Mode where your opponents pull off head shots immediately after you respawn all while performing spinning moves and summersaults.
Boohoo (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
In sports, in less-competitive settings, it's common go match up with players quite a bit above or below your skill level or athletic ability. There are things to learn in both scenarios: When playing against less competitive opponents, you can work on aspects of your game that may be less developed, which is much more challenging to do when you have to play at full speed/intensity. On the other hand, playing against better players gives you a chance to see what they do differently than you, so you can lear
Re: (Score:2)
The big issue with what these streamers are asking for is that th
Re: (Score:2)
What would stop another "pro" from also joining the pound the noob match to troll the streamer troll? Sounds like these modern games are thin on features but heavy on graphics and selling digital assets instead of making a feature rich game. I mean, some of these games are literally one single fucking map. Every time.
Very unfortunate.
Re: Boohoo (Score:3)
So it becomes less of a game, and more of a show aimed at the lowerst common denominator of sports fans. Real sports fans will tire of this very quickly and go somewhere else to see a real match.
Re: Boohoo (Score:2)
"Match" - now I wonder why they use that word? Hmmm..
Washington Generals (Score:2)
Quake 3 Arena (Score:2)
I remember the days of Quake 3 Arena and the days of Weapons Factory.... pure utter chaos and wholesome fun for the entire family.... of players and bots. :-)
In other words (Score:4, Funny)
Kids with no life and dim prospects for their future want to slaughter the "noobs" and teabag their corpses for the whole world to see. Amirite?
Teabag (Score:3)
Re: Teabag (Score:2)
Sorry. :>
Get a job (Score:2)
Simple: Don't use your personal account (Score:5, Informative)
Use your personal account for your competitive play
Have a secondary "work" account you use when streaming.
This isn't rocket science, folks. Just don't assume a game maker has to change things to suit your personal, specific, non-standard needs.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Realistically you'd need more than one, I don't know how CoD works, but most "skill based" systems (ELO) will drop your rank over idle time. So rotating between a # of accounts to stay lower ranked would probably work.
I haven't played for a while, but I used to play DBD, (eventually getting in to the highest tier as a Killer, over 800 hours played time) as mentioned in the summary, they changed their matchmaking several years ago and I agree with the YTer, having to "sweat" every game is not fun - like, at
Re: (Score:2)
But...the secondary account wouldn't have all the advanced weapons and perks that come with working your way up in the game, or paying real money for. Still, no sympathy.
Will they ever grow up? (Score:4, Insightful)
By racking up high kill streaks or stringing together multiple crushing victories in less balanced matches, streamers can more clearly show off their skill to viewers.
Yeah, like a Premier League team beating a bunch of schoolboys? Leagues exist in sport for a reason.
Except... (Score:5, Insightful)
It also makes it much easier for NEW players to get their feet wet and start learning how to play a game, without continuously dying 5 seconds in each round -- making it harder for new players to enjoy a game just means that the viable # of online gamers will shrink to nothing in far less time than it would with proper skill based matchmaking.
Does that make it harder for "influencers" to capitalize on it?
"Oh, well."
This is what you call Pro. (Score:2)
By racking up high kill streaks or stringing together multiple crushing victories in less balanced matches, streamers can more clearly show off their skill to viewers....
Yes, and if we wanted to see that at the professional level elsewhere, there would be no WNBA and the Multiple Crushing Victories league wouldn't even find a line in Vegas.
Perhaps the true pros, should focus on being the best and beating the best. Seems to work just fine elsewhere at that level of competition, and garners a bit more respect at the end of the day.
It also makes it hard to chat (Score:4, Insightful)
Turns out it's more like a talk show where the video game is just there to fill dead air and give something to talk about. That's the hook.
But for that to work you need a game that doesn't require total concentration. Daigo Umihara isn't going to be pulling over moment 37 while chatting on the side. If you're playing against high level players you can't do you're talk show at the same time. So yeah, it'd get boring.
TL;DR; reality TV is staged.
Re: (Score:2)
Turns out it's more like a talk show where the video game is just there to fill dead air and give something to talk about. That's the hook.
That's why streamers who have figured this out stream sandbox games like Animal Crossing. Literally nothing happens in those games.
I think your personality and style (Score:2)
This crap is why "E-sports" are not actual sports. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, while I enjoy watching the NFL, I really do see everyone involved as "entertainers" because they don't otherwise produce anything of value, so it better be entertaining. When players start trying to use their airtime as a platform to politic on, it quickly becomes not entertaining. Hence why that shit got put in it's properly place, some positive messages on sneakers and helmets.
The fact we get fantasy football just adds to the entertainment.
Streamers are definitely entertainers and they better
Re: (Score:2)
Re: This crap is why "E-sports" are not actual spo (Score:2)
The ultimate paycheck of a sportsman comes from the entertainment value. One individual sportsman can get selfish, and stop entertaining, and focus on only the "sport". But if all do, people might* stop watching, and so the "sportsman" now needs a clerical job to pay the bills. Not too sporty now, are we?
* Yes, the popular games are naturally entertaining even when sportsmen do sportsmanly stuff. And rules keep getting changed so that this continues or even gets enhanced.
It's why I stopped playing Vainglory (Score:2)
That game would balance out by making sure win/loss was close to 50/50. But there's not always enough available players to perfectly match everyone. What would happen in practice was a 3 or 4 game win streak, followed by being put against teams you have no business winning against the next 3 or 4 games. Sometimes you could level up with a surprise win but overall it was an hour or 2 of winnable matches then an hour or two of grueling churn through crushing losses. I believe the issue was granularity. If yo
tl;dr (Score:2)
Influenza want participation trophies for being a disease on the internet.
Tough. (Score:2)
Now go and get a real job.
Overwatch competitive ego boost (Score:3)
I used to play Overwatch competitive. For the first few seasons, when you completed each season's 10 placement matches, they placed you a few hundred Skill Rating (SR) points lower than they estimated. I suspect they figured you'd be more likely to stick around if you got to club seals for a few games. In hindsight, it cheapened the experience of a few games where I played incredible, and makes you wonder exactly how much you're being psychologically manipulated when you play the next Blizzard game.
Re: Overwatch competitive ego boost (Score:2)
I enjoyed clubbing seals for a couple matches.
The placement matches usually are a few hundred points over your estimated skill to see if they were underestimating you or you got unlucky teammates The end result was an incredibly stressful and punishing final few matches.
Getting a small reward/relaxing cool down was welcome.
So these games they don't have swiss tournaments?? (Score:2)
So different than WOT where weak players sold... (Score:3, Interesting)
In World of Tanks, certain tanks you could buy get "favorable" match making.
So on top of having better armor, longer range, and better ammution, you are also guaranteed you will be matched with weaker players in weaker tanks (with a few other premium tanks that will be the same strength or lower).
Cry me a river. (Score:2)
> By racking up high kill streaks or stringing together
> multiple crushing victories in less balanced matches,
> streamers can more clearly show off their skill to
> viewers
Griefing n00b5 doesn't more clearly show off your skill. It more clearly shows off that you're a fucking asshole.
Let me get this straight (Score:2)
So, you want to earn a million dollars streaming your "so called gaming skills"...
But balk at the idea of actually having a challenge? What is next? Make a new account every week to clobber though "noobs"?
Other players are not there for your amusement, nor for making you money. They also want to have fun.
Grow up, or find another job.
Why not give user a choice? (Score:2)
1. Against similarly skilled opponents
2. Against newbies
3. Against higher skilled
4. Random
Sometimes experts like to go on a short-term spree and slaughter newbies. After losing a tough match you may want to refresh your ego by crushing a newbie or 2. And those newbies would be asking for it because they selected 3.
Re:Why not give user a choice? (Score:5, Interesting)
Dominion Online did this perfectly. It takes your current rating, and allows you to pick the Max Rating of your opponent (default: your rating + 10), and the Min Rating of your opponent (default: Your rating - 10). Most people probably won't change the defaults, but there's nothing stopping you from picking something like -20 and +20 to play against someone with a vast skill difference.
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes experts like to go on a short-term spree and slaughter newbies. After losing a tough match you may want to refresh your ego by crushing a newbie or 2. And those newbies would be asking for it because they selected 3.
No, I disagree: as a lower skill player you might want to match against a higher skill player in order to improve your game and have a bit of fun while getting slaughtered, but that only works if the player is not too far beyond.
You want someone one or two skill levels above, say, some
WTF really? (Score:4, Insightful)
So toxic shits are complaining they don't get to easily be toxic shits for "the content"? On behalf of the entire gaming community (of which you are clearly not a part Mr I-want-to-generate-content), fuck off. Your content shouldn't come at the expense of our enjoyment, especially not the enjoyment of newer or casual players.
Re: (Score:2)
So toxic shits are complaining they don't get to easily be toxic shits for "the content"? On behalf of the entire gaming community (of which you are clearly not a part Mr I-want-to-generate-content), fuck off. Your content shouldn't come at the expense of our enjoyment, especially not the enjoyment of newer or casual players.
I‘m not crying any rivers for people who build their XP count on slaughtering noobs. Fair match algorithms sound like a good thing to me. In fact I’d back a scheme where an elite player gets increasingly less XP from a kill the bigger the skill gap is between an him and the elite whereas less skilled players get a motivational bonus for killing elites. That is how things work in the real world. If a grunt with an NLAW knocks out a T-90MS he gets a medal, if the tank shreds a grunt with an NLAW i
Re: (Score:2)
In fact I’d back a scheme where an elite player gets increasingly less XP from a kill the bigger the skill gap is between an him and the elite whereas less skilled players get a motivational bonus for killing elites.
The problem with this approach is while it addresses people farming, it doesn't address toxic shits like the streamers in TFS who just want to generate content showing them steamrolling people who are worse than them. Skill based matchmaking works and is a perfectly fine solution. It's not elite players here who are complaining, it's shitty content streamers, the gaming world equivalent of the bro who drives daddy's car wearing gold chains pretending he's rich while not having a dollar to his name in a vain
The chess.com solution (Score:4, Interesting)
Hang on a sec... (Score:2)
Let me get this straight. "It 'negatively affects the top 1 percent of players/streamers the most because it forces us to 'sweat' or try hard for good content and to entertain our viewers.'" So, some third-party player wants to "entertain" their "viewers"? Do these "viewers" pay to watch? Are the "players" making money off of this? If so, then I have ZERO sympathy. Next thing you know, they'll demand residuals and get all political.
Don't make me laugh.... (Score:3)
" By racking up high kill streaks or stringing together multiple crushing victories in less balanced matches, streamers can more clearly show off their skill to viewers...."
Shooting fish in a barrel is not showing off skill.
Fun for who? (Score:2)
So either adopt the college football model of buying some easy wins, play against AI you know you can beat (that is what I do), or suck it up and play fair.
Crybabies (Score:2)
"By racking up high kill streaks or stringing together multiple crushing victories in less balanced matches, streamers can more clearly show off their skill to viewers...."
There is no skill to steamrolling noobs.
The Swiss system (Score:3)
Round two you match players with one point, then those with a half point, then zero points. And your points add up. A weak player can get a weaker opponent in the first round, maybe in the second round, but then they have to compete with others who won their first two games. As the tournament progresses, your rank will become what you deserve.
Re: (Score:3)
I played a bit of chess ages ago, and we used the ÃoeSwiss systemÃ. You take any even number of players, and the tournament is eight rounds. The first round is random pairings. Each winner gets a point, in case of a draw each gets half a point.
Same, but often with two additional tweaks to accelerate the process so the beginning of the tournament doesn't suck.
1. Players are ranked according to their grade (which decided according to their long term playing history). The pairing starts with stronges
The only winning move (Score:3)
My observation? The "best" are cheating (Score:3)
2-3 months later a report came out that MW3 had been hacked and hacker kits were available they let anyone not only wallhack and aimbot, but lots of other stuff. A year ago I fired up MW3 on my PS3 (my PS4 needed a hard drive replacement) and everyone was off the map, shooting idiots like me who didn't have a cheat system.
What's sad is in the Day of Defeat days I used to marvel at how good the best players were. Back in the day of private servers, where if you got caught cheating you got banned ('05-'08). Now, I just assume the "best" players are cheating somehow.
Haven't played an online game in, I dunno, 2-3 years now? While I respect good players, I despise cheaters more. And I suspect there are more cheaters in the average game than there are good players.
I has a sad, I used to love TFC and DoD multiplayer games.
Revenue opportunity to share with the victims. (Score:2)
So let the streamers pay to get winning matchups, and give a cut of the revenue to the people they are crushing. That way streamers don't even have to be very good at the game to win!
Or, better yet, just pair them with bots.
[Is it too obvious to pair them with other streamers?]
Easy solution (Score:2)
The streamers want to dunk on people to make themselves look good for their Twitch viewers, and more viewers means more money. I have no problem with that, as long as the people getting dunked on opt in and get a cut of the streaming revenue.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
So good games are boring? (Score:2)
There's no problem here, the matchmaking should be based on a skill assessment/comparison (chess ranking for example).
The problem is that the games are boring to watch:
High-level play against skilled opponents in shooting games can be opaque or boring for casual audiences.
So there is actually no problem here, other than the games can be boring to watch. I prefer hockey over baseball for exactly that reason (I enjoy attending a ball game, not watching).
Skill-Based Matchmaking hurts everyone (Score:2, Interesting)
Skill-based Matchmaking (SBMM) is potentially bad for all players.
What's happening in these modern SBMM titles is that there is no skill mix. You get an entire server full of Diamond-level players or what have you. And that's it. Warzone's SBMM is usually gameable so it's not all bad-asses but it tries to get there, whereas tighter SBMM setups like Overwatch (when it works) will make it all bad-asses, all the time. Like, why would anyone want that?
It's more interesting to have maybe 1 great guy, 4 medio
Hard disagree with premise (Score:2)
Streamers griefing less skilled players is boring to watch, it doesn't show skill, as any with high kill streaks obviously outplay their opponents easily.
Having watched Fortnight and Spellbreak streams, there is nothing more boring.
I've seen streamers gripe about such, not because they got to have a challenge and actually play a fun game, but because in actually playing the game they couldn't also read chat and engage audience as much. Well duh! Games are supposed to be engaging, not background activities
Virtual Cannon Fodder (Score:2)
So they want virtual cannon fodder to slaughter for their adoring public? And then have the gall to complain that the higher ups dont just give them what they are entitled to?
If I’m going to star as an extra in a money making enterprise then I could share in the profits, right?
boxing had this problem too (Score:3)
It was solved by letting champion boxers compete against children. Did wonders for their youtube careers. There's nothing better than seeing a toddler flying right out of the ring after a solid punch, and who doesn't love seeing babies getting punched in the face by grown men? Those babies are shit at boxing anyway, so they deserve it.
Re: boxing had this problem too (Score:2)
They used to have that sport. I believe it was called dwarf tossing.
If streamers hate it, then I love it (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not realistic... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Not realistic"? "Not fun"?
Badly mismatched skill levels doesn't happen in legitimate competitions. Every serious competition is ranked, so pros aren't stomping brand new players. For example, chess players have an ELO ranking so they can be pitted against similarly skilled players.
You're also undermining your own argument. A new player with no skill is, by definition, not going to be immediately teamed up with players with high expectations in a skill-based matching system. They should be paired up with other new players like themselves.
Creating fairly matched games doesn't create toxicity. Toxic assholes do. I think we've known that all along.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Every serious competition is ranked, so pros aren't stomping brand new players.
(emphasis mine) ..and the serious part is what sucks out the fun. Some people just want to blow off some steam and mow down the baddies in "God mode". In ye olden days, we'd do that in the single player realm with cheat codes or Game Genie or various other ROM/savegame hacks. Nowadays, with everything being online and played against real people, there's all this emphasis on good sportsmanship and fair play (because people get upset* when you don't fight fair).
Well, game developers, this is on you. We us
Re:Not realistic... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you want to p0wn newbs, play single player. Game developers know very well that most of their revenue comes from the 99% of players who are between terrible and a bit above average. Actual good players also know that playing with and against similar skill level players is more rewarding.
The GP said it: if you're playing a multiplayer game, in real life or on a computer, so you can beat up on inexperienced players, you're the toxic asshole, and yes, the game developers would prefer you quit. Unless it's EVE Online.
Re: Not realistic... (Score:2)
So go play UT or Q3A. There's plenty of modded AI out there for those games to give you any skill level of opposition you want.
Re: (Score:3)
That's an absurd argument. There are a gazillion single-player games in which you can mow down pawns. We're talking about online, multiplayer games in which you're playing against other live humans. I get that roflstomping noobs is great fun for you. Probably not so fun for the noobs, though. Boo-fucking-hoo.
Re: (Score:2)
There are a gazillion single-player games in which you can mow down pawns.
There is in fact an entire genre of DooM maps on this topic (slaughtermaps). Once you get enough pawns it starts to become really hard.
create a new account ? (Score:2)
Why not create a new account? You, the human being is skilled at the game. Your new account is not known to have that skill. Pwn away until you start getting evenly matched, and then create another new account.
The streamers, youtubers have dedicated staff too. So staff can play badly with your account to setup for a match you'd like, then the real streamer can take over.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't follow. If you're new to a game, and terrible, it would match you with easier opponents. The point of skill-based matchmaking is to allow new players to learn the game and casual ones to play, without being constantly crushed by experienced ones.
It's why golfers have handicaps and team sports have leagues.
Re: (Score:2)
But in my eyes that toxicity mostly comes from the limited scope of competitive games that fosters player expression that way.
However, part-time working myself in game development instead of ruining the experience of people who enjoy that competitiveness, a better idea would be to offer multiple game modes, like non ranked or custom ranked matches that aren't subject to match-
Re: (Score:2)
Don't some of these games come with rated vs unrated matches? Want random skill levels, play unrated. What a competitive game, play rated.
Definitely a streamer only problem because when you go online, your enjoyment does not get to come at the cost of someone else's. Games that do let that happen lose the more casual player. Maybe those studios are okay with that.
I'm just old I think. I won't buy digital skins or gold. Rather just pay a game subscription then get nickled and dimed. Most games I play anymore
Re: (Score:2)
Or at least create some content instead of taking other peoples' content for walkies.
Re: (Score:2)
So that's the "sport" part of E-Sports: Just like the sports on TV, it's not about having fun.