Objective reasoning why skill based matchmaking is dumb

#91SkilzMCPosted 11/25/2012 2:18:53 PM
I am more than willing to play a competitive game but I want the randomness old CoD games give you. One match may be really competitive and everyone is scrambling for the win. The next game the teams re-shuffle, people leave, and I go 55-8. 2 more games down the road I may lose a game pretty handily while barely going positive.

Now every game is a struggle and with stuff like split-screeners and parties you can't even truly match a game up skill based...

This CoD I just don't have the FUN ya know?
---
- GT Skillz MC
#92UnraisedJugglerPosted 11/25/2012 2:20:14 PM
SkilzMC posted...
I am more than willing to play a competitive game but I want the randomness old CoD games give you. One match may be really competitive and everyone is scrambling for the win. The next game the teams re-shuffle, people leave, and I go 55-8. 2 more games down the road I may lose a game pretty handily while barely going positive.

Now every game is a struggle and with stuff like split-screeners and parties you can't even truly match a game up skill based...

This CoD I just don't have the FUN ya know?


+1111111
---
Gt unraisedjuggler
#93superal1966Posted 11/25/2012 2:43:40 PM
Skill based matchmaking is common sense.

Nearly every other competitive event uses a system to ensure teams or players of similar abilities play against each other.

Why should video games be any different?

Can you imagine Roger Federer taking part in tournaments consisting of players who struggle to serve, or Tiger Woods competing against golfers who struggle to hit the ball 100 yards? It was be no fun for anybody involved.

Competitive games need structure for them to remain entertaining. There have been some interesting points made, but aside from the social element, surely the reason why people play online is for the challenge.

If you want to win easily, play against east bots; you have your fun while lesser skilled players don't have their game ruined by good players who are scared of meeting another good player.
#94fatclemenza(Topic Creator)Posted 11/25/2012 2:48:25 PM
From: superal1966 | #093
Skill based matchmaking is common sense.

Nearly every other competitive event uses a system to ensure teams or players of similar abilities play against each other.

Why should video games be any different?

Can you imagine Roger Federer taking part in tournaments consisting of players who struggle to serve, or Tiger Woods competing against golfers who struggle to hit the ball 100 yards? It was be no fun for anybody involved.

Competitive games need structure for them to remain entertaining. There have been some interesting points made, but aside from the social element, surely the reason why people play online is for the challenge.

If you want to win easily, play against east bots; you have your fun while lesser skilled players don't have their game ruined by good players who are scared of meeting another good player.

Congratulations on making the same post that's been countered a dozen times.

And rofl at comparing CoD to professional sports
---
He's a well respected man about town,
Doing the best things so conservatively
#95zxrax_alt_1Posted 11/25/2012 2:51:42 PM
^I bet he thought he was really clever and that was a new and genius analogy.
---
Steam: zxrax || GT: v Raage
HAF X || i7-3770K @4.5 || H80 || Maximus V Extreme || 8GB DDR3-2133 || [Integrated :(] || 120GB SSD || 2TB HDD
#96superal1966Posted 11/25/2012 2:55:04 PM(edited)
zxrax_alt_1 posted...
^I bet he thought he was really clever and that was a new and genius analogy.


I couldn't be bothered to read through 10 pages of posts.

- I was comparing CoD to other competitive games, professional or otherwise. Replace Roger Federer with any average local tennis club player.
#97zxrax_alt_1Posted 11/25/2012 3:00:31 PM
Those things have major skill gaps. CoD has a minor skill gap. Divisions and such make sense there, and here they don't.
---
Steam: zxrax || GT: v Raage
HAF X || i7-3770K @4.5 || H80 || Maximus V Extreme || 8GB DDR3-2133 || [Integrated :(] || 120GB SSD || 2TB HDD
#98fatclemenza(Topic Creator)Posted 11/25/2012 3:01:59 PM
CoD is more like youth sports (Pop Warner football, AYSO soccer, Little League, etc.) Everyone gets a trophy for playing, and its just for fun.
---
He's a well respected man about town,
Doing the best things so conservatively
#99Astro_B0mbPosted 11/25/2012 3:20:16 PM
vigorm0rtis posted...
fatclemenza posted...
From: vigorm0rtis | #030
I know. If people don't want competition,

Might as well stop you there, since the rest is baseless assumptions, and I never said I never wanted competition. Its fun on the odd game to get someone on the other team you can trade blows with. I've played against Socrates in CoD4 and those were some fun matches that went down to the wire.


You don't want consistent competition. Playing a competitive game.

Assumptions baseless.

Right.


Lmao you must be new to the video game world if you think cod is competitive.
---
.:The Elite Connection:.
#100Zero IXPosted 11/25/2012 3:26:31 PM
I've been having a pretty good day so far even though pretty much every player in my lobby's are 1.2-1.8 KDR range. Just gotta think outside the box more and not rely on easy kills so much. Vector, MSMC, S12, DSR, and of course my trusty B23R have been my weapons of choice today. Since I like to be good at my hobbies, I'm enjoying the challenge of raising my KDR, SPM and W/L against players who aren't average, run-of-the-mill schmucks.

More people should try looking on the bright side. The only detriment approaching objective I can think of is that like I said before, a laggy match against similarly skilled players sucks.

Again, there's always Combat Training (which rarely ever has bots) if you want to play without having to worry about your stats. :/
---
"An Incandescent Revelation in a World of Darkened Forms"
The bird of Hermes is my name, eating my wings to make me tame