Have a matchmaking system that values only latency, and players who are either super skilled or alternatively not good at the game will lose interest. ![]() Have some form of SBMM, and people who want latency to be the only thing that matters will not be happy. That having been said, a decision does need to be made somewhere. Put differently - is the issue that SBMM is present at all, or is the issue that players feel the SBMM algorithm does not work well? I can't imagine anyone except top tier players having a good time without any balancing at all, and even for them it would get boring fast. The matchmaking considerations would be considerably different depending which house I am playing from and there would have be some level of balancing, no? As an example, I own one house near a giant city and another house in a totally different part of the country in the rural countryside. I don't think making latency the biggest consideration is necessarily "wrong" but I think there is more context to be considered. ![]() You are repeatedly placed in lobbies with crazy good players that dominate everyone else because they have the lowest latency relative to you. ![]() You are repeatedly placed in lobbies where you dominate everyone without even trying simply because they have the lowest latency relative to you but you are a much better player. Would you do *any* skill balancing at all? (It sounds like no but I don't want to assume unfairly.) All players have lightning fast ping (common in big cities and increasingly common in rural areas). How would you handle the following scenarios?
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |