357
Most gamers prefer single-player games
(www.midiaresearch.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Oct 2024
357 points (98.4% liked)
Games
16935 readers
698 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I'd like multiplayer a lot more if they still made games with user-driven match making, instead of opaque algorithms hellbent on ensuring that everyone maintains a perfect 50/50 win rate. That and the death of custom game modes/lobbies have really killed all the fun of online multiplayer.
As much as that may be true for you, on average people enjoy MP games with SBMM more than without by a decent margin. Studies have shown that people play more matches and play longer sessions when SBMM creates more balanced matches.
Are you sure that that is not just the people who are left since all the others left the game?
It's based on overall usage metrics - number of active users, number of matches played per user, length of a session per user, etc.
It does account for people quitting.
personally not for me once i start getting destroyed by people leagues above my skill level i just stop playing
there's rarely ever games that are even, i either cream the opposing noobs or get creamed by the opposing pros. no in between
You absolutely certain about that reasoning? Because from what I've seen, when automated matchmaking is used, you NEED to play the game like a job just to reach your "correct" ranking and actually enjoy the game. People who don't play it like that are driven away because of it.
If you're curious about the mechanics behind ELO and ELO confidence distributions after X matches, chess ELO is actually a well studied way to learn about the algorithm used by almost all SBMM. After a shockingly small number of matches, your ELO is going to end up being in the right neighborhood for you have +/- 50% WR.
Yes, I am.
This is just one study I could find quickly but the results are consistent.
https://www.pcgamer.com/games/activision-secretly-experimented-on-50-of-call-of-duty-players-by-decreasing-skill-based-matchmaking-and-determined-players-like-sbmm-even-if-they-don-t-know-it/
This is not accurate. Most people's ELOs don't shift much after settling into your "natural" rank, which should happen after about 50 matches or so. Probably what you're referring to is the publicly available "rank" which is per "season", wherein every few months your rank gets reset. This is FAR less opaque than SBMM but results in lower playtime and lower retention for casual players who don't want to be grinding the 50 matches to settle at their ELO every 3 months.
Actual opaque SBMM (the algorithm you mentioned originally) that never resets creates, on average, much more fun MP experiences for most people.
Ehm, 50 matches seems like a lot to me. Especially if they aren't enjoyable (yet) because of flawed matchmaking.
I pulled that number out of my bootyhole because I knew it was a safe bet for a stable ELO.
US Chess Federation uses 25 games as your provisional ELO stage, many video games will use 10 matches. Assuming a large enough variety of ELO in the player base, you can be confident your ELO is mostly accurate after a shockingly small number of matches.
Would be interesting to see but I would assume most people won't even make it to 10 matches in a game they don't enjoy. The people who spend thousands of hours on a single game are a tiny minority of the tiny minority of people who have the free time to play dozens of a hours a week.
If you can't make it 10 matches in a new game, I don't think SBMM is your problem with the game.
10 matches should be like, between 3-10 hours. Assuming an hour a night, you'll be approximately ranked for SBMM within a week.
10 hours is a huge time investment in a game that feels like shit to play.
Do you understand why people play games though?
Warcraft 3 multiplayer was peak "matchmaking" in my opinion, where people created lobbies with certain rule sets and anyone who was interested in that type of game could just join directly. It was a blast, playing lots of different game modes all the time and meeting a wide range of player types, instead of having to invest an insane amount of time (3-10 hours, vs less than a minute to find a game in WC3) into one single game mode even before you can actually start playing.
What you have described is exactly what I was talking about when I called it "playing the game like a job," where you have to invest plenty of time before you can even hope to enjoy it.
I understand why I do. I can't speak to your motivations, I'm not you. I can, however, point to studies that discuss groups of people's preferences in aggregate, as I have done. You're an outlier, and that's ok! Play what you want how you want!
SBMM is, unfortunately for you, the current utilitarian optimal for multiplayer PvP gaming. It maximizes both adoption and retention metrics, as well as self-reported enjoyment scores (Likert scale) for the highest number of people. Bummer that it doesn't optimize for you, but the other good part is that there are plenty of games that still support custom lobbies. Find one you like and have fun!
You are never going to answer that question with math and statistics, and attempts to do so are exactly why the industry keeps tanking studio after studio.
Warcraft 3's custom games were a mess, people left all the time which made team games irritating as hell, and the skill level varied widely from one game to the next so half the games ended up with feeders and a stomping one way or the other.
I play games that are so niche that the 'matchmaking' consists of pinging people on Discord. Because we don't have proper matchmaking, we struggle to retain new players because they come in, get pulverized into the dust, and give up.
The point of matchmaking is that even a more casual beginner can find opponents at their level, without having to grind a ton to catch up with those of us who have been playing for years.
Titanfall 2 come to mind here. I bought it well after launch and really enjoyed the campaign. When I went to hop into multi-player, I was often killed as I spawned or within 10s of spawning. I literally was not playing the game at that, just spawning and dying. I never came back, lol.
It should take about 20 matches or less to give you a decent rating, what games have you played that took longer?