Current MM theory basically always puts the worst players on teams with the best players to “even out” the teams. But it leads to a terrible experience for everyone involved because the bad player gets constantly shit on and the good players are stuck trying to hard carry a whole team.
When that ends up happening for 1000-2000 hours of gameplay people get frustrated and call out the bad players.
I think it’s more of a votekick problem. There’s always going to be people whining about their teammates regardless of skill differential. People will also find ways to accuse same and higher ranked players of being bad at the game, because it’s more about ego and them being in a bad mood.
Even in games where votekick doesn’t exist this level of toxicity does, and it’s often because of the manipulated matchmaking algorithms putting them in that bad mood and inflating their Ego.
I don’t think that’s the reason, I think they’re using the game as an outlet for unrelated frustrations in their lives, but I agree that toxicity still exists in games without votekick. But personally I find it infinitely more tolerable playing a game with toxic people when they don’t have the power to kick me out of the match, because that means I’m not obligated to try to appease them.
Ugh. Then you have never had them throw the game and basically work against the rest of the team just to hurt everyone else.
I don’t think there is any easy answer, it’s just more people playing and the world being ever increasingly full of narcissists who just only can think of themselves as right that means a portion of any online take is gonna be shit. And yeah it really made me stop bother playing
Good players and bad players are both outliers. If you assign a numerical value to the players it’ll more likely try to balance the teams more than anything. I’ll put together an example.
P1: 100 - Best Player in the game
P2: 50 - Average Player
P3: 40 - Just below average
P4: 2 - Brand New to the game
To match these 4 players there’s only so many choices. Put P1 on a team with P2 or P3 and the other side is extremely disadvantaged. By putting P1 and P4 together, they average out to ~51. P2 and P3 average for ~45. The game thinks that’s a valid matchup, but really nobody is going to enjoy it.
This happens in both pubs and competitive modes because it maximizes “engagement” from the worst players, as they have a higher chance of being carried to a win when they’re put with the better players. Those also tend to be the ones who spend the most money, so these companies cater to them at the cost of enjoyment for everyone else.
Playing with people leagues better than you even if you are carried to a win sucks. In a lot of games you don’t even get to actually play. You’re dead before you get a shot off or never get to touch the ball or you fall off at the first obstacle and end not even getting to finish the race because you’re so behind everyone else.
That’s also true, and is often my experience in non-shooter games.
However it does work out that the lowest common denominator doesn’t care if they didn’t do anything. They’re just happy to win. The couch casuals aren’t ever going to be great, so their standard of a great game is much, much lower than anyone who plays daily or even every few days
![One reason why I play primarily single player games now [OneAndPhony]](https://startrek.website/pictrs/image/f218ae09-a1c4-4ec5-9fcd-6d0bb22a7f2d.png){kind=link}
This is primarily a matchmaking problem
Current MM theory basically always puts the worst players on teams with the best players to “even out” the teams. But it leads to a terrible experience for everyone involved because the bad player gets constantly shit on and the good players are stuck trying to hard carry a whole team.
When that ends up happening for 1000-2000 hours of gameplay people get frustrated and call out the bad players.
I think it’s more of a votekick problem. There’s always going to be people whining about their teammates regardless of skill differential. People will also find ways to accuse same and higher ranked players of being bad at the game, because it’s more about ego and them being in a bad mood.
Even in games where votekick doesn’t exist this level of toxicity does, and it’s often because of the manipulated matchmaking algorithms putting them in that bad mood and inflating their Ego.
I don’t think that’s the reason, I think they’re using the game as an outlet for unrelated frustrations in their lives, but I agree that toxicity still exists in games without votekick. But personally I find it infinitely more tolerable playing a game with toxic people when they don’t have the power to kick me out of the match, because that means I’m not obligated to try to appease them.
Ugh. Then you have never had them throw the game and basically work against the rest of the team just to hurt everyone else.
I don’t think there is any easy answer, it’s just more people playing and the world being ever increasingly full of narcissists who just only can think of themselves as right that means a portion of any online take is gonna be shit. And yeah it really made me stop bother playing
I thought it tried to make games of all players of similar skill levels? Hence the rankings?
Nope. It just says it does that.
Good players and bad players are both outliers. If you assign a numerical value to the players it’ll more likely try to balance the teams more than anything. I’ll put together an example.
P1: 100 - Best Player in the game
P2: 50 - Average Player
P3: 40 - Just below average
P4: 2 - Brand New to the game
To match these 4 players there’s only so many choices. Put P1 on a team with P2 or P3 and the other side is extremely disadvantaged. By putting P1 and P4 together, they average out to ~51. P2 and P3 average for ~45. The game thinks that’s a valid matchup, but really nobody is going to enjoy it.
This happens in both pubs and competitive modes because it maximizes “engagement” from the worst players, as they have a higher chance of being carried to a win when they’re put with the better players. Those also tend to be the ones who spend the most money, so these companies cater to them at the cost of enjoyment for everyone else.
Playing with people leagues better than you even if you are carried to a win sucks. In a lot of games you don’t even get to actually play. You’re dead before you get a shot off or never get to touch the ball or you fall off at the first obstacle and end not even getting to finish the race because you’re so behind everyone else.
That’s also true, and is often my experience in non-shooter games.
However it does work out that the lowest common denominator doesn’t care if they didn’t do anything. They’re just happy to win. The couch casuals aren’t ever going to be great, so their standard of a great game is much, much lower than anyone who plays daily or even every few days