{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
6/6/2015 10:55:28 PM
1
But those same average players would still get beat.
People overemphasise this advantage.
In one life game modes, worse players will always struggle more than in respawn game modes.
These same players will be complaining that Rainbow Six Siege is too hard for them because we only get one chance each round.
Bottom line, connection should be much better, as it isn't, I'm happy that it's this way. In terms of match difficulty, it's the same as 3v3 Skirmish or 2v2 Skirmish (6v6 is harder for me as my 6v6 team is mediocre).
English
-
Of course there will always be a winner and a loser. But which do you think is a better losing experience for the majority of players: Losing to a team who completely obliterates you. Or losing to a team who felt like the game was close enough that maybe you'd have a chance of you played them a second or third time? Not only is the second option better, but it could even drive people to get excited and to keep playing. With skill-based matchamaking, ideally, what would happen is: Players would feel good and motivated to play again, whether they win or lose, and they'd do so KNOWING they faced teams of about-equal skill level. This is even good for all the ego-stroking elitists, because at the moment, they already brag. This way, they'd at least be bragging knowing they faced actual teams on their level. ;)
