[quote]...and if you offer people the choice to pay more taxes or less taxes, the less-informed voter will always choose lower taxes. That doesn't mean that a lower tax rate is in that person's individual interests. Because for many voters, what you keep in additional income, won't allow you to replace what you lose in government benefits or government/public services. Which is why we here in the United States have seen a steady erosion in our roads, infrastructure, and public spaces over the last 40 years. As I said. Feelings aren't Facts.[/quote] And your assertion that most people prefer or should prefer tight, competitive matches is a feeling. Once again, you're making no sense.

[quote]And your assertion that most people prefer or should prefer tight, competitive matches is a feeling.[/quote] ...and you need to go back and re-read what I actually wrote. Because I never said what people "should prefer". That's YOUR argument. I spoke to the OBJECTIVE consequences of various matchmaking schemes....and the agendas of different types of players with respect to WHY they prefer what they prefer. The fact is that the average player simply isn't going to be able to tell the difference between a play list that uses SBMM versus one that uses CBMM......and only THINKS he can after you've TOLD him which is which. So it sort becomes a "taste test" where the taster knows exactly what he's drinking at all times. Not exactly reliable science. Because all sorts of biases come into play. The fact is that CBMM caters to the game's high profile and vocal minority....at the expense of lesser players....and at the expense of growing the game and replacing lost players. SBMM makes it easier to add new players and grow the appeal of the game....at the expense of "sweaty" matches for the best players....with the possibility of longer MM times, and poorer connections. You can argue all you want.....but the math is pretty clear here.

[quote][quote]And your assertion that most people prefer or should prefer tight, competitive matches is a feeling.[/quote] ...and you need to go back and re-read what I actually wrote. Because I never said what people "should prefer". That's YOUR argument. I spoke to the OBJECTIVE consequences of various matchmaking schemes....and the agendas of different types of players with respect to WHY they prefer what they prefer. The fact is that the average player simply isn't going to be able to tell the difference between a play list that uses SBMM versus one that uses CBMM......and only THINKS he can after you've TOLD him which is which. So it sort becomes a "taste test" where the taster knows exactly what he's drinking at all times. Not exactly reliable science. Because all sorts of biases come into play. The fact is that CBMM caters to the game's high profile and vocal minority....at the expense of lesser players....and at the expense of growing the game and replacing lost players. SBMM makes it easier to add new players and grow the appeal of the game....at the expense of "sweaty" matches for the best players....with the possibility of longer MM times, and poorer connections. You can argue all you want.....but the math is pretty clear here.[/quote] I've already given you an example that disproves these assumptions. H5 launched with warzone(loose skill mm) and ranked(tight sbmm). They added social(tight sbmm) due to fan outcry. Social didn't draw much population with tight sbmm. When they loosened up the sbmm, the population started to flow to social. You have no evidence. You have your assumptions and they are objectively wrong and have been disproven time and again.

...and I'm sure that 343 TOLD everyone that they were going to "loosen up the SBMM" before they did it...and didn't just DO IT, and see if anyone noticed the difference. Once again the "unblinded taste test". . Case in point. For years major symphony orchestras used to hire people through open auditions. People got to see what the person who was playing looked like. They got to evaluate people whom they knew....and the Orchestras has a major problem. Female musicians who played instruments that were considered traditionally "male" (like horns) had difficulty getting hired. People who has unsual playing techniques had difficulty getting hired....and evidence of nepotism and favoritism ran rampant, along with the evidence of bias in the evaluation of auditions. So what the Orchestras did, is they went to BLIND auditions. IOW, the person coming into audition played from behind a screen. The people evaluating him or her...never got to SEE that person. Moroever, each auditioner was only identified by a code designation.....so no one knew the name of the person they were hearing play. ...and what happened is that if forced the judges to listen with their EARS....rather than with their EYES. Thus eliminating any favoritism, prejudices or confirmation bias in evaluating that playing. The result. By forcing people to actually LISTEN to the quality of the music, unburdened by any preconceptions about the PERSON making that music.......the kinds musicians that they hired immediately began to transform. And many of the "truisms" of classical musicianship were reveled to simply be the biases that they were in fact. Oh....and the quality of the music got better too. Surprise, surprise. The point? You keep wanting to argue people's preferences in OPEN auditions when they are "listening with their eyes". I'm telling you the OBJECTIVE results when they forced to listen with their EARS, and their biases and preconceptions are taken out of the mix. ...and all that's left are the raw statistics of the skill levels of the people you are matching against one another.

[quote]...and I'm sure that 343 TOLD everyone that they were going to "loosen up the SBMM" before they did it...and didn't just DO IT, and see if anyone noticed the difference. Once again the "unblinded taste test". . Case in point. For years major symphony orchestras used to hire people through open auditions. People got to see what the person who was playing looked like. They got to evaluate people whom they knew....and the Orchestras has a major problem. Female musicians who played instruments that were considered traditionally "male" (like horns) had difficulty getting hired. People who has unsual playing techniques had difficulty getting hired....and evidence of nepotism and favoritism ran rampant, along with the evidence of bias in the evaluation of auditions. So what the Orchestras did, is they went to BLIND auditions. IOW, the person coming into audition played from behind a screen. The people evaluating him or her...never got to SEE that person. Moroever, each auditioner was only identified by a code designation.....so no one knew the name of the person they were hearing play. ...and what happened is that if forced the judges to listen with their EARS....rather than with their EYES. Thus eliminating any favoritism, prejudices or confirmation bias in evaluating that playing. The result. By forcing people to actually LISTEN to the quality of the music, unburdened by any preconceptions about the PERSON making that music.......the kinds musicians that they hired immediately began to transform. And many of the "truisms" of classical musicianship were reveled to simply be the biases that they were in fact. Oh....and the quality of the music got better too. Surprise, surprise. The point? You keep wanting to argue people's preferences in OPEN auditions when they are "listening with their eyes". I'm telling you the OBJECTIVE results when they forced to listen with their EARS, and their biases and preconceptions are taken out of the mix. ...and all that's left are the raw statistics of the skill levels of the people you are matching against one another.[/quote] They said it in a reply buried thousands of pages into a forum thread on a forum that is quite inactive. Just stop. You're wrong. Give up. People started to flock to the social lists when the sbmm was loosened because they played it and it wasn't a sauna so they came back. This created a steady flow of players as more and more people came to realise it was actual enjoyable. You have yet to provide even one real world example that has anything to do with video game MM systems. Please name one console shooter that has tight sbmm and loose sbmm options where the majority chose tight sbmm. You can't. It doesn't exist.

This game. When Bungie significantly reduce the degree of SBMM and basically no one but the top players ---and fairly weak players---even noticed. In fact this place was flooded with posts accusing Bungie about lying about having made any changes. Overwatch and the fact they use SBMM in every playlist. Just about every other form of online competitive game and the fact the use SBMM. In fact FPS are the outlier in trying to cling to systems that don't use it. Anything else?

[quote]This game. When Bungie significantly reduce the degree of SBMM and basically no one but the top players ---and fairly weak players---even noticed. In fact this place was flooded with posts accusing Bungie about lying about having made any changes. Overwatch and the fact they use SBMM in every playlist. Just about every other form of online competitive game and the fact the use SBMM. In fact FPS are the outlier in trying to cling to systems that don't use it. Anything else?[/quote] Forum posts are not evidence. At best they only show that dedicated, highly knowledgeable players are the ones who can articulate why tight sbmm is bad. That doesn't mean others don't also dislike it. OW'S quickplay lists use much looser sbmm settings. Literally every single shooter on earth(besides destiny) has playlists that use looser sbmm somewhere in the game. Even cs go.

Can't have it both ways. You can't claim YOUR subjective assessments are "valid evidence", but the ones that I use aren't. ....and unless one of us is a programmer that has access to the MM algorithms used by these devs, any arguments over "loose versus tight" ....and what is even meant by those terms is speculative crap. What ISN"T speculative or crap is the MATH here. ...and what the MATH says happens when you start MM people across two related normal distributions of skill and connection quality. Only the people who are the outliers are going to wind up with a significant enough difference (in terms of who they get matched with) to be able to RELIABLY notice any difference. Or have STATISTICALLY different outcomes.

[quote]Can't have it both ways. You can't claim YOUR subjective assessments are "valid evidence", but the ones that I use aren't. ....and unless one of us is a programmer that has access to the MM algorithms used by these devs, any arguments over "loose versus tight" ....and what is even meant by those terms is speculative crap. What ISN"T speculative or crap is the MATH here. ...and what the MATH says happens when you start MM people across two related normal distributions of skill and connection quality. Only the people who are the outliers are going to wind up with a significant enough difference (in terms of who they get matched with) to be able to RELIABLY notice any difference. Or have STATISTICALLY different outcomes.[/quote] I never used forum posts as evidence. I used player population. Oh here we go again. People couldn't tell the difference between ranked and social in h3. They only thought they could. Please