Is CBMM doing what it’s reported to do? Is lobby balancing doing what it’s reported to do? There are flaws in all of them, so why single out SBMM? For me, it’s not only about protecting new lights and low skill players. It can also be about providing a higher frequency of closely contested matches, where every player has influence over the result (IOW, nobody carrying or getting carried). I don’t think the difference between CBMM and SBMM is as massive as some people make out, but there is enough of a difference to notice (I can only go off my experience playing 3v3 playlists). In SBMM, when the population is healthier, I do notice less outliers who tilt the team balancing. I do agree that CBMM isn’t all about low skill players getting stomped. It’s still possible to have balanced teams, just less often than in SBMM, but it’ll be more common to see players carrying, or getting carried, IME. Of course there are benefits to CBMM too. Apart from the obvious, mixing skill levels can be great for aspiration and seeing skill progression over time, in matches, can feel more rewarding than a rank or some other “artificial” metric. I agree that team balancing could be improved. I also think nailing down the playlists is important. The constant tinkering and lack of identity (for individual playlists and Crucible as a whole) is causing everything to be pulled in different directions. That’s why Iron Banner bizarrely has two playlists despite the current low population.

I’ve been dealing with a cataloging, as well as providing feedback for years, since the release of the forsaken expansion, that this matchmaking has been producing tilted lobbies. The game tends to do this for me, whether or not it’s CBMM or SBMM. This is why this is such a difficult conversation to have, because if you were having the experience that I have with the game, you wouldn’t necessarily be in agreement, but you would at very least empathize. Why am I singling out SBMM vs CBMM? Because one is a philosophical idea, while the other is logistical. The lower skilled players in my lobbies aren’t receiving the kind of fairness and protection that implies. SBMM for me is shorthand for a much larger issue taking place in gaming, which is the idea that some players should have a good experience at different times while other players have a completely different experience most of the time. Match manipulation. The effort to make sure that everyone gets a win or gets to take part in the player versus player power fantasy. The very argument that exist between CBMM vs SBMM IS PROXIMAL TO THE EXISTENCE OF SBMM ITSELF(sorry for the caps). If this new pervasive matchmaking system never came to be, then who in their right mind would complain about matching players based on the best connection possible? When the game struggles to put together the best connections possible, the issue is logistical. Skill based matchmaking reports to put players together, based on some kind of perceived fairness, and so routinely put players into matches where they are completely destroyed, over and over and over on the losing team, it’s because the reality isn’t lining up with the philosophy, and the whole thing stinks of dishonesty.

I can understand you having a personal dislike of SBMM if it’s giving you a bad experience. But even with logistical CBMM, any team balancing is still a type of manipulation — one that involves assessing skill and impacting how a match plays. It’s as much a philosophical idea as SBMM. I’m not sure if I’m misunderstanding your comments, but “the effort to make sure that everyone gets a win” can happen in CBMM as well. Secret manipulation is secret manipulation, regardless of which type of matchmaking is being used. SBMM is supposed to make match outcomes less predictable. That’s the philosophical idea behind it. The wins/losses are supposed to be an organic result of producing more evenly balanced teams. You might say it’s a false promise, but people say the same about team balancing in CBMM. I guess the fairest thing to do would be pure CBMM with no team balancing — zero manipulation. Take the pools out of Trials and maybe we have it. Ultimately, I don’t think making every playlist as brutal as Trials would be a successful strategy. I think team balancing is important for a lot of players. I think having at least one SBMM playlist is important too. Personally, I’m in favour of a variety of playlists with really clear identities for what kinds of experiences they offer. I think different types of matchmaking are an important part of that.

I wholeheartedly disagree, taking players, and evening out the teams is nowhere near the kind of manipulation that exist when matches are composed for one team to defeat the other. Taking a pull of players with different skills and dispersing them properly into even teams is a simple move, and doesn’t involve saying that only one type of person should have a highly competitive experience while another doesn’t have to deal with it. Making the choice between competitive and casual modes is a decision that has weight, when it comes to what type of experience that you’re going to have. Some players are excited by that prospect, and some players aren’t. Even talented players don’t want to play at that level of intensity all the time. But I’ll extend an Olive branch, if you’re right, and you make a good point, that lobby balancing is a manipulation, and the only way to end that manipulation, and any other type of manipulation was to make everything completely random based on connection, then I would be 100% in support of that.

[quote]matches are composed for one team to defeat the other.[/quote] I still don’t understand why you believe this is happening in SBMM, but not CBMM. If you think teams are stacked to keep certain players happy, or produce certain results, it can happen in either.

It can and did. We have no disagreement there, that’s why I say that CBMM and SBMM are, for lack of better terms, avatars for greater perceptions about MM. You do know there was a time when none of this existed right? You chose your server. Follow me here, if you could choose a server, why outside of player count(meaning the game was dead) would you PURPOSELY CHOOSE A HIGH PING SERVER? This is absolutely insane to me, that this isn’t crystal clear. The only reason why you’re insisting on talking about these polar opposites, as if they even exist, is because of SBMM…. I understand that even if you matched a bunch of players by connection, you could potentially use lobby balancing to create lobbies within that system to affect outcomes… bungee did every time and will continue to do so… but that’s not a result of connecting players by connection, that’s a proxy of the entire philosophy behind skill-based matchmaking. I’m sorry if I’m not making sense .

No need to apologise. We’re coming at it from different angles and it’s complicated stuff. I appreciate your comments — it’s an interesting conversation. I don’t think SBMM and team balancing should only be viewed as polluting the purity of connection quality and random chance. Leagues, divisions, rankings, seedings, etc. exist in sports because we all know certain match ups are more likely to produce blowouts. Entertainment is just as important as open competition and the general consensus is that more blowouts = more boring. The same is true for a lot of PvP players who don’t just want to compete, they want to be entertained as well. These things might be relatively new in the gaming world, but it’s really just trying to catch up to what people have been doing in the real world for a long time. So I’d say the issue is not the philosophy behind SBMM and team balancing. The issue is how well the systems are designed and how well they perform. The other thing to consider is that, unless it’s leaked from Bungie HQ, we can’t be sure what secret manipulation exists. Would you trust any billion dollar video game company to deliver a pure CBMM, zero team balancing experience across the entirety of their PvP? In other words, leave player retention purely to chance? Maybe team balancing and SBMM are “better the devil you know” options. *Edited to try and reduce my rambling! 😄

You are absolutely right, we don’t and probably can’t know exactly how their matchmaking system works. All I really know is how my experience plays out. Everything I’m saying, or you are saying, is conjecture and theories. What I am going to say however, is going to require a bit of your trust, as I attempt to provide insight into why I think that I’m right about the situation. This is a first-hand account of my personal reference point of what I consider a better time for me regarding matchmaking, so take from it what you will: I’ve got to go back to Destiny one. I was playing and enjoying the crucible, and Taken king was released. Almost immediately, I noticed that something was different, all the sudden it was taking much longer for me to get into matches, the lobbies were tougher, and I was experiencing lag and connection problems that I had not experienced prior. it was significant enough for me to research the problem, as I believed that I was experiencing something with my home connection, or ISP. After troubleshooting and literally replacing equipment, the problem persisted. Bare in mind, I had no knowledge of the phenomenon that we both now understand as being SBMM, I got on the forums to voice my concerns, and I found a lot of other players who were experiencing the same thing , it was at this time that a parallel community in the form of call of duty was experiencing a similar phenomenon and I came to understand that the issues I was having was a result of what people were calling SBMM. At the time, there were plenty of detractors claiming that it was a skill issue, or that I was making it up over being salty over losing or something of the sort. Those voices were seemingly vindicated when Bungie was silent for months about SBMM, despite the complete storm that was brewing. https://gamerant.com/destiny-skill-based-matchmaking-implemented/#:~:text=Bungie%20Admits%20They%20Stealth%20Implemented%20Skill%2DBased%20Matchmaking%20in%20Destiny,-By%20Weston%20Albert&text=Bungie%20admits%20that%20skill%20based,become%20extra%20competitive%20and%20laggy. The article above details how Bungie’s silence on the matter was to collect unbiased data on SBMM. I’m bringing this up to illustrate a situation where I could tell that something was off, despite being told that I was wrong, and had no confirmation on the matter. This is not so different from today. Fast-forward to Destiny 2, something has been off, since the Forsaken was released. However, due to the major changes in format, including an entire special weapon slot change, and move back to 6v6, I knew that there would be an adjustment period. However, Bungie never intended on adjusting anything. And thus began the destroy or be destroyed lobbies that still exist today. Bungie gave up on weapon balanced and embraced seasonal metas, Bungie gave up on balancing lobbies and mastered lobby manipulation to give everyone a chance to be on the team who’s destroying, likely distributed based on identified player thresholds for punishment, and micro transaction purchases(this is PURE THEORY). So to sum this up. Why do I choose to single out SBMM as a cause of the ills of PVP? Simple, because it specifically has caused me grief. One might respond(people have told me this) “you’re an statistical outlier, your the small portion of the community who is too good to be in the lower pool, but not good enough for the big league & your suffering is necessary for the greater good of the game”. While being callous, This is actually a fair point, and WAS true, but totally outdated, now that players have finally left in droves after 1 of the main pillars of Destiny 2(yes I said it PVP is a pillar of the game) was left to rot. One corrosive agent of the pillar was Bungie’s issues with matching players. Why is anything I say credible? Because I called SBMM’s existence in D1, despite being called an idiot and a liar about my experiences. And was months after the fact proven 100% correct. I’ve enjoyed this exchange as well, thank you for reading.

So your idea is that SBMM has something else baked in that is nothing to do with evenly balanced lobbies/teams (on purpose), or something that produces lopsided matches through bad design (by accident)? I hover somewhere between average and high skill myself, so I have a similar situation where I can be the top dog in a lobby of average players, or perform badly if matched against one or more highly skilled players. But I see these “destroy or be destroyed lobbies” more commonly in CBMM playlists and I noticed SBMM veer this way before I knew the PvP population had taken a bit of a nosedive. Not saying your experience is incorrect, just that mine has been different. The bottom line for me is, if there’s a choice, players can select whichever one they like. The issue then becomes how the playlists are organised. For me, a single SBMM playlist is essential. I’d be happy to have just one and let everything else be CBMM. Wouldn’t this negate any argument about SBMM giving certain players a bad experience? It’s worth remembering there are currently only two SBMM playlists (and Trials has pools when active). I don’t think the playlist options are a million miles away from where they need to be. I think there should be a popular SBMM option and a popular CBMM option. Anything else could be CBMM and cover the less popular or experimental game modes. Trials could be the pure CBMM, zero team balancing option (by removing pools). It’s impossible to make everyone happy, but I think that’s a fair compromise.

Perhaps I’m not communicating clearly, and there’s a good bit of context that has to be fleshed out to understand exactly what I’m talking about. So to answer your initial question I will now explain exactly what I think SBMM: It’s simply match manipulation, and it’s not a one size fits all answer. I think it’s tailored to the user. To further expand. I don’t think that there is any real CBMM or SBMM in the manner that it is often defined by this community. I think that the matchmaking across all game modes more resemble the philosophy that governs the idea SBMM. This is why, during this discussion that I have went to great links to explain that CBMM is only defined as an opposite of SBMM, because players have put it in that box. The opposite of connecting players by skill, is not matching them by connection. Ironically the opposite of connecting players by skill to create fair matches is exactly what the current form of SBMM actually is: Matching players in a manner that sets up one team to lose, which, in my mind would be the opposite of fairness. I want you to pay attention to what I’m gonna say next because it’s very important. We are in an impasse on this issue precisely because you’re not having the experience that I’m having, which calls into question why it is that I’m having the experience that I’m having and you are not. Is that the match rigging gets worse with SBMM, but not to say that it isn’t present during what BUNGEE calls CBMM. But again, CBMM/SBMM is all a derivative of the philosophy, behind what bungee and the community note and understand as SBMM, which is why it’s much easier for me to discuss it with you, as it is defined. THE PHILOSOPHY BEHIND WHAT BUNGEE CALLS SBMM LIKELY BECAUSE THAT WAS A TERM THAT THE COMMUNITY ADOPTED AS SOMETHING THAT THEY UNDERSTAND. The philosophy is the experience in competitive multiplayer must be manipulated and controlled so that players of all skill can take part in a power fantasy within the multiplayer context. There are better words to describe it, and I could use those terms to define what is actually taking place, but I don’t have concrete proof. This system has also been referred to as engagement optimized matchmaking or EOMM.

When I talk about CBMM and SBMM, it’s just shorthand for “does somebody want to match against players of similar skill or not?” I’m well aware it’s not as simple as that and I’d be more surprised if some form of player engagement manipulation was not also included in both. So if your argument to get rid of SBMM is “get rid of hidden player engagement manipulation”, I’m more in agreement (I’m not sure how realistic that request is, because we don’t know for sure it exists, or if it does exist, how pervasive it is). A Destiny SBMM playlist could take into account skill, connection, queue time and engagement optimisation. But which one takes dominance? Does it change to suit different players at different times? Even if we assume engagement optimisation exists, it could have minimal influence over things. If it exists and it serves Bungie well, they’d be highly unlikely to want to change things. If it exists and it’s pushing too many players away, they might just adjust it, rather than binning it completely. Either way, they are not openly talking about it. Are you aware of any current PvP games where the developers have clearly stated they don’t use EOMM and you’re convinced by them? It seems like something developers would address head on, if they weren’t using it. Ps. Referring to the manipulation as EOMM is much clearer for me and avoids confusing it with other aspects of matchmaking that are explicitly chosen by players. I don’t equate SBMM with hidden manipulation in the same way you do.

[quote]When I talk about CBMM and SBMM, it’s just shorthand for “does somebody want to match against players of similar skill or not?”[/quote] This unfortunately, is where the discussion ends about MM. No disrespect, but I’m not interested in further rehashing defenses against this talking point. If this is your reference, point then there really is nothing to say. I’m on a hard line with this issue. Any other games with potential EOMM that the Devs haven’t addressed? Look no further than call of duty and the Activision patent that literally outlined everything I’m saying, and that I’m on record on these forums saying what happening in destiny when Activision was running the show here as well. For me, it’s no surprise that call of duty is experiencing record flow player counts, as the experience for dedicated players of all skills is absolutely abysmal.

I didn’t write that bit you quoted to argue a point. I was just explaining why I found it difficult to understand precisely what your issue was. I’ve been very open to your thoughts on everything. My question was more to see who definitely doesn’t use EOMM. I just wondered if a dev company had explicitly said they don’t use it and people generally felt confident that was true. If it’s a hot topic, staying silent would be concerning for players, especially in the more competitive games. Or maybe you think it’s already widespread? [spoiler]I just did a little googling of EOMM and chanced on a little trick to “beat” it: quit whenever you lose so that the algorithm feeds you more wins to keep you playing for longer. Which is hilarious and depressing at the same time. 😄[/spoiler]

I think Activision, and several other AAA publishers, outsource 3rd party algorithms to manage their MM, likely from the same group, or guided by the same consultants. It’s why all games use similar nomenclature for their MM, rather than their own proprietary name for the MM system. As for the tip on “beating EOMM” I’ve never heard of that specifically, but one of my buddies is consistently getting screw in the Finals by bad MM(which is still leagues better than Destiny). The advice I gave him was ironically, to quit when you start to feel MM ALGOs tighten, move to another game and rotate through them. I’ve made this work wonders for me, but I miss the days of devoting time to one game in an effort to see my skill progression.

Eeshk! Maybe we all need to retreat to private matches. Thanks for the chat — it’s been very interesting. 👍

Yes, I appreciate your time and communication. Earlier, when I said, I didn’t want to discuss a particular item, it had nothing to do with that I was offended, or felt like you were being argumentative. It had all to do with the number of times I have personally had that discussion and would Simply be copy and pasting argumentation I’ve used before. But to move on to the retreat to private matches: Private matches, private communities in general, are the answer to MM, as well as many other issues plaguing multiplayer/PVP games. In 2016 before my home flooded. I broke out my 360 and booted up unreal tournament three, they were 16 guys online who knew each other, who happened to be from the Texas area which is relatively close to where I live so the matches were great connection-wise. Turns out these guys have been playing since the game came out and never stopped, this was well into PlayStation 4/Xbox One generation. I started to play with these guys every weekend, and they absolutely dominated me, but I had such a good time Because there was actual community. They showed me a lot about the game and after about three weekends I actually got a lot better, I was even able to compete. I would’ve kept playing with them, but unfortunately, my 360 went under the water during the flood. It was my last good experience with multiplayer. Unfortunately, all the tools are there for people to take part in this but they don’t, and likely won’t. This again, I believe a proxy of the way that matchmaking has been handled over the last decade. Opponents and teammates are nameless, faceless actors in each players respective power fantasy, within the multiplayer context. For all intents and purposes, if people’s multi players, opponents were actually bots. Most people wouldn’t know or care, unless it was revealed. I wouldn’t be surprised if this becomes the norm in the future.

I pondered this a while back: at what point will AI become so sophisticated that any online interaction could be artificial? Unless we know the person in real life, and they can confirm our interaction, we’d never know for sure. This has huge implications for social media and online multiplayer games. Like you say, I imagine a good chunk of people either won’t know, or won’t care. It’ll just become an even more fictionalised version of what already exists. For others, it’ll tip the balance too far. Those who value authentic interaction will retreat to much smaller, gated, online communities of people they know in real life. Some will be spurred on to create real world venues and events to facilitate multiplayer gaming in a more open way. Who knows, maybe video arcades could make a huge comeback (they’d be a great way to casually play with or against total strangers and be sure they weren’t an AI bot). Gaming could potentially become much more social in that respect. It’s going to be interesting to see how this all plays out. Maybe the age of communicating with “anyone, anywhere” has already peaked.

Excellent thoughts! I don’t know if you saw my response to Ammo about how I used to run LAN games on weekend nights at a local Movie rental store. Man those days were great. Despite being relatively negative about the situation at hand, I see good changes coming in the future as a result of the following, recent developments concerning multiplayer gaming: 1. Recent revelations concerning the existence and nature of SBMM/EOMM. 2. To expand: Nothing can ever replace the feeling of getting better at a game. This is why it is almost a requirement for companies to stay tight lipped about how their matchmaking systems work behind-the-scenes. in the wake of these new revelations, we’re already starting to see engagement plummeting for popular games like D2 and COD. This is sending a strong message about how people feel and this ultimately speaking clearly to the publisher’s bottom line. 3. We are seeing marketing for new games, such as Xdefiant, stating clearly that they do not have SBMM in their casual modes(outside of a “new player” playlist that you can only access in the first 25 levels). 4. The revelation of many popular streamers and content creators, who have been caught cheating, which has by proxy, led to the destigmatization of calling out cheating. I believe that this contributed to Sony’s recent update, that disables the use of Cronus devices on the PS5. It’s going to take a while, but we are going to see positive developments. It is very unlikely that we will ever return to choosing a server, matching completely randomly with people in the community. Back then, we didn’t have paid professionals, and semi-professional players interacting as much in the same space as casual and lower skilled players. There are a lot more types of players now as well, some with disabilities, some older etc. There is going to be some form of protection needed to allow accessibility. However, I feel like players will always enjoy the excitement of going up against live, thinking, unpredictable opponents, experiencing the joy of getting better. if the game is good and fun to play, just like back in the day, people will show up and play. Developers will see that all of the R&D costs wrapped up in trying to engage players, would be better spent making a good game, and supporting their communities.

Yes, I saw that comment about the LAN events you ran. I imagine that type of thing will be making a comeback in the future. Long term, it might be the only way PvP with strangers has any legitimacy. Anyone with a competitive mindset surely doesn’t want matchmaking secretly engineering wins and losses. It’s something that more devs are going to have to address. If there’s no trust in the matchmaking, a lot of the most dedicated PvP players will not play. Same for cheating. Long term, online cheating may become completely undetectable. That’s where I feel AI could be heading — no way to know who is cheating, or even who is human. If that happens, there are going to be some huge changes to how people engage with online multiplayer games (particularly PvP).