Engagement Era gameplay
-
This is only the case if you're getting stomped in quick play. Comp matches don't have bots fortunately and I've had plenty of close games
-
Is this complaining about skill-based matchmaking?
-
The truth of the matter is that actual good matchmaking is extremely difficult, and it only gets harder the more players you have in a match.
-
Yeah but its annoying, especially when I first tried it with a friend
-
I pretty much stopped playing games altogether because I am addicted to the yellow. Close matches are awesome, no matter if my side wins or loses.
-
Overwatch is the worst for this.
Game one: We absolutely steamroll and as tank I do more than both DPS players put together. Yay.
Game two: We get our asses kicked and some Ana who doesn't know to switch or group up when they're getting dived spends the whole endgame screaming how awful our tank is.
-
No, it's complaining about how some games are so swingy that even with skill-based matchmaking the game always seems to be a landslide in one direction or the other.
-
I hear people say this but I’ve yet to see it, usually just toxic people calling the losing team bots
-
The spread of "skill-based" matchmaking and ranked competitive ladders largely took away a valuable communal aspect of online multiplayer games, IMO. Getting dropped into a match with a bunch of random people you'll probably never see again just makes things so impersonal, which can cultivate a lot of toxicity.
Some of the best times I've ever had with online gaming were from finding a dedicated server with settings I liked, hanging out there often, and gradually getting to know the regulars and becoming part of a community. I've never had that kind of feeling from a game with automated matchmaking.
-
100% agree! Sure, it might be disappointing if you spend 15 minutes in an intense back and forth before eventually losing, but it feels good! If one side is going to absolutely dominate the other, though, at least let it be over quickly.
-
Shhhh, its just the lazy devs who also work super hard to make it terrible. /s
Everyone thinks their game of choice has bad match making, but it's just salt most of the time and doesn't pan out when actually tested and measured objectively. If match making was perfect they would win 50% of the time, but perfection is impossible because the system can only work with the players online right now. Those players aren't equally good every day, either, nor are they equally good against all other players, or on all maps. It's a moving target.
That doesn't even touch on cross play, or premade teams, which further complicate it.
-
Absolutely. If all you care about is the win at the end then maybe you don't actually enjoy the game, you just enjoy dopamine.
-
Games don't use catch-up mechanics anymore, because those take time. In the old days, if you played CTF or objective-push maps, there would be an automatic catch-up in that the side losing would get closer to their spawn. Now, that's all gone.
And MOBA is even worse, because it has escalation mechanics. If you lose a small edge at the start, you lose big later.
-
This is why I quit PvP after call of duty mw2 (reboot,)
I knew I was being manipulated. It's why I completely have quit PvP and stick with PvE or single player.
-
Yeah I dont play these games anymore. Catch me on the Space Station 14, where we pretend to work for an evil corporation while having none (except Valve) involved.
-
When I tried BO6s MP for a while after launch (main zombies usually but the MP historically was worth some time investment) and while it absolutely felt the worst in terms of EOMM on a personal level I noticed the game was almost always close for whatever that game mode counted, so I started paying attention
Very VERY quickly noticed what was happening: EOMM pulling it's bullshit so people on whatever team was getting stomped would dip (no notif people leave and who looks at the scoreboard that regularly unless you notice something like I did) and then after maybe 25% of the match of one side being seriously down suddenly they'd get filled with a team either way over-skilled or blatantly cheating, managing to pull the score back in time to make it look "close' even though it was a stomp one direction for 25-50% of the match followed by a stomp the other fucking direction
-
Yes. I caught on to this waaaaaaaayyyy back when League just starting getting traction, esports weren't really a thing, and I also played some Yu Gi Oh.
Both has the same sort of design, as ilæustrated nicely by this meme; the match is nearly always decided early, and for the rest of the game you're either just styling on the opponents, or you are getting styles on.
Victories didn't feel good, losses felt even worse, and I began to understand why people rage and break their keyboard. Games like these fuel such behaviour.
-
There are steam forum posts about this.
https://steamcommunity.com/app/2767030/discussions/0/591757960657544586/ this is a great example. Not sure if it's still the same tho
-
I play OpenRA.
Late in the evening, I sometimes get a training session with a "pro".
We know who they are. No ranking, no skins, just the registered name. It's enough to inflict terror...
Good stuff.
-
Not really sure how one sided battles is related to microtransactions tbh. All the WW1 game series games (Verdun, Tannenberg, Isonzo) and Enlisted are games I have played lately. Both to some extent have this issue at times and yet have very different pricing models. Verdun and Tannenberg is a single game to buy and that is it, Isonzo added a few premium cosmetic packs. While Enlisted is apparently really bad for grind premium stuff although tbh I haven't really noticed because you start with a rifle and a rifle kills people. Not really noticed a difference with any of the other rifles, they all kill people.
Some teams are just useless.
