/v/ - Video Games

Matchmaking is cancer and has no place in online gaming.

No I don't use them, and it's fucking retarded unless the sole purpose is to grief, and even then that's being a pretty big faggot.

>>14537729

At least you are an honest soul.

>>14537729

So you are too scared to be challenged and think smashing new players is a good way to make you feel good about yourself ?

>>14537729

>feeling so inadequate you have to purposely lie just to stomp brain dead retards to feel good about yourself

/v/ in a post.

I don't grief because I don't play modern garbage

Leveling alternate accounts is a completely valid form of "smurfing" you fucking casuals

>online rpg/lootyscooty/numberporn

>only remotely fun equipment setups are at low level

>only way to actually have fun is to be a twink

>get banned for doing it too well

>>14537736

When people at your level leave no margin for error that's no fun, and sometimes one wants to have fun.

The competitive ranked try hard shit show is relatively recent, peop

>>14537729

So cowardice.

>>14537810

Oh shit guys, he hits the "Matchmake" button on his only account, what a proper brave boy.

>>14537709

Matchmaking is retarded and does nothing except serve as an excuse to not have to git gud.

It's natural to get your shit kicked in if you're shit at a game. The solution is to get better, not rail against the people doing you the favour of nullifying the mistakes the devs made in game design.

I have smurfed from time to time and it's usually with a new/low-ranked friend in order not to thrust him into high skill lobbies before he's ready. Depending on the game I'll play dumb too knowing that I can make it up later if I really need to.

>>14537709

Giving an actual explanation of what they are might help.

>>14537709

It's a sign that we should go back to the server model instead of trying to make matchmaking work for team-based games.

>>14537988

This.

>>14537924

nigga what. its making a second account in a ranked game to stomp beginners. this terms been around as long as 'loot' or 'mob' has.

You basically have to have Smurf playing friends in order to join them when you're first starting and learning a particular game, unless you're a master of whatever genre and can pick up changes rapidly. Otherwise you're just gonna get destroyed by people who know the game and character capabilities better than you do.

>>14537924

Have you never played a video game?

>>14538212

>>14538272

Never heard it used before. Have heard of the concept. I like the idea. The purpose of a game is fun as much as it is expansion of a skill set. As a point of relaxation, beat the shit out of the easiest difficulty, sure.

>>14537736

sounds like you and op are salty somebody better than you stomped you

>want to play csgo with friend who isn't addicted to it

>can't play competitive with someone ranked to low below you

<only choices are casual mode or to smurf

thanks volvo

Matchmaking is a poor substitute for the old clan battles and competitive scrimmages of the past. Back then you'd need to have an organic reputation built up to participate in higher-level games. Now you just pubstomp until you can no longer do so. Smurfing is just a symptom of the larger disease of trustless ladder systems, purveyor of many other fine products such as tryhardism, ladder anxiety, cancerous player behavior, no community servers, no custom games or modding, cosmetic paypigs, lootcrates, and devs forcing their game into e-sports.

>>14538463

If you want to play with your friend, play with your friend. That you feel like playing is a waste if you don't play ranked is a sign that you have been consumed by the cancer.

>>14538493

It's not even about ranked, CSGO has no way to play 5v5 vanilla besides abandoned custom servers or ranked. Casual mode isn't just 'unranked', it's watered down 20 player bullshit.

>>14538463

Find 3 more players, it lets you queue regardless of rank when you have a full 5-player party. Normalfag friends sometimes convince me to play with them

>>14538502

>watered down 20 player bullshit

This is your brain on e-sports.

If the game is an rpg and has leveling mechanics like runescape then its pretty fun to make a certain character just for pvp situations, on the other hand its extremely autistic at the same time because you limit yourself to the options you can do on the account.

>>14538666

Nice trips but you're wrong.

>everyone needs their ass handed to them once in a while

Spoken like a born loser.

>>14538676

How else will you see how the game is played by competent players? In games with protected matchmaking, there's always massive disconnect between low and high level players. I've been on both sides, and I don't care when I come up against a smurf.

The one universal rule for pvp games - the only people who complain about smurfs are actual shitters at the game itself.

>>14538417

>>14538212

A lot of people don't play multiplayer games or online games. I hate them and such don't play, and as such never heard of 'smurf account' before this thread.

As long as they aren't actually ruining the game environment I don't give a fuck about them, but if they are its pretty gay (as in the volume of them is so much that new players can't get a game without being fucked to the point of giving up on the game). They can kill a multiplayer game pretty easily if allowed.

Smurfing is amazingly fun in a bad game. Think of a game that sucks, and then imagine playing online against people that fucking blow. It feels amazing.

I don't usually smurf, it's not fun normally, but if you're playing a game where you can really piss someone off because the game is a piece of shit (like League of Legends), it's a lot of fun. Specially when you start provoking them.

Shitty games are fun to smurf because they are inherently broken, and smurfing makes the broken parts of the games painfully apparent.

It's gay and a waste of time 90% of the time, though.

>>14538690

>warcraft 2

>underageb&

>kikepedia screencap like it means anything

you're not very bright are you?

only people who complain about smurfs are shitters. the only way to git gud is to play against better players.

when you get shit on by some gay killhole in rainbow thats how you learn

>>14538690

Yes anon, Warcraft 2 came out in 2013. 9 years after World of Wacraft and over a decade after Warcraft 3. You caught me, i'm John Titor bitch.

There is one asymmetrical game I am not going to mention the name of, but I only play it at low ranks, and I intentionally de-rank whenever my rank gets too high.

The reason for this is that the game is absurdly imbalanced in favour of of Side A.

The only way to have fun in the game as Side B is to either:

A) Play only against Side A players who dont know how to exploit the godawful balance problems yet.

B) Be a complete masochist.

I don't smurf because stomping a team of retards isn't fun. You may get the initial rush as you kill one after another, but soon it'll get replaced by apathy as you realise they're literally worse than AI bots and that there's no challenge to speak of. In games I feel particularly good at, I always go and join the losing team so that I get to play against someone decent – we usually lose the round due to the majority of team being shitters, but at least I had fun trying to turn the tide.

>>14538255

Or they can just tell you what to do and you can Fucking listen , I play Squad and there are people who didn't even read the control scheme and they cry all die on chat , asking about what each key does

I don't support smurfing , I want enemies that either are better enough than me that I can learn , or enemies that make 51v49 games and we keep outsmarting each other which leads to everybody getting better

I had a situation like this in beta of Argo ,There was one guy who always did wide flanks and sniping, and I did sneaking , we played some games together first , And than I was playing against him and we both had to switch tactics because we knew each other too good

>>14538703

This turned into a rant about the absolute state of fps players

>the only people who complain about smurfs are actual shitters at the game itself.

I wonder if at some point they will start banning it harder

All it takes is one sales faggot to say

"People are leaving because they entry level is to high"

So it all depends on your patience , maybe play with bots or run around in the test range

I guess not everybody want their game to be Dark Souls because you get in a match with max lvl enemies that should play against other max lvl enemies and not you

But it all depends on what you want from the game

I would like to see a ranking system in the game I play so I don't have to deal with fucking noobs that can't think , they are not just bad at the game , They actively don't want to get better and came to a "milisim" so they can run around with M249 and pretend they are cool but will never fucking lay cover fire for you

For now it became popular to call in game squads something like "500+ hours or fuck off" with different effect

I am at the level of disdain and salt that I want hour counters(which can be cheated because sitting in the menu counts) and how much the person paid for the game be displayed next to their nickname

Of course devs want money ,and the game is 50% like every fucking month , which pushed veterans out , and changed skilled players country from 90% to 1%

There is also Clanboys problem , because they play together and leave together so you can loose half the server population and once

And they often instead of showing the best discipline and skill that Clans should represent are just fucking around being glorified randoms with a clan tag ,Choice between noobs and noobs with a clan tag is no choice at all

And then there are the Vehicle Squads ,which means 2 faggots in a locked squad, taking an APC type vehicle that should be Armored Personnel Carrier and just ride around the map getting frags not transporting anybody

One of the reason I quit BF4 was 100/0 99/0 immortal tanks and npc's and now Squad has the same symptoms

I just hate the type of people that go into a "milisim" just to fuck around and ruin it

Why can't they just fuck off and play Gaynite ?

>>14537960

>>14537800

>>14538442

>trying to justify themselves being shit enough at they make new accounts/buy the game/derank just to feel like they're good again.

Sounds like someone doesnt know how to play Casual, or at the very least get good at the game. Theres difference between being good by a small amount, and then theres a point where the smurf 1v10's an entire team essentially.

>>14539232

That sounds like DbD anon.

I got to rank 1 as the worst characters on side B

>>14539232

Yeah dead by daylight sure fucked up the one job they had, make killers actually fucking threatening.

Matchmaking is gay and I admire "smurfs" for breaking it.

>>14538538

The high player count fucks with the design. You can't perform the strats that you usually do with 10 players because you can't rotate or deceive the opposite team. Not to mention that it doesn't have team kill so people get through your shots.

>>14537709

Just a part of the larger problem that is matchmaking. Bring back servers and lobbies.

This cam be fixed by making account creation cost money, either they don't smurf or the proprietors get money, win win. Gratis multiplayer games will always have them in masse though, it's just too fun to curbstomb noobs and ruin their days.

>>14537752

I actually found that playing ranked in Rocket League actually gives you a stable match-up. Though that's not too hard when casual is literally just randoms thrown together. It's the one game I don't mind playing ranked in. I think that's mostly because the game isn't all that complicated and matches are only 5 minutes long not counting over-time.

I don't understand why matchmaking is so difficult to get "right".

>>14540341

I have too, even done perkless runs too. Its just that I am not willing to do it anymore because its about as fun as pounding nails through my dick. I will start playing it seriously again instead of just fucking around at low ranks when they fix the balance

>>14537713

This. If someone is good they should win often, if someone is bad they should lose often. Matchmaking attempts to "fix" this by tainting the matches with selections designed to make good players lose more often and bad players win more often until everybody is at a perfect 50/50 win/loss.

It is inherently communistic. They want everybody to be equal, and I believe that is morally wrong.

>>14541061

That doesn't work, people still buy copies of CSGO to do exclusively smurf accounts. Its at a point where CSGO doesn't go on sale at all anymore, and I don't think you can gift it.

>>14537709

When i played Fighting games alot, I'd lose my battle points to reach mid level players (not lowest). The mid level players are the most saltiest and delusional. I'd get way more hatemail playing mid-level players, it was great.

>>14542029

Valve like the extra income anyway.

>>14537709

Anyone who bitches about them needs to git gud.

>>14541806

afaik know match making wasn't this cancerous until valve got their hands on it. valve ruins everything.

>>14550016

As well you should.

>>14550019

hexes soon fellow autist

>>14550041

Very good.

>>14541806

Top players have positive win rates, around 75-80% for the top 1%. If you are 50-50 you are just mediocre, like the rest of the mass of mediocres at the game. Furthermore, really terrible people, bottom of the barrel, your bronze league shitters, have ~30% winrates so at least there is that. This is completely natural if your game has a huge player pool and the matchmaking algorithm is working into matching players of the same skill level. You can only have high win rates if you are a very, very good player and it is at the top 5% of the player pool. You can do this by only playing with your shit friends exclusively or getting really good at the game if it has regional/global matchmaking. Easy path or hard path.

t. ASSFAGGOTS designer

>>14550079

>t. ASSFAGGOTS designer

kys

>>14556556

its called the bell curve you dip

Matchmaking is ok

as long as you have a mode with matchmaking rating and a mode where anything goes.

Which by the way, is most games nowadays (quick match)

It is inherently wrong when games like Overwatch turn the quickmatch into matchmaking algorithm as well

>>14556787

Nice (((spacing))) you fuck. Anyway you're retarded. A man is not born great at a game, nor does he maintain the same level of greatness for his entire life. Therefore the notion that you can put people in definitive ranks and then endlessly fight them against their 'equals' is as ridiculous as it is unbelievable.

You have to go back.

>>14556787

>You really should learn what a probability distribution is.

tell me how probability distributions explain how 90% of the player population somehow fits into the 50% of the player population with average-level skill or lower

by definition 50% of any population is at or below average (for that population) and 50% of any population is at or above average (for that population). if you think that 90% of players are mediocre with average skills or lower (50% of the player population), you misunderstand basic fractions/percentages.

90% ≠ 50%

if you misunderstand basic fractions/percentages, the idea that you comprehend statistics is laughable.

>>14556775

>its called the bell curve you dip

see >>14557226

>>14537709

Been on the both sides: Here is how it usually goes for me

>Doto2

>High tier

>Quit the game because it starts to suck hard

>Friends (casuals) want to play with from time to time

>Party got match with the scummiest, the faggiest tryhards ever everytime

>Guess it is my fault, let me make a fresh one

>Smashes low tier

>Not really fun and got some salt out of it

>Rainbow Six Siege

>Casual

>Gold 1&2 in casual on enemy team (premade party also)

>Newbies on my team (not even double digits rank)

>Got smashed, a bit salty

>Next game it is all newbie party

>Enemy team full of premade Recruit rushed us, shittalk because no mute all function yet, apparently some small time Jewtuber looking for salt by crushing newbs and trash talking them hard

>Thanks Ubicock. Instead of mute all chat, you hired people just to look at games log for Nigger, Fag, and all other shit

>>14537709

Anyone who gets crushed by smurfs should just git gud tbh fam.

>>14561705

It's an old term.

>>14557226

>by definition 50% of any population is at or below average (for that population) and 50% of any population is at or above average (for that population). if you think that 90% of players are mediocre with average skills or lower (50% of the player population), you misunderstand basic fractions/percentages.

That's wrong you dumbass. Go back to statistics class.

50% of people are below the median. The average can differ. If a distribution is skewed right then significantly more of the population will be below the average skill level. This is commonplace in games since people start out at a fairly common skill level but only few improve and fewer still reach the highest levels of skill.

>>14565163

Doesn't it depend what type of average you use?

>>14537709

>or cowards running from the right tier of challenge for their rank?

This one.

>Do you do it?

Kind of. In Dark Souls I made low level characters, would beat them game with them then invade low level areas with high level stuff. I didn't do this very long though, nearly one-shotting people with my overpowered stuff got boring very fast.

I tried switching to appropriate gear but even then it was boring because of how bad they are.

Smurfings for fags. I'm not much of a big fan due to my fighting game honor of fight ppl ur own skill and don't bully noobies

Im just mainly living to fuck with ppl in game tbh

>>14557226

Pareto distribution, nigger, 10% of the playerbase accounts for 90% of the competency and success.

>>14550079

>This is completely natural if your game has a huge player pool and the matchmaking algorithm is working into matching players of the same skill level.

In addition to the previous mindset of trying to force everybody to be the same globally, this is putting people into bubbles where everybody is the same locally. I find this to also be morally wrong, because if you are always playing against people of the same skill level as yourself you will never benefit from first-hand experience facing off against and playing alongside people who are both better than you and worse than you. You are being denied the basic mechanism of learning by example: both what you should be doing and what you should NOT be doing. This may infact be why so many players have to resort to third-party sources of information like videos, because they cannot naturally get better through playing a game that intentionally denies them matchups against stronger players.

In short, you will never grow as a player if you are never challenged, and you will never learn from the mistakes of others if you do not witness them.

>>14537709

I smurf but for different reason. I play a lot with a party of friends, they are good and make me play a certain way. When I want to play alone I play alone and adapt to pub games with random players with me.

So I don't know doesn't seem that unfair tbh but be free to condemn or condone my actions, would like to hear an opinion actually.

>>14569602

>having friends

Fuck off normalfag.

>>14569602

This is a legitimate issue that needs resolved, some form of 'with friends' queue.

I used to grief a lot in LoL, in that game your team can't surrender until 30 minutes have passed, if they try to leave they can get banned for leaving and if they start to throw insults you can report them. Fun times

>>14570368

Well it's normal that their winrate decreases when they reach the top of the ladder. I think he means that up to this point they have a high win rate.

>>14544134

This.

>>14579071

Fuck off.

What does this have to do with Ultramarines

>>14579071

>that image

>that formatting

you arent from around here, are you?

>>14586260

He's a baiting faggot but there is nothing wrong with his formating nigger.

>>14586764

you must not be from around here either then

>>14586260

>meme spacing

if you have to kill newbies instead of people in your own skill range you are a shitter, end of story

this is like SC2 where people would cheese the shit out of bronze, silver, and gold league and then when they were matched against someone who who knows what they are doing they would get rekt because they never actually learned how to play the game.

Smurfs are the only way to circumvent ridiculous grind for good players, they all use ancient and simplistic riles to calculate your rating.

>>14578534

That is not the case either, the way all modern shit systems work is through winstreaks.

>>14569546

A little disingenuous here. You are always competing against people playing better or worse than you. That's what wins and losses are about.

>>14537709

>Everyone who is better than me is a smurf

>>14588206

>>>/tumblr/

>>14588286

There is no point of playing against people in your own skill range. Unless you are paid good for that.

>>14593781

You're probably really bad at anything competitive.

>>14593786

You are stupid. And not probably.

>>14541806

True, but it is a game, anon. I've had more *fun* when people with similar hours of experience all compete and its a battle of wits rather than muscle memory. Playing against a group of xX_ weeb_420_Xx while your team is a bunch of fresh beginners sucks ass.

Then there's the discussion on team balancing, but I haven't seen it work right.

Either way, for sake of it being fucking video games, why not just have both systems? Depends a lot on the type of game being played too and what mood you're in.

Perfectely reasonable in MOBAs at least. Back when I used to play, the only way you could possibly learn a new role was to have a new account dedicated solely to playing that one role. Try to learn a new role as a high level player of another role was impossible, because every game would macthmake you based on how good you were on that one specific role you played most of your game in, which would cause you to get utterly fucking annihilated when experimenting. That said, outside of MOBAs I'm at a loss of where that's an issue for players.

Either way, smurfing isn't that bad. It's not fun getting absolutely shit on, but if they're smurfs then the game will be over soon anyways, and getting trashed is a part of life in online gaming.

>>14550079

>matchmaking algorithm is working into matching players of the same skill level

Really? Then why is it that in the majority of anecdotal cases about the matchmaker, that is not the case? You can't ignore the complaints by knowledgeable players about teammates that literally do not understand the very fundamentals of the game. I can understand if this was happening to a minority, but the volume of complaints is too great to ignore. The real issue here is that matchmaking algorithms work in a results-oriented manner; they only look at whether you won or lost the game. There might be a few other factors (like kills), but in the era of the team game meme where the individual players are subsumed by the team as a whole, I doubt those factors contribute as much as winning or losing.

The algorithms are literally worse than just random matches; at least with random matching with a great enough population of players, we can actually get something that approaches the bell curve. But the algorithms don't allow a natural state like that to emerge; if you're winning too much, it tries to "even up" the match against you. What does that mean when the algorithms typically evaluate a potential matchup in terms of the teams' collective ratings (with a few constraints, perhaps, like nobody is more than 500 points away from each other)? It means that you're just as likely to be up against better opponents as you will be teamed up with idiots that play the game at nowhere near your level of skill. And given that most games that utilize a matchmaker algorithm follow the >team based meme, just one idiot on your team will throw the game. How likely is it then, that the algorithm will pair you with at least one idiot?

And then there's the fact that the algorithms are extremely easy to game with a premade team of experienced players. You would think that out of 7 games played back to back in a row, such a team should lose about 3 or 4 of those games because the algorithm is trying to set up a fair match, right? But that's not what happens. All 7 of those games are easily won. And guess what the top players of such games do.

>t. ASSFAGGOTS designer

Come back when you make a game that rewards individual players for being skilled (letting them carry teams because that's what skilled players should fucking do). Look at Nox for a prime example of what a game like that looks like.

I think smurfing, in moderation, is actually a good thing for the community because it exposes low skill players to extremely high skill and gives them an idea of what the highest levels of skill look like, essentially giving them a goal to aim for.

>>14541806

I would enlarge the limits, especially for certain games, but I do think matchmaking serves some benefit. In heavily skill-based games like fighters, matchmaking benefits those on all skill levels by giving them some range within which they can actually learn something and improve: if you're constantly getting matched against those 100x better than you, you'll just get destroyed, learn nothing, and have no fun. Conversely, if you're great and get matched with losers, you may have fun for a few rounds, but ultimately you'll get bored of crushing them and similarly will learn nothing and have no fun.

In team-based games matchmaking is arguably even more helpful: few things are more annoying than getting matched with a shitty team. Removing it entirely would only fuck over high-skill solo queue players.

>>14593781

It, and going against players better than you, is one of the best ways to get better, as losing is motivational.

>>14593724

Honestly, if you're only having fun by smurfing, you're playing a shit game that's beyond repair. Think of all the better games there are.

>>14579030

Youre in the top 10% and mad about it lol butthurt fag

>>14593916

>Removing it entirely would only fuck over high-skill solo queue players.

They're already fucked by the matchmaker.

I don't know about anyone else, but I used to smurf because it was fun to fuck with people who instantly blamed the bottom fragger for everything that went wrong and help chill teams win against people that talked mad shit. Is there a bit of narcissism involved? Probably, but I think people that claim to not understand the appeal of it are either incredibly boring or full of shit.

The only games were it's even a problem are in competitive team games where they can just stomp pug groups. Nobody who can't put together a full team should even play these in the first place.

>>14594021

then everyone clapped.

>>14537713

This to some extent. I think matchmaking should exist but only for very high skill communities. If you want to set up a matchmaking system outside of the lobby system that is purely dedicated to matching PROVEN high skill players against other players of their caliber then that is okay.

I uh… play a lot of Overwatch and I'm in the top 10-1% depending on the hero and whether or not I actually play ranked. Matchmaking is fucking cancer but occasionally I like being able to play against good teams with good teams instead of the challenge being "Carry 5 retards".

I'm awaiting the flame for playing OW. I like the game. It's FUN

>>14594021

Give dox for shits and giggles.

>>14593922

This is how I justify boxing matches against my 80lb little brother, every time he gets his head smashed in it just motivates him further.

>>14597505

>Give dox for shits and giggles.

All I know that his name was Alex or some shit and that he lives in New Jersey. I remember him and his "boyfriend" talking about meeting each other in canada and that they don't live far away. He was also 16 when this "meeting each other* shit was mentioned

I can't give an exact point since I forgot.