news

한어Русский языкEnglishFrançaisIndonesianSanskrit日本語DeutschPortuguêsΕλληνικάespañolItalianoSuomalainenLatina

SBMM - skill-based matchmaking system, has always been something that Call of Duty and FPS players in general have complained about, but Call of Duty has the most complaints from players because it seems that the matching system it uses is the worst experience for players with better skills.

After previously avoiding discussing the matchmaking system, Activision recently released a 25-page "paper" to try to prove that SBMM is actually beneficial to players. In the paper, the company revealed that it had secretly conducted some "experiments" on players to determine whether SBMM actually worked.

The paper begins by discussing issues that have been previously pointed out in developer presentations, including the fact that matches are ultimately about speed rather than a perfect balance of skill on both sides.

Later, the official discussed an "experiment" conducted in "Modern Warfare 3" in early 2024. Activision quietly reduced the matching "weight" of SBMM for 50% of North American players. It was found that more than 90% of players also reduced the number of times they played the game after reducing the weight. Only the top 10% of players in terms of technology were not affected.

The paper then goes on to try to prove the point that completely random matchmaking only benefits really skilled players, and is terrible for average players - in other words, making excuses for the blatantly weak soft of the game SBMM.

"The increase in killstreak usage and kills per minute and points per minute suggests that the widening gap in lobby skill percentiles is being disproportionately impacted by the top 10% of players," the report said. "Unfortunately, this level of improvement has come at the expense of a greater impact for the bottom 30% of the distribution."

The official also drew a graph showing that the skill gap between players of average level increased under more random matching conditions, making the games more difficult for low-level players, which led to lower-level players playing fewer games and further declining skill stratification, which then led to a widening of the skill gap, forming a "vicious circle."

After a lengthy article and analysis of various player statistics, Activision concluded: "We found that balancing skill with other matchmaking factors can significantly improve the performance of most players in Call of Duty. When skill is used as a benchmark in matchmaking, 80%-90% of players achieve better end-of-match rankings, play longer, and quit matches less often."

This lengthy article seems to prove that SBMM is good for most players. In fact, in my opinion, it only proves Activision's attitude: Call of Duty does not care about players with good skills, because their number is not large; Activision only cares about retaining more players, no matter how bad they are or how bad their attitude towards playing the game is.

This is indeed a successful business idea. Not only that, we have also reported before that in addition to SBMM, modern "Call of Duty" also includes many other systems, such as some players with higher technical levels will experience direct in-game designated weakening (you hit others without damage, others hit you to death) to "weak to soft"; in addition, there is a system that allows players who buy new skins to be enhanced in the game (matched with weaker opponents) to make them feel that the skin makes them stronger, driving them to buy more skins, and also making players who see their outstanding performance have the intention to buy skins to become stronger.

"Call of Duty" is indeed an entertaining FPS game. Compared with its competitiveness, it is more like a "cyber opium shop" that sells addictive adrenaline. It only cares about how to make more money from more players, and the fairness of the game is obviously not the focus.

If you are interested in this "paper", you can click here to view it (all in English).