Good players and bad players are both outliers. If you assign a numerical value to the players it’ll more likely try to balance the teams more than anything. I’ll put together an example.
P1: 100 - Best Player in the game
P2: 50 - Average Player
P3: 40 - Just below average
P4: 2 - Brand New to the game
To match these 4 players there’s only so many choices. Put P1 on a team with P2 or P3 and the other side is extremely disadvantaged. By putting P1 and P4 together, they average out to ~51. P2 and P3 average for ~45. The game thinks that’s a valid matchup, but really nobody is going to enjoy it.
This happens in both pubs and competitive modes because it maximizes “engagement” from the worst players, as they have a higher chance of being carried to a win when they’re put with the better players. Those also tend to be the ones who spend the most money, so these companies cater to them at the cost of enjoyment for everyone else.
Playing with people leagues better than you even if you are carried to a win sucks. In a lot of games you don’t even get to actually play. You’re dead before you get a shot off or never get to touch the ball or you fall off at the first obstacle and end not even getting to finish the race because you’re so behind everyone else.
That’s also true, and is often my experience in non-shooter games.
However it does work out that the lowest common denominator doesn’t care if they didn’t do anything. They’re just happy to win. The couch casuals aren’t ever going to be great, so their standard of a great game is much, much lower than anyone who plays daily or even every few days
![One reason why I play primarily single player games now [OneAndPhony]](https://startrek.website/pictrs/image/f218ae09-a1c4-4ec5-9fcd-6d0bb22a7f2d.png){kind=link}
I thought it tried to make games of all players of similar skill levels? Hence the rankings?
Nope. It just says it does that.
Good players and bad players are both outliers. If you assign a numerical value to the players it’ll more likely try to balance the teams more than anything. I’ll put together an example.
P1: 100 - Best Player in the game
P2: 50 - Average Player
P3: 40 - Just below average
P4: 2 - Brand New to the game
To match these 4 players there’s only so many choices. Put P1 on a team with P2 or P3 and the other side is extremely disadvantaged. By putting P1 and P4 together, they average out to ~51. P2 and P3 average for ~45. The game thinks that’s a valid matchup, but really nobody is going to enjoy it.
This happens in both pubs and competitive modes because it maximizes “engagement” from the worst players, as they have a higher chance of being carried to a win when they’re put with the better players. Those also tend to be the ones who spend the most money, so these companies cater to them at the cost of enjoyment for everyone else.
Playing with people leagues better than you even if you are carried to a win sucks. In a lot of games you don’t even get to actually play. You’re dead before you get a shot off or never get to touch the ball or you fall off at the first obstacle and end not even getting to finish the race because you’re so behind everyone else.
That’s also true, and is often my experience in non-shooter games.
However it does work out that the lowest common denominator doesn’t care if they didn’t do anything. They’re just happy to win. The couch casuals aren’t ever going to be great, so their standard of a great game is much, much lower than anyone who plays daily or even every few days