. It should be highly predictive: if we base your skill on a specific in match performancemetric (such as “kills per unit time”), it should also be a reliable predictor of your future performance as measured by this metric.
It should be summable such that the average skill of multiple players is predictive of their combined skill. This allows for very efficient and predictive team balancing. Team balancing is very important for forming games where the outcome is unpredictable. Blowouts result in players leaving the game which adversely affects the player pool. Team balance itself is covered in more detail later in the document
So let me know if I'm understanding correctly, they're making use of something akin to weighted averages or just general averaging maths based on k/d ratio among other stats to try and analyse gamer behaviour and make patch adjustments to the matchmaking and balance accordingly.
This is actually worse than everyone suspected, the maths and workflow is fascinating but it's like watching a trainwreck and it's telling me exactly how they ended up in this mess. AAA games developers seem to be absolutely desperate to do everything except play their own fucking games and they are wondering why they're getting mass negative reviews on steam.
Studying this workflow tells you exactly what these retards do every day. They're low level midwit devs who have meetings and look at stats they've acquired from spying on their players and make changes based on that instead of oh I don't know checking the damn feedback and playing the game to see how everything looks and feels by comparison to what the feedback is to make sure it's legit and not just somebody bitching which does happen.
This also leads me to another point about the issue of metrics as part of your game development workflow, it's ripe for trolling. You could potentially fuck with the devs if they're spying on you and have everybody do something similar and rather than investigate what gamers are doing with a particular action they'll just blindly read it off a chart and go "Hmm that's interesting, lots of people seem to really like using this weapon, maybe we should release new skins or nerf it".
You cannot trust these companies at all, they're dead, they don't know what fun is. It looks like their spying is less about anti-cheat and more about collecting gameplay metrics because they're cunts. Fascinating if a massive black pill because it explains why all of these companies are so bad. Activision kind of shot themselves in the foot here because now we know exactly what the logic behind the workflow of every AAA company is and the answer is they're retarded.
This also goes back to the woke shit, they are obviously receiving extremely biased samples and polling data. So take for example Ubisoft and Yasuke. It's likely companies such as SBI that give them false data telling them oh my gahd people are so hyped for the black samurai again likely through metrics and them fudging numbers because of woke polling. Ubisoft does surprised pikachu face when the Japanese are angry and then that's how we get the whole clusterfuck that's happening now, yes I think games developers are this retarded.
Edit: An extra point as well, pure speculation on my part but I suspect one of the big reasons why they're pushing so hard for this always online shit is precisely because of the metrics. They want to gather as much data as they can about what a player is doing in game down to the last click. It's fucking surveillance for their metrics for the sake of profitability based on this totally misguided idea of what gaming is.
one of the big reasons why they're pushing so hard for this always online shit is precisely because of the metrics
Go spend at least 8 hours playing one of these mainstream games, CoD, Fortnite, whatever. Look at the attire of all of the other players and the tiny percentage of it that is included in the base game. You'll see the reason for always online right there. The amount of money they have to making selling that cosmetic shit is absolutely mind blowing.
Oh for sure, but regarding online metrics I was mainly thinking of singleplayer games as they are in modern gaming. I feel like the cosmetic market is a bit of a different category because there are some singleplayer games that tend to focus on DLCs that aren't cosmetic and still have an online requirement.
Studying this workflow tells you exactly what these retards do every day. They're low level midwit devs who have meetings and look at stats they've acquired from spying on their players and make changes based on that instead of oh I don't know checking the damn feedback and playing the game to see how everything looks and feels by comparison to what the feedback is to make sure it's legit and not just somebody bitching which does happen.
This also leads me to another point about the issue of metrics as part of your game development workflow, it's ripe for trolling. You could potentially fuck with the devs if they're spying on you and have everybody do something similar and rather than investigate what gamers are doing with a particular action they'll just blindly read it off a chart and go "Hmm that's interesting, lots of people seem to really like using this weapon, maybe we should release new skins or nerf it".
You cannot trust these companies at all, they're dead, they don't know what fun is. It looks like their spying is less about anti-cheat and more about collecting gameplay metrics because they're cunts. Fascinating if a a massive black pill because it explains why all of these companies are so bad. Activision kind of shot themselves in the foot here because now we know exactly what the logic behind the workflow of every AAA company is and the answer is they're retarded.
I play fighting games where SBMM is mandatory simply because of how fighting games work, so I'm reading this comment kind of wondering what exactly makes them 'retarded', because reading the study, I don't necessarily have an objection with how they're doing it, because feedback is weird. There's a shitload of developers in MMOs, fighting games, FPSs, whatever that have said the following in many different ways and I get it: 'Gamers are excellent at finding what's wrong with something in-game; they suck at making solutions to said problem'.
You gotta separate the trolling from the real feedback and then isolate the issue in order to actually make a good patch/nerf/buff, but I don't think this necessarily feeds back into anything involving wokeness, that's just a byproduct of these people living in echo chambers. I think the way that patches are done is fine, because playing the game doesn't change the fact that for example the pre-patch AWP in CSGO did too much for how it was priced at the time and that showed up at all levels of play. I maybe shouldn't but I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt mainly because making sure people have fun is the main objective, and at least in fighting games, it works.
There have already been plenty of youtube videos on this, but a big reason people hate SBMM is because of stuff like player retention. It's based around keeping people in the game for as long as possible and 'engaged' rather than whether or not the game is any fun. Granted, fun is extremely subjective but that's the problem and hopefully explains why I consider SBMM to be so much worse than people complain about.
They're trying to quantify fun and turn it into some kind of consistent money making algorithm except that's not how games work. Which explains why you have so many utterly depressing games coming out that are purely there to take advantage of a bunch of addled weirdos with personal addiction problems rather than provide any kind of real product to gamers who love playing video games.
As for the wokeness, it kind of does, because people here and in general alt-tech spaces know better than anyone how disproportionate the presence of leftists are online and terminally online at that. That's naturally going to feed into the type of feedback corporations will get and again back to the Ubisoft problem of surprised Pikachu face when an entire country gets pissed off at them for their ridiculous decision making.
I am sperging but I do love this at the same time because it's really boiling down for me the maths behind corporate gaming decision making and why they have such a delayed response to anything going on within gaming spheres. They have truly gone out of touch with their own playerbases in the worse possible way and they only make any kind of adjustment after their quarterly profits roll in and they shit bricks at the prospect of layoffs.
So let me know if I'm understanding correctly, they're making use of something akin to weighted averages or just general averaging maths based on k/d ratio among other stats to try and analyse gamer behaviour and make patch adjustments to the matchmaking and balance accordingly.
This is actually worse than everyone suspected, the maths and workflow is fascinating but it's like watching a trainwreck and it's telling me exactly how they ended up in this mess. AAA games developers seem to be absolutely desperate to do everything except play their own fucking games and they are wondering why they're getting mass negative reviews on steam.
Studying this workflow tells you exactly what these retards do every day. They're low level midwit devs who have meetings and look at stats they've acquired from spying on their players and make changes based on that instead of oh I don't know checking the damn feedback and playing the game to see how everything looks and feels by comparison to what the feedback is to make sure it's legit and not just somebody bitching which does happen.
This also leads me to another point about the issue of metrics as part of your game development workflow, it's ripe for trolling. You could potentially fuck with the devs if they're spying on you and have everybody do something similar and rather than investigate what gamers are doing with a particular action they'll just blindly read it off a chart and go "Hmm that's interesting, lots of people seem to really like using this weapon, maybe we should release new skins or nerf it".
You cannot trust these companies at all, they're dead, they don't know what fun is. It looks like their spying is less about anti-cheat and more about collecting gameplay metrics because they're cunts. Fascinating if a massive black pill because it explains why all of these companies are so bad. Activision kind of shot themselves in the foot here because now we know exactly what the logic behind the workflow of every AAA company is and the answer is they're retarded.
This also goes back to the woke shit, they are obviously receiving extremely biased samples and polling data. So take for example Ubisoft and Yasuke. It's likely companies such as SBI that give them false data telling them oh my gahd people are so hyped for the black samurai again likely through metrics and them fudging numbers because of woke polling. Ubisoft does surprised pikachu face when the Japanese are angry and then that's how we get the whole clusterfuck that's happening now, yes I think games developers are this retarded.
Edit: An extra point as well, pure speculation on my part but I suspect one of the big reasons why they're pushing so hard for this always online shit is precisely because of the metrics. They want to gather as much data as they can about what a player is doing in game down to the last click. It's fucking surveillance for their metrics for the sake of profitability based on this totally misguided idea of what gaming is.
Go spend at least 8 hours playing one of these mainstream games, CoD, Fortnite, whatever. Look at the attire of all of the other players and the tiny percentage of it that is included in the base game. You'll see the reason for always online right there. The amount of money they have to making selling that cosmetic shit is absolutely mind blowing.
Oh for sure, but regarding online metrics I was mainly thinking of singleplayer games as they are in modern gaming. I feel like the cosmetic market is a bit of a different category because there are some singleplayer games that tend to focus on DLCs that aren't cosmetic and still have an online requirement.
I play fighting games where SBMM is mandatory simply because of how fighting games work, so I'm reading this comment kind of wondering what exactly makes them 'retarded', because reading the study, I don't necessarily have an objection with how they're doing it, because feedback is weird. There's a shitload of developers in MMOs, fighting games, FPSs, whatever that have said the following in many different ways and I get it: 'Gamers are excellent at finding what's wrong with something in-game; they suck at making solutions to said problem'.
You gotta separate the trolling from the real feedback and then isolate the issue in order to actually make a good patch/nerf/buff, but I don't think this necessarily feeds back into anything involving wokeness, that's just a byproduct of these people living in echo chambers. I think the way that patches are done is fine, because playing the game doesn't change the fact that for example the pre-patch AWP in CSGO did too much for how it was priced at the time and that showed up at all levels of play. I maybe shouldn't but I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt mainly because making sure people have fun is the main objective, and at least in fighting games, it works.
There have already been plenty of youtube videos on this, but a big reason people hate SBMM is because of stuff like player retention. It's based around keeping people in the game for as long as possible and 'engaged' rather than whether or not the game is any fun. Granted, fun is extremely subjective but that's the problem and hopefully explains why I consider SBMM to be so much worse than people complain about.
They're trying to quantify fun and turn it into some kind of consistent money making algorithm except that's not how games work. Which explains why you have so many utterly depressing games coming out that are purely there to take advantage of a bunch of addled weirdos with personal addiction problems rather than provide any kind of real product to gamers who love playing video games.
As for the wokeness, it kind of does, because people here and in general alt-tech spaces know better than anyone how disproportionate the presence of leftists are online and terminally online at that. That's naturally going to feed into the type of feedback corporations will get and again back to the Ubisoft problem of surprised Pikachu face when an entire country gets pissed off at them for their ridiculous decision making.
I am sperging but I do love this at the same time because it's really boiling down for me the maths behind corporate gaming decision making and why they have such a delayed response to anything going on within gaming spheres. They have truly gone out of touch with their own playerbases in the worse possible way and they only make any kind of adjustment after their quarterly profits roll in and they shit bricks at the prospect of layoffs.