Most people’s ELOs don’t shift much after settling into your “natural” rank, which should happen after about 50 matches or so.
Ehm, 50 matches seems like a lot to me. Especially if they aren't enjoyable (yet) because of flawed matchmaking.
I pulled that number out of my bootyhole because I knew it was a safe bet for a stable ELO.
US Chess Federation uses 25 games as your provisional ELO stage, many video games will use 10 matches. Assuming a large enough variety of ELO in the player base, you can be confident your ELO is mostly accurate after a shockingly small number of matches.
Would be interesting to see but I would assume most people won't even make it to 10 matches in a game they don't enjoy. The people who spend thousands of hours on a single game are a tiny minority of the tiny minority of people who have the free time to play dozens of a hours a week.
If you can't make it 10 matches in a new game, I don't think SBMM is your problem with the game.
10 matches should be like, between 3-10 hours. Assuming an hour a night, you'll be approximately ranked for SBMM within a week.
10 hours is a huge time investment in a game that feels like shit to play.
Do you understand why people play games though?
Warcraft 3 multiplayer was peak "matchmaking" in my opinion, where people created lobbies with certain rule sets and anyone who was interested in that type of game could just join directly. It was a blast, playing lots of different game modes all the time and meeting a wide range of player types, instead of having to invest an insane amount of time (3-10 hours, vs less than a minute to find a game in WC3) into one single game mode even before you can actually start playing.
What you have described is exactly what I was talking about when I called it "playing the game like a job," where you have to invest plenty of time before you can even hope to enjoy it.
Do you understand why people play games though?
I understand why I do. I can't speak to your motivations, I'm not you. I can, however, point to studies that discuss groups of people's preferences in aggregate, as I have done. You're an outlier, and that's ok! Play what you want how you want!
SBMM is, unfortunately for you, the current utilitarian optimal for multiplayer PvP gaming. It maximizes both adoption and retention metrics, as well as self-reported enjoyment scores (Likert scale) for the highest number of people. Bummer that it doesn't optimize for you, but the other good part is that there are plenty of games that still support custom lobbies. Find one you like and have fun!
You are never going to answer that question with math and statistics, and attempts to do so are exactly why the industry keeps tanking studio after studio.
Warcraft 3's custom games were a mess, people left all the time which made team games irritating as hell, and the skill level varied widely from one game to the next so half the games ended up with feeders and a stomping one way or the other.
Ehm, 50 matches seems like a lot to me. Especially if they aren't enjoyable (yet) because of flawed matchmaking.
I pulled that number out of my bootyhole because I knew it was a safe bet for a stable ELO.
US Chess Federation uses 25 games as your provisional ELO stage, many video games will use 10 matches. Assuming a large enough variety of ELO in the player base, you can be confident your ELO is mostly accurate after a shockingly small number of matches.
Would be interesting to see but I would assume most people won't even make it to 10 matches in a game they don't enjoy. The people who spend thousands of hours on a single game are a tiny minority of the tiny minority of people who have the free time to play dozens of a hours a week.
If you can't make it 10 matches in a new game, I don't think SBMM is your problem with the game.
10 matches should be like, between 3-10 hours. Assuming an hour a night, you'll be approximately ranked for SBMM within a week.
10 hours is a huge time investment in a game that feels like shit to play.
Do you understand why people play games though?
Warcraft 3 multiplayer was peak "matchmaking" in my opinion, where people created lobbies with certain rule sets and anyone who was interested in that type of game could just join directly. It was a blast, playing lots of different game modes all the time and meeting a wide range of player types, instead of having to invest an insane amount of time (3-10 hours, vs less than a minute to find a game in WC3) into one single game mode even before you can actually start playing.
What you have described is exactly what I was talking about when I called it "playing the game like a job," where you have to invest plenty of time before you can even hope to enjoy it.
I understand why I do. I can't speak to your motivations, I'm not you. I can, however, point to studies that discuss groups of people's preferences in aggregate, as I have done. You're an outlier, and that's ok! Play what you want how you want!
SBMM is, unfortunately for you, the current utilitarian optimal for multiplayer PvP gaming. It maximizes both adoption and retention metrics, as well as self-reported enjoyment scores (Likert scale) for the highest number of people. Bummer that it doesn't optimize for you, but the other good part is that there are plenty of games that still support custom lobbies. Find one you like and have fun!
You are never going to answer that question with math and statistics, and attempts to do so are exactly why the industry keeps tanking studio after studio.
Warcraft 3's custom games were a mess, people left all the time which made team games irritating as hell, and the skill level varied widely from one game to the next so half the games ended up with feeders and a stomping one way or the other.