Skill-based matchmaking isn’t based on skill, and Battlefield 6 needs to be different

by

Throughout my gaming journey, I’ve invested countless hours in Apex Legends, Call of Duty, Halo, and many other online shooters, as well as thousands more into fighting games. It wasn’t always the case, but I appreciate a bit of friendly competition with real players. Regrettably, Street Fighter 6 is the only competitive game that I’m genuinely looking forward to playing again in 2025. In the gaming community, skill-based matchmaking has been a topic of criticism, yet neither side seems to fully understand the broader implications, and this raises concerns about Battlefield 6.

As a game enthusiast, if you guess what skill-based matching means from its name, it’s beneficial. Today, gaming has gained immense popularity, attracting a larger number of players than ever before. This growth in player count also means an increase in the difference in skills among players. Imagine a toddler playing Fortnite for the first time and a 35-year-old veteran who has been playing since before it had a battle royale mode. In an ideal scenario, these two individuals should not compete against each other. This is why skill-based matchmaking, on the surface, seems like a great concept.

If you’re a fan of fighting games and hear Call of Duty or Apex Legends players grumble about skill-based matchmaking, you might chuckle yourself to sleep that evening. Win/loss ratio doesn’t mean much in online fighting games; it’s all about your rank. An average Street Fighter 6 player with plenty of ranked matches under their belt will likely encounter opponents who handily defeat them, but also those they can easily conquer. This fluctuation is often more about playstyle and mindset than actual skill. In the end, ranked games in fighting games generally function well, while netcode tends to be the bigger issue.

As a gamer, I’ve found that playing games like Call of Duty and Apex Legends can be a bit tricky compared to traditional 1v1 fighting games. For one, in these big multiplayer shooters, finding a match can take a while due to the large number of players and longer game durations. This is particularly true when you set specific matchmaking settings like limiting ping or region, as there’s still an endless queue of gamers waiting for their turn.

Moreover, a poorly played three-minute Street Fighter game feels less frustrating than a 20-minute battle royale where things might not go your way. The flexibility in fighting games is much greater, allowing for quicker resets and less time invested in a single match.

In conclusion, while these shooters offer exciting gameplay, they can be more challenging when it comes to finding matches due to their longer durations and larger player counts.

Experienced gamers of these titles may have already observed the shift. Since day one, I’ve been engaged with Apex Legends, and I’ve noticed tweaks in matchmaking as player skill data was fed into the system. However, it wasn’t until recently that I found myself encountering fewer formidable opponents and those who were clearly novices. This led me to remark to my teammates, “We’ve been on a losing streak, but we’re due for a good game soon.” This phenomenon is known as the Gambler’s fallacy.

As a gamer, I’ve noticed some eerie similarities between my favorite games and those old-school slot machines. It turns out, the guys behind the design of these addictive slots have found their way into the video game industry, working for big publishers. This insider move has raised concerns, as it seems we’re treading a questionable moral ground by employing tactics reminiscent of casinos.

Today’s consumers enjoy a multitude of options when it comes to streaming services, free-to-play games, premium games, various battle pass choices, downloadable content (DLC), and frequent events. The goal isn’t merely to get your money; it’s to capture your attention. The longer you stay engaged, the more likely you are to consider the service indispensable, leading to continued spending. This design, which resembles a casino in its tactics, is prevalent not just in entertainment but also in dating apps.

Instead of just trusting my opinion, consider the perspective of Electronic Arts (EA) and the University of California, Los Angeles. A 2017 research paper titled ‘EOMM: An Engagement Optimized Matchmaking Framework’, jointly produced by EA and UCLA, suggests that conventional matchmaking systems, which prioritize fair games at all times, may not always deliver the best player experience. The researchers argue that while it seems intuitive that a fair game is optimal, this assumption can sometimes be incorrect and that engagement-focused matchmaking may be more effective than matchmaking based solely on fairness.

From this, it’s clear that overusing all your cognitive abilities while playing may not equate to enjoyment. Additionally, maintaining fairness in modern matching systems might not be their main priority.

In 2020, I had a conversation with the Apex Legends team at Electronic Arts. When asked about their focus, they emphasized that maintaining skill-based matchmaking is crucial for them. Previously, the head of Apex Legends, Chad Grenier, stated that altering the rules or temporarily disabling skill-based matchmaking in specific regions provides evidence that this feature increases player engagement, retention, and playtime significantly. This explanation becomes evident when you consider his comment, ‘we’ll have a good game soon.’

As a gaming enthusiast, I can’t help but voice my concern about the potential for publishers to manipulate players through matchmaking systems that nudge us towards spending more money. For instance, a patent from Activision Publishing Inc in 2015 describes a system designed to drive microtransactions in multiplayer games. Essentially, this system pairs less experienced players with expert or high-profile players to inspire the novice player to purchase items used by the expert player, aiming to create an emulation effect. While this might not be directly linked to the consistently vocal Call of Duty community, it’s a practice that could potentially impact all gamers.

As a devoted gaming enthusiast, I recently stumbled upon an enlightening talk from Joshua Menke, the current SBMM designer at Riot Games and formerly with Blizzard, Halo, and Call of Duty, titled ‘Skill, Matchmaking, and Ranking Systems Design’ at the 2016 GDC. This insightful presentation shed light on a fascinating paradox: while game designers yearn to create enjoyable gaming experiences by matching players based on fun factors with varying intensities, businesses prioritize pairing players in matches that yield maximum monetary value for each game, aiming to increase this value over time rather than focusing solely on player satisfaction.

When you join a multiplayer game by yourself or with an empty slot in your team, it’s unclear whether you’ll be racking up victories or serving as cannon fodder. You might find yourself in a balanced fight, or you could end up being someone else’s advertisement for the new player on your team. It’s uncertain if skill-based matchmaking (SBMM), enemy-oriented matchmaking (EOMM), or whatever they’re calling it now is active. In this scenario, your ability seems less important than ever due to these complex matchmaking systems with competing objectives.

Let’s move on to discussing this week’s topic: Battlefield 6. According to Charlie Intel, EA revealed Battlefield 6’s matchmaking priorities during a press briefing. These priorities include ping, player location, server availability, and a certain level of skill. However, the specifics about what ‘some skill factor’ entails are still unclear due to various patents, papers, and reports. But knowing that Battlefield 6 will steer clear of goofy crossover skins provides a glimmer of optimism.

Instead of Apex Legends and Call of Duty, I’ve moved on to other games, and even if they make significant changes to their matchmaking systems, it’s unlikely that I’ll return as a frequent player. I’ve had issues with skill-based matchmaking (SBMM) and end-of-match matchmaking (EOMM) when playing with mixed-skill groups, which is a topic I could discuss at length.

In my perfect scenario, a system where skill is the primary focus would be the standard, segregating newcomers to play with others at their level while also allowing seasoned players to do the same. Public matches shouldn’t have to mix the 35-year-old and the toddler indiscriminately; rather, they should foster a more dynamic environment, accommodating a wider range of chaos. Even the complex game mechanics could be incorporated in these public lobbies. Regrettably, ranked mode is often perceived as an elitist club exclusive to the most skilled players. Instead, it should be regarded as a learning ground for mastering the game alongside peers of similar ability, not a lion’s den.

In essence, I believe companies such as EA and Activision are free to choose any matchmaking system they prefer; however, it’s crucial that they openly disclose if they employ psychological strategies designed to encourage spending or maintain user engagement. Regrettably, I don’t anticipate such transparency will become a reality. Fingers crossed that Battlefield 6 remains enjoyable even after the algorithm has had some time to sort players based on their skills following its release.

Read More

2025-08-05 18:49