If games were made the way that they were really supposed to be made where players with actual skill prevailed, then companies wouldn't make any money. Now what they do is something called "skill gap compression" where they try to keep players around the same skill level competitively so that everyone has a chance. That's why they spawn a player that you just killed close to the area that you killed him in order for him to return to kill you. Or, the next time you see him you may open fire on him and the first few shots seem to pass right through him which causes you to die instead. Notice how hard it is to drop nukes on the new Black Ops Cold War. You're not going crazy, developers are being devious to keep their fan base and income strong. Some of these games have been out too long for companies not to see or hear the complaints of the public. They simply do not care. You can't be too good and run their business away. Take Infinite Warfare for example; the devs have stated that there will never be another call of duty game like it. Why? Because it was so good at stopping camping that many people did not like it. The better players ran their business away because "run and gunners" excelled at that game. It along with Advanced Warfare became the two Cod's with the worst reputation. However, to me Infinite Warfare (as I didn't play Advanced Warfare) was the best and most balanced call of duty title I've ever played. The hit detection, pace and scorestreak layout was the best I've ever seen. Now cod has become a circus of equalization and skill gap compression.
Nothing is wrong about that "skill gap compression".
I see Call of Duty as a hobby and a way to compete with other players. Like someone who plays in a soccer club instead.
In terms of soccer, no one would even think of having clubs from the first division compete against clubs from the fifth division. That's no fun for anyone, one wins without problems and the other has no chance and only gets goals against.
Why should it be different in CoD?
I think players who play well should only play with players who play similarly well. Anything else is unfair and favors "fun" (for me it wouldn't be fun without challenge) on the other side.
And as I said, in any other hobby in the world, be it any sports, board games, other competitions groups are always formed, ordered by strength, so that everyone has a challenge and similar strong opponents.
If someone in Call of Duty only manages a Nuke when they enter a noob lobby, then they don't deserve it either. You should manage to get the Nuke against equally strong opponents. If it never works, then you were unlucky or not good enough.
To then wish that there is no "skill gap compression", just so that you can achieve super easy successes in the game, is really miserable.
So I don't understand the hate against Skilled Based Matchmaking at all.
How can you be against similarly strong players playing together?
I feel like the complaints about SBMM only ever come from slightly better players who had their successes in CoD by simply winning completely easy against far too weak opponents, and now just can't handle having to play against equally strong opponents.
Or any other method that can combat these systems, the ones I've mentioned: netduma/vpn, reverse boosting, or session joining on the worst player in your game. In warzone, there is a "companion app", and a website called sbmmwarzone. They both do more or less the same, allow you to view the stats of people in your match, the companion app is more effective I believe, it also detects if there are hackers. So if you play Warzone, just check the KD's, if everyone has low KD, stay, otherwise just quit the lobby till you find a suitable game.
I encourage all to think of as many ways as possible to abuse these systems, and share them with others. If we allow ourselves to pursue the false promise of a fair game, if we sink into the masochistic "challenge" seeking, these corporations will win. We must attack them where it hurts, and that's the Timmy's who buy anime skins with their parents credit cards.
I don't know what else to say about it.
How low must the skill be that you only enter lobbies when the other players are bad?
Are you just trying to get easy achievements to drive up your own happiness? Even though you know you only did so well because the others were so bad and you specifically look for the lobbies?
If you enjoy it that much: Go for it.
If I don't want a challenge, I'll play campaign.
But people who only specifically look for such lobbies or reverse boosts, in real life probably also go to twelve-year-olds on the soccer field to play a round of soccer, so it's not too difficult.
(instead of looking for people who are about as good as you are, so that there is an even match)
People like you break CoD, not the developers. The community is getting worse and worse, just whining. Now even because they get equally strong opponents if they get better. Unviable.
