For the longest time I didn't get into Call Of Duty. My attention was squarely on Resistance / Uncharted and the Last of Us multiplayer experiences as during COD's multiplayer haydays (COD 4 - BO 3).

The first COD I actually took time and went back to every night and focussed on was COD: WW2. I hit the top 10000 World Wide leaderboards for mostly Free For All play and was working towards a 2.5 K/D. I had a blast. Even when I lost matches, I went back for more. I know that COD WW2 was not received well as some of the maps weren't liked, sprint was limited and a bunch of other things weren't executed well. But those were fixed and I enjoyed it. I could get supply drops easily for free with the daily challenges and I liked the firing range which allowed me to try out new loadouts without going in game.

When BO 4 came out, I was still happy with WW2 and the fact that BO 4 didn't have a campaign and I wasn't into Battle Royal games meant that I wasn't losing out by not getting it. Because I liked WW 2 so much, I got Modern Warfare expecting to have a great time. The campaign, while short....really short, was solid IMO. However, multiplayer for a Free For All player was a grind. And not a good one. Footstep audio, doors, camping was in full force and easy. It felt like a lot of games were just not fun. I don't expect ALL games to go my way, I can take my L's. But even wins felt like slogging through mud.

Then Cold War was on the horizon. The fact that there were no doors and footstep audio was dealt with and I had a decent time playing the open beta, I bought it. What a mistake! This game schooled me in SBMM and the lengths that activation is going to to control my experience with their game. And while, sure its their game so they can do that, it has sucked out any fun I had during COD WW2. I've made a video on how their SBMM works over a 10 game frame in Free For All ( [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] ) - I've gone months without touching Cold War and only log on to upgrade a gun that will be fun to use on Warzone. A game I dropped 70$ on I barely touch and its the current version in the franchise! Having EVERY SINGLE MATCH come down to 5 kills for either side, having players sweat for kills SO HARD that you would think that they're getting cash money for winning, having a new lobby EVERY game because the system will place me with people similar to my skill to make sure the match is close.....its not fun! And by fun, I don't mean I have to have lobbies I can pubstomp all of the time. I'I', fine with having close matches when they're organic and not facilitated by match making  EVERY. SINGLE GAME. But when the game makes me feel like it is manipulating me and my experience I don't like.

The heavy level of SBMM has pushed me away from the game. On top pf that. Activision and the developer has not addressed their SBMM algorithm. They've ignored it and in fact the official reddit would BAN users for bringing it up. Put that together, and I have no trust in any of Activision's devs. Last month, when Black Ops 4 was free on PS+, I streamed my first experience with it's Free For All ( [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] ) .....and ACTUALLY had fun! I played against other n00bs, I played against skilled players and only got 1st place twice in the session (top 3 most of the rest) but I had FUN!

Vanguard is aiming to come out later this year and for me, I'm not touching it with a 100 foot pole. Until I can see trustworthy content creators confirming the SBMM has been dropped back to COD WW2 or BO 4 levels, I'll skip. I don't trust Activision period based on how they've addressed their SBMM. (Hint - THEY HAVEN'T) Activation apparently has spent millions developing this SBMM system with the object to increase user's playtime and keep them playing longer. Welp, its a big waste of money on me because if it continues to be like this, they won't get a single minute of playtime out of me. I'm too busy and don't have time in my life to figure out if I'll try something. I'll go with what I'm confident in that I'll enjoy or have a decently good time with. And games like MW and Cold War ain't it.

So that's my short story - will you be considering Vanguard? For me, I'll just hop on Warzone Rebirth with the guys and have fun on BO 4 for my FPS Free For All fix.

I haven't been back to CoD in a long long time myself.The last I regularly played one was BO2, way back in the day the first time we were on these forums.

Then when I did decide to give it another go, it was BO 4. I too was super disappointed there really wasn't story.

I haven't been back to one since. But for some reason there is still this nagging in the back of my mind to try yet again.

I'll never learn :p

If you got the itch, hold off until we can see that the same SBMM that's in Cold War and Modern Warfare isn't in Vanguard. I'm having a blast with BO 4.....but then I didn't play it before so that also probably helps.

We all work hard for a bit of gametime, this SBMM makes playing feel like a chore and we got enough of those

Raistlin wrote:

Having EVERY SINGLE MATCH come down to 5 kills for either side, having players sweat for kills SO HARD that you would think that they're getting cash money for winning, having a new lobby EVERY game because the system will place me with people similar to my skill to make sure the match is close.....its not fun! And by fun, I don't mean I have to have lobbies I can pubstomp all of the time. I'I', fine with having close matches when they're organic and not facilitated by match making  EVERY. SINGLE GAME. But when the game makes me feel like it is manipulating me and my experience I don't like.

I must respectfully hard disagree. I don't think that being matched with people your skill level is inorganic at all. You could as easily call your victories against weaker lobbies the result of poor matchmaking. To me, matches where someone is getting stomped are the most boring possible matches, no matter who's wearing the boots. As an average guy, I don't enjoy either picking on effective toddlers, nor picking fights with trained military men, so to speak. A match where I win effortlessly is as boring as a match I stand no chance in.

Now, don't get me wrong. I do understand where you're coming from to a degree. I just spent a large portion of time playing Gambit matches in Destiny, and it very frequently comes down to the wire. But my main source of frustration with that is that the progress toward goals that are largely external to the match (completion of bounties, seasonal challenges, etc) is dependent on victory and much more effective with streaks of victories. Not that I've lost or that it was hard to win.  

So, my biggest problem and why I just can't condone the "I don't want to sweat all the time" mentality for explicitly competitive games is that I believe you should always have to try to achieve victory. That if you ever find yourself in a game where you don't, be it because it's incredibly easy or absurdly hopeless to do so, then the game dev has failed.

Inorganic, imho, would be overtuned or weak weapons/abilities/mechanics being the deciding factor for who wins a match. Things that heavily negate the actual skill of the players involved. Like the Hyper-effecitveness of one tactic like camping in CoD (haven't played since Black Ops 1, but I assume it's still largely an extremely low ttk game that facilitates it), or slide-shotgunning in Destiny. These are the things I feel ruin competitive games, and are unfortunately one of the hardest things I think the devs have to control. People are always, always on the lookout for most effective tactic, the easiest win, the surest path to victory. And when you can crowdsource the discovery of it out to literally millions of players, then someone is absolutely going to find it. AAA Development ain't cheap, and keeping ahead of something like that is going to be incredibly taxing on your resources, especially the more diverse and varied the tools at your players disposal are. So, it's going to happen at least sometimes and I just have to learn to deal or go play something else. And either option is honestly fine.

I can agree with you to a point. The issue is that the developer is sacrificing PING and player experience to achieve the perfect skill:skill ratio.

I do play to win for sure. But I also don't mind if I get beat because I happened to get matched with someone or a few people who played better than me. However, it feels much more fun doing it on COD WW2 or BO 4. I love being able to stay in a lobby where I lost the last match so I can go back at the dude who beat me 2, 3, 4 times. I love getting into and being able to stay in fun lobbies where random people are laughing over stuff happening in the game. If I got beat I want to get into a competitive chat with the dude I'm going up against.

You can't do that anymore because god forbid, I get matched out of my class with a few people with lower skill than me or higher than me.

I think SBMM is used well to protect really noob players. Let them get to level 5 or to a point where they can unlock some attachments to be at least a bit competitive. Then open it up.

The other night I was streaming some COD WW2 free for all. Typically, I'll go the whole stream without ever not finishing first. It wasn't always that way. It took awhile to get to that point. Sometimes, I'll get 2nd once or twice on a session. Well - the other night I got absolutely and utterly DESTROYED. Not just on 1 match, but almost every one of em. I was dumbfounded - I haven't experienced that in forever on that game. But even though I was frustrated at it, the players were good players and I got beat because they straight up played better than me. I was confident in that and so I'll be fine whenever I go back there. With the newer titles, the game purposefully stacks not just one god player against me but the whole damn lobby is like that. If I want to be the best of the best, give us a ranked playlist for bragging rights. That way, when I wanna sweat and get competitive, I can go after it against similarly ranked lobbies.  

With Cold War, I know without a shadow of a doubt, that if I go into a couple of matches and have a 1.5 KD and am in the top 3 for those (Doesnt even have to be 1st place) matches, I'll get absolutely shit on for the next few matches after. Its predictable. Its like getting punished for playing decently. It also takes away my incentive to try and improve my KD or my win/loss ration when I know that if I get a couple of W's, I'll be elevated to MLG Pro God lobbies where I'll get shitty spawns, where I get merked as soon as I spawn in multiple times in the match OR get spawned where no one is near me and I'm running around looking for action as other players are getting it all. Its only a matter of time before the game corrects itself and buries me just to put me in my place and even out its algorithm. Looking at every match where the player score is almost ALWAYS within 1 - 2 kills of each other doesn't feel like everyone has similar skill, it feels like the game is doing its best to keep people close together. The matches feel manufactured. There's trends in every match where I'll be up by 6 or 8 kills and then all of a sudden... i can't find anyone on the map. No one is spawning near me. OR, I'll get spawn killed 2 - 3 times in a row to allow other players to catch up so that I can still win, but its only within 1 - 3 kills. Or, I'll actually lose 1st place and take 2nd or 3rd when I was up by a good margin and then suddenly hit this weird wall where I can't ghet a kill, can't get a spawn, and get dropped in front of players.  I'll lose 1 v 1's in game where it makes absolutely no sense. Not like I lose a close gun battle but there is no way, I should lose it but I somehow do. And these trends happen in almost every FFA game I play on Cold War. At first I didn't notice it....but over time I saw it happening in A LOT of my matches. Add to the fact that Activision will absolutely not say A WORD about it, Banned SBMM from being a Clan TAG in the game, had their subreddit mods BAN users for threads about it.....something isn't right about it at all.

I also don't want to work my ass off for a win EVERY SINGLE TIME. I want to win, and I do like some competitive games that come down to the wire. But every freaking match....its tiring. I've already worked all day and dealt with kids and chores and all that stuff. I want to have a good time. When I know that by logging on, I'm in a tough competition every. single. time....f*** it, I'll go play something else because I don't have the time to get annoyed and pissed off when I'm trying to unwind.

And that's why I would rather play BO 4 or COD WW2 - I still will get wrecked by better players. And I do encounter them regularly. But it feels way more random and organic to me than being able to predict exactly when I'm going to go into a God Lobby to get shit on because I was having too good of a run that night. It feels like the game is deciding things for me with these SBMM lobbies compared to the older ones. There's a big difference in matchmaking from the older games vs these ones. And its not a good one. If they want to have this SBMM, have it in a legit ranked playlist or something like that. Let casuals be casual whether they're good or not.

Now...I better quit these rants before the psychiatrist starts billing me for taking up this much space about this    

Nothing wrong with ranting or blowing off steam.

Raistlin wrote:

I also don't want to work my ass off for a win EVERY SINGLE TIME. I want to win, and I do like some competitive games that come down to the wire. But every freaking match....its tiring. I've already worked all day and dealt with kids and chores and all that stuff. I want to have a good time. When I know that by logging on, I'm in a tough competition every. single. time....f*** it, I'll go play something else because I don't have the time to get annoyed and pissed off when I'm trying to unwind.

I sympathize, but none of that give anyone the right to have weaker players thrown under the bus for them. Those people most likely have stressful lives and jobs just the same. I know I do. You sign up for competitive, you should expect to compete. If it's not enjoyable...don't compete.
 

That said, most of what you described above sounds more like absolutely terrible catch up mechanics under the hood that are making the situation exponentially worse, and the dev behaving like that is shady as heck. Something is definitely not right there.  
Say what you will about Destiny's balance, but at least it's generally horrible to everyone equally.

I 100% agree that no one should be thrown under the bus, that's for sure. That's why I do support SBMM for new players. Let them get their feet wet, unlock some guns and attachments, learn the maps etc, start having some fun with it.

After that though, it should be random lobbies. Get your lobbies based on ping and connection quality. I've been on the winning side and the losing side of these lobbies going back to the R1 days and even when I've lost multiple times in a row, I'm fine to keep going and improving, trying to get better. And I still had fun when losing. With random lobbies sometimes, I'll be the big dog in the yard, other times, I'll be bottom of the lobby. Its a hell of a lot better than an algorithm dictating all of this stuff IMO though.

I will happily agree to disagree. Different strokes and all that.

And it's something that probably just cannot be agreed upon even generally, really. Because you're like, "Okay, we should have ranked and quickplay modes. Ranked for Sweats and quickplay for Casuals." And it seems like a good solution.  
But then ranked players A.) can also enjoy not having to sweat and B.) the more toxic of them love pubstomping and killing other players' fun along with their avatars.  
But then yet more people who aren't pubstomping with stacked teams and whatever, but who are genuinely trying to win and putting in effort are vilified for "Sweating in Quickplay." Like, yes? They're trying to win the game they are playing? Aren't you?  
Ugh. It's just a whole big ball of toxic mess sometimes. Enough that I definitely need time on other games to relax before dipping back in.

Your points are def valid as well. Balancing all of that would be a challenge and with a fan/playerbase that big they won't please everyone. They'll find out how good or bad their choice was for the current hard SBMM based on the sales numbers and feedback I guess.

Ehh....why can't the Resistance servers just still be on like the good old days.....

If you find a game with decently high TTK like R2, let me know, please. For me, that's where real gun skill shines. As few 1hks as possible, and none available on spawn. That's the ticket.
CoD is basically a twitch shooter, and Destiny waffles a bit, but is generally on course to be the same thing with what seems like near continually dropping ttk. It's largely under 1 second to kill with most things these days. Reduces almost all the skill needed down to just very basic aiming ability and a high demand for Map Awareness.
And it's a wonderful skill to have, sure. But I find it's increasingly becoming the only skill, with the only thing mattering in a fight is who sees who first. There's little in the way of back and forth.

I did play one that's still in development on Steam the other day at my brother's request. It's called Splitgate and it's free to play. It's an FPS, but you can make the portals from Portal, basically. I didn't get to play enough to make it really memorable, but I did have fun with what I experienced. Might be worth a look.

I've heard of splitgate. Generally favourable feedback on it. The portal scheme is a cool mechanic I think.

Anyway, here's the reveal trailer:

New gameplay footage. I can't lie, I like the way the single player looks. I do likegames for their story mode. However, if the rest of what I see for the SP looks good and I want to play it, I'll buy it used when I can get a used copy as I'm not paying full price for this if I don't support the multiplayer and how the SBMM and EBMM is apparently going to work as well as the mounting and door mechanics etc in Multi player.

The single player based on this definitely has my attention though....

Man, do those demo trailers always look sexy or what... Always love watching with the clean UI.

Not at all a knock, but I wonder what percentage of CoD players will buy the game for the single player experience like you. In the current era of hyper-competitive games as you've been talking about in this thread, I've found it harder and harder to find good FPS campaigns than I did in the past. What is it about Vanguard's single player in particular that's got your attention?

Played the Alpha. Champion's Hill was a cool game mode. Not sure I would play it lots, but it was a cool idea. Handled well. However, it really felt that SBMM was in play based on my experience. Got 2nd place 4 out of the first 5 games. Once I hit level 6, every teammate I had was lower than me and we got wrecked by more and more players with double digit levels. Its like I paid the price for starting off well. Then after getting wrecked for awhile I finally started getting more opponents who were single digit levels again.....like the game had treated me like an abused spouse and was coming back with a gift saying...I'm sorry I hurt you.

- Gameplay starts at 16:03.

Anyway, the beta is out now for people who pre-ordered. I'll try out the public beta next weekend and see whats up. I'm still waiting to see how strong the SBMM is when the game launches. If its close to how MW and CW were, I'll go to my local mom and pop game store down the road, buy a used disc for the single player campaign. I won't pay full price for a game I only really want to play 50% of or, as it is with recent COD's the single player is more 30% I would say. Still, there's a lot that is looking good here.

Watched about 10 minutes of the steam you posted there. I like that idea of the Champion's Hill a lot, very cool tournament style play. While I'm sure the SBMM making you sweat every game isn't the most enjoyable experience every time you want to sit down and put up your feet after the long day, it sure makes for entertaining, competitive streams!

Game looks cool overall. I doubt I'll get my hands on it compared while the new Battlefield is coming out, but I appreciate the gameplay Cam! Will be keeping my eye out here

Quick FYI for anyone interested - you can play Vanguards Multiplayer for free right now until the end of the weekend. If you're on Xbox or Playstation, go into the store and search for Vanguard Free Access.

You can party up with people who already own the full game or play on your own. Partying up with other people who are on the free trial isn't an option.....

Streamed 5 hours of Free For All last night - there's some positive stuff here. However, Spawns are almost broken. The game also has poor player to size ratio. Some maps are small but are given 12 players. Others are huge but provide only 8 players no matter if you choose Tactical / Assault or Blitz.

I died more coming out of spawn or from the back than I ever have I think LOL. Its so tough that I wasn't focussing on any SBMM that much. Anyway, feel free to give it a go. I mean, hey free is free.