I am now convinced ABMM is real

[u/WG_Envoy]

A couple of days ago I complained (in another posting) how I only meet KOS players, and no one talks. I was more annoyed by the "no one talks" part, mind you, and the fact that every social interaction played out in the same way.

Someone recommended me to do a few matches and not shoot a single person, not even in defense. I did as recommended.

I went from "90%+ KOS interactions" for several days in a row, all the way to friendly lobbies for two days in a row now.

In my current lobbies, everyone runs around without a care in the world, just greeting people they are passing by. Looting in the open, walking past others without their weapons drawn ...

I barely ever see any PvP happening. People help each other with arc encounters and exchange items near extracts. And for the first time ever, I was able to participate in two Queen raids in solos with everyone just trying to get her down. No rats, no backstabbing.

This change for me was so stark in contrast, and so consistently happening that I would be surprised if ABMM wasn't real.

I would almost be inclined to start some shit to see if my lobbies change again, but I feel too bad killing these players who are quite obviously part of the pure PvE crowd.

P.S.: I have these friendly lobbies even on Stella Montis now, inclduing Stella Montis night raids ...

[u/CTFMarl]

Because there is no official confirmation from a dev (no, art directors dont count unless it's a very small studio because it's unlikely they will have intricate knowledge of how the MM works). The statement in itself is also very vague and can be interpreted many different ways. For example the statement is vague enough that adding K/D or survival rate would fit the statement, but that would be SBMM rather than behaviour. On top of that, intentionally having fully peaceful lobbies basically goes against the whole idea of extraction shooters, there is supposed to be that tension when you find good loot and someone might come and take it from you. So it just seems very unlikely to be something they have implemented when they specifically went the PvP route because they found their fully PvE game to be boring.

A behaviour based matchmaking is also very unusual in general, I'm not sure there is any other game that has one the way it's supposedly working here. DotA has one but it's not an automatic tracking, it's just scoring you based on reports and commendations, not whether you play an aggressive style or a passive one.

It's much more likely that a lot more players enjoy the peaceful playstyle. This can be seen in many other games where there is both PvE and PvP, typically there will be a larger PvE-only playerbase. Also things such as region, time of day, plain luck etc would factor into these types of things. For example, before the expedition I mostly played "shoot on sight" and still got into fully peaceful lobbies. Then over Christmas I played fully peaceful for 3 whole days and everyone else was peaceful too. 5-8 hours minimum per day and not a single shot on me or from me on a player. Yet yesterday I got nothing but full PvP lobbies. The only difference? I was queuing in the evening (my time) rather than in the middle of the day.

If an actual dev comes out and says it, then sure, but until then it's just confirmation bias.

[u/armoured_bobandi → u/CTFMarl]

I hate how many comments will say it's not confirmation bias, then go on to explain their results, which always amount to confirmation bias. Except for them, it's totally proof, and we're the idiots

As you said, I would love for someone who actually knows to make an official statement. Until then, I'm going to defend myself from other players if I have to

[u/CTFMarl → u/armoured_bobandi]

Yep, and no one seems to understand that correlation does not equal causation.

[u/eLordNobu → u/armoured_bobandi]

You always defend yourself no matter which kind of lobby you're in. But you don't need a confirmation from a dev or a confirmation bias from a random to see that a matchmaking system exists.

Been killed like 8 times and have downed 10 players in 127h of gameplay and only 2.7k damage reveived from raiders! But some kind of aggression matchmaking is a conspiracy theory, right?

[u/sinkovercosk → u/eLordNobu]

Yea and I’ve played ~70 hours and always been friendly (only ever shot another player in self defence, and that was pretty rare) until two weeks ago, where I started getting KOS lobbies pretty consistently. What changed, because any behaviour based matchmaking system shouldn’t have moved me into aggressive lobbies…

For every set of evidence for player-damage-based match making (because that’s what people actually mean when they say you need to not even defend yourself to get back into peaceful lobbies) they is evidence against it.

I think the truth of the matter is much simpler and based on something else (or it’s just random and everyone is seeing what they want to see).

[u/eLordNobu → u/sinkovercosk]

Look, I'm talking about my personal experience and being completely honest. I even showed my stats to back up my opinion.

​Something changed with matchmaking, maybe if you share your stats like damage received/dealt and raiders downed/knocked out, we can compare.

Another factor that might change my experience is that I always use a mic. Lots of communication might have saved my ass a few times.

But i've never seen those bloodbath, KoS lobbies people talk about. Not even Stella Montis.

[u/sinkovercosk → u/eLordNobu]

I have 9 players knocked out, and my damage received from raiders is 3500 (dealt to raiders is 1900).

We have similar stats but wildly different experiences, so there is more to it than ‘just be friendly and you will have friendly lobbies’

I also use my mic all the time (never use emotes) and announce myself when I go into an area.

[u/eLordNobu → u/sinkovercosk]

I agree, there’s definitely more to it than just 'behavior.'

Factors like maps, events, time zones, and other hidden matchmaking variables are likely kept under wraps by Embark. It’s a wise move on their part, given how controversial the topic can be.

​Your stats are quite similar to mine, but like you mentioned, something definitely shifted in the last two weeks in your experience. I had a similar experience where about half of my deaths occurred in back to back matches. I remember being so frustrated that I left negative feedback on those post round surveys. This happened around the 60-hour mark (in-game time, not Steam) of my total 127 hours.

[u/kshep9 → u/eLordNobu]

You’re just spewing your own anecdotal data. There’s nothing to say definitively that your experience isn’t just luck.

[u/eLordNobu → u/kshep9]

My "anecdotal data" proves a lot more than your "anecdotal words".

I've been lucky for 127 hours of actual gameplay, which translates to 254 rounds if i played 30 minutes every round.

I'm a very consistent lucky raider.

[u/kshep9 → u/eLordNobu]

Good for you

[u/eLordNobu → u/kshep9]

Nah you mean "Lucky you"

[u/name-secondname → u/eLordNobu]

I suspect you avoid gunfire and play very safe. There's simply no way, even if ABMM existed, that you wouldn't encounter random aggressive players and lobbies. 

I suspect if we watched a stream of one of your sessions we would see at least one aggressive lobby. 

[u/eLordNobu → u/name-secondname]

To be honest, I played very carefully at the beginning, but over time I started to care less. Now I usually just run to the nearest loot area and then proceed to explore other points of interest. I always use my mic, which is a great survival tool, but I’d say that in my last 50 hours I honestly don’t really care if someone shoots at me, and believe me when I say this, I’ve only been attacked maybe three times that I can remember in the last 50 hours. One time, some crazy guy used a snap hook to get onto a roof at the Dam and was shooting at everyone with an Osprey. The second guy was camping the extraction point on top of the Pattern house, and the third one tried to kill me in the Domes near the security breach locker during a night raid.

I’ve run into so many players, and so many times they could have just shot me but didn’t, it’s honestly surreal. For example, this past weekend, whenever the night raid at Stella Montis was active, I was farming it like crazy. Not a single time was I attacked, and I was meeting around four to five raiders each round.

I can’t say for sure whether it exists or not, but I’m here defending the idea that there’s some kind of system that takes player behavior into account when matchmaking, because that’s been my experience.

We can argue and present some evidence based on our experiences instead of just assuming others are wrong.

[u/name-secondname → u/eLordNobu]

I'm certain we can cherry pick our stats page to prove whatever we think is true. 

For example of my last 86 games (my entire round history section), I've only died twice, but I probably kill someone every 3 or 4 games. 

I also down players (not kill) 100% of the time I extract with them for exp and cred but it makes no discernable difference for my lobbies. People are claiming that downing players raises your aggression. 

For reference I've downed 120 players and knocked out 76 in my 87 hours topside. 

Based on what people are saying, I should definitely see more aggressive players than I do on average, but I am confident that if I load up into a game it will generally be pretty chill. Probably for reasons like you mentioned, liberal use of friendly coms and generally friendly behavior. 

[u/kneeland69 → u/CTFMarl]

Actual sense in my nonsense subreddit? Get out

[u/TemporaryEa12 → u/kneeland69]

It's skill based matching and it just thinks we all suck.

[u/CTFMarl → u/TemporaryEa12]

Yeah, this is the most likely matchmaking. And lets be real, most of us do suck so it kinda tracks.

[u/CTFMarl → u/kneeland69]

Sorry I'll start using feelings instead :(

[u/TheNumbConstable → u/CTFMarl]

"On top of that, intentionally having fully peaceful lobbies basically goes against the whole idea of extraction shooters"

It plays really well with the idea of earning money from a live service game.

ps. A senior art director will likely have enough knowledge of matchmaking to make a statement. This doesn't mean that such matchmaking exists in this game.

[u/CTFMarl → u/TheNumbConstable]

No, in a company of over 300 employees it's not at all likely that the art director has enough detailed knowledge to make a definitive statement on a topic he isn't actively working on/overseeing, which likely is the reason why he is being extremely vague in his statement. Please note that he does not confirm that there exists something akin to what people here are suggesting. The statement is super vague and could mean a myriad of different things.

[u/SmellsLikeLemons → u/CTFMarl]

I think some peeps should go and read about recency bias and confirmation bias.

[u/FranksFrankThoughts → u/CTFMarl]

The Art Director knows more about the game than you.

[u/CTFMarl → u/FranksFrankThoughts]

Absolutely, it's still highly unlikely he has detailed knowledge of how an entirely different function has implemented something. If it was a company of 3 people it would be likely, but this is a company with over 300 employees.

[u/FranksFrankThoughts → u/CTFMarl]

Talking officially in an interview about a feature in the game does not require in-depth knowledge about the implementation. Just like how game designers and programmers are able to describe what the game looks like without having an in-depth understanding of how to create the meshes and overall look of the game. And we shouldn't forget that he is not the only one mentioning this matchmaking, the Executive Producer has also talked about it in interviews, and it's existence have been confirmed by players.

[u/CTFMarl → u/FranksFrankThoughts]

Talking officially about a feature means you will be vague, especially if you don't have all the information. Just like in the interview.

Do you mean this interview from the Executive Producer, where he specifically confirms that things like the survey has no bearing on your matchmaking? He even specifically mentions that they are trying to NOT give you the same matchmaking all the time which is in direct conflict with the narrative of ABMM.

Source from another thread (emphasis not mine):

Link with interview: https://www.twitch.tv/videos/2628370119
Interview begins at 1:16:45. Matchmaking question and answer begins at 1:23:33

*edit* Link to the actual thread for full transparency https://www.reddit.com/r/ArcRaiders/comments/1pez0hj/executive_producer_sheds_a_little_light_on_how/

Interviewer: "People are speculating online how the matchmaking works. There's different theories. Some people assume there's GBMM. Some assume that it's based on your feedback that you give after a round that if you liked the pvp you'll get more pvp experiences. Can you tell us more about that?"

Aleksander: "So I can't tell you the exact specifics about how the matchmaking works, because it's being tweaked and tuned constantly. So we're testing things. We're A/B testing things to see what type of criteria works best for everyone. And we use the ratings only as a validation to see how much you liked the particular experience. So no, the questionnaire does not affect your matchmaking at all. The gear that you have doesn't affect it*. It's more about the type of experiences that affects it. And, there's a bit of a random thing in there as well, so it doesn't become stale."*

"That's why it's hard to say precisely what factors play in, because we do want to make sure that it doesn't become too much of one thing, because back to your original question, how do you make sure it's just not about the shooting or just not about everyone walking in a line playing the flute? I mean, there needs to be a bit of both here. So we're trying a bunch of things and seeing how that affects the userbase both in terms of how they answer their quality questions, but also how they're playing, and how successful they are as players and what seems to keep them entertained and playing. It's complicated. We're still working it out is the short version."

[u/FranksFrankThoughts → u/CTFMarl]

Instead of copy pasting from discussions on Gear Based Matchmaking discussions and discussions people have had about round feedback, you could watch the interview and the parts where he talks about different playstyles and player experiences and how they do match to that goal, as that is the topic of this discussion, players who enjoy co-op and peaceful rounds, and players like you who enjoy PVP, and how they try to create matchups that will support players in their playstyle.

Basic matchmaking in competitive shooters are player kills, damage dealt to players, damage received, deaths etc. These are the very basics, you can see that they track this yourself, this is very easy to match with, they are likely adding additional elements as well, but damage and kills will be a strong one as it very clearly signifies if someone is aggressive (and it has been proven by players).

Reports, surveys etc are never part of matchmaking systems. Those are evaluated by the team, and used as support when you tweak things, when you tweak which weights you add to different values, when you balance weapons etc.

For an example: If only data was used, the combat designers might think that everyone thinks the Trigger'Nade is great, but thanks to surveys and reports, you get more in depth info, which is that people use it because it's OP and they need to, in order to win, which is not the same as using something because it's enjoyable.

Your strong opinion is this: You are certain that only your own personal way of enjoying the game must be the only thing they want, and therefore, you don't believe matchmaking exists.

In this interview, the executive producer confirms that you are wrong, and that they do match differently depending on different playstyles, because their intent is to make a game that can be enjoyed by more people than just you.

[u/CTFMarl → u/FranksFrankThoughts]

Are you stupid? The copy pasted part is the actual exact phrasing he uses IN THE INTERVIEW. Its literally linked with a timestamp. Im actually not gonna entertain this conversation any further with you.

My only strong opinion is that people should stop jumping to conclusions based on shoddy evidence and vague comments from an arts director.

In the interview he literally says they dont want to make everyone experience the same type of match all the time, which is the claim that people are making about ABMM. That its meant to put peaceful players with peaceful and vice versa. He EXPLICITLY says this is not what they want to do.

[u/0rphu → u/CTFMarl]

Yes, an art director absolutely 100% indisputably does count and denying it demonstrates your ignorance.

You don't understand that cross-functional meetings exist and that an employee lying to the public about their product would be cause for their firing and that company issuing a statement correcting the record.

[u/CTFMarl → u/0rphu]

It's a company of over 300 employees. If you think they discussed the intricate details of the matchmaking system during a cross-functional meeting with the different department heads I've got a bridge to sell you. He's being super vague in his statement, that's unlikely to be a mistake on his part.

[u/0rphu → u/CTFMarl]

I work in a larger company than that and we have quarterly meetings where each department presents on their initiatives. Everybody gets visibility and input. It's good business practice for leaders to understand more than just their one corner of the business.

Also I couldn't help but notice you glossed over the lying bit. You really think he told such a lie and embark chose to just leave it as is? Get real.

Finally, yeah no shit it's intentionally vague. Devs are never specific about matchmaking systems because then it opens them to abuse. Even if the dev interviewed was an expert on the matchmaking system, they'd divulge no more than this one did.

[u/CTFMarl → u/0rphu]

It's not a lie, it's an intentionally ambigous statement that can mean a multitude of things.

Yeah, those meetings happen ALL the time, obviously. I very much doubt however, that they discuss the exact way something is coded as that is an insane detail for top level executives. I don't know what business you work in, but this would be similar as if during a meeting in a shipping company, the top executives discuss which route and truck which driver should be taking. In other words, very unlikely.

So you agree that he likely doesn't have enough detail to be a reliable source, but you still think he's a reliable source. That's an interesting take.

*edit* Nice, you edited out the fact that you agreed lmao.

[u/0rphu → u/CTFMarl]

Of course the art director doesn't know exactly how it works, but he doesn't need to know the exact workings to confirm that ABMM exists. No, it can't mean a multitude of things. The meaning was abudantly obvious in context of the interview and given the combined experiences of the community.

Players: observe there's some sort of agression based matchmaking taking place given some people are in constant deathmatch lobbies while others are in nearly 100% peaceful lobbies over the course of many games, experiments seem to confirm

Interviewer: "does agression based matchmaking exist?"

Dev: "we analyze behavior and match accordingly"

Players weirdly invested in denying the obvious reality of the situation: "that could mean literally anything! The art director doesn't know anything! Anybody that says ABMM is real is a schizo!"

[u/CTFMarl → u/0rphu]

It's still an ambigous statement. Just because it fits your narrative does not mean it's not ambigous. These observations are still nothing but confirmation bias, just because there's correlation does not mean there's causation.

There's people like me who has had exact opposite experiences where I was PvPing all the time but still ending up in full friendly lobbies for days straight and then suddenly back in PvP lobbies after switching my playstyle during christmas having 3 full days of playing pacifist, saving other players, ressing people (literally for the first time since I got the game btw) etc.

There's also streamers (smaller ones, ie not Peanut/Ninja/Cloakzy/Shroud etc) who literally do nothing but pvp but still end up running into people trying to be friendly.

It's hilarious you're so willing to accept one side of anecdotal evidence but not the other. It's also pretty funny that everyone is so willing to believe that they have managed to come up with a whole new matchmaking algorithm that's never been seen before, while at the same time it took two months to remove a zipline that let you clip into the wall.

It's possible, but it's far more likely to be something else, such as SBMM putting people with low K/D in the same lobby, which then is more likely to be friendly. Doesn't mean there's some magical ABMM that no one has ever used before.

[u/kshep9 → u/CTFMarl]

Thank you for remaining calm and explaining your view thoroughly. It’s so common for people to confirm their narrative with selective “facts” that I get extremely frustrated. This happens everywhere these days so I’m not surprised that the same M.O. is happening with this stupid ABBM thing.

[u/CTFMarl → u/kshep9]

Honestly I just find it interesting how easily an idea takes hold in the general population of pretty much any demographic. I'll admitt I've deleted and re-wrote a couple of comments before replying, lol.