Here's the thing - lopsided (blowout) games are a lot more frustrating for the players getting blown out than they are fun for the players winning. They are a net negative experience - there's very little to gain or learn from getting blown out, but a lot of bad vibes that have a significant increase in the number of lesser-skilled players that quit playing the game because they've been blown out repeatedly by higher-skill player groups.

The Call of Duty team actually released a [research white paper] in July of this year about an experiment they ran in Modern Warfare III with a control group and an experimental group with loosened skill-based matchmaking criteria. When they reduced the skill-based matchmaking requirements, 80% of participating players were more likely to quit matches early and 90% of them were statistically less likely to play again. When they ratcheted skill-based matchmaking up so that it played a larger factor in matchmaking, they saw the inverse effect - players quit less and were more likely to play again.

This shouldn't be a huge surprise. While playing against better players usually increases skill level over time, it must be balanced against the frustration of that play experience or players on the losing end won't want to come back for more. From the developer perspective, we want players to keep playing the game so that we can keep paying the bills and making more content. We want the game to be sustainable. Players usually come back for more when they have closer matches.

[Join us on Discord] and/or [Support us on Patreon]

Got a burning question you want answered?

• Short questions: Ask a Game Dev on Twitter
• Long questions: Ask a Game Dev on Tumblr
• Frequent Questions: The FAQ