A gaming study indicates that skill-based matchmaking is equitable, yet it subtly leads to player attrition.

      Skill-based matchmaking was designed to enhance the legitimacy of competitive gaming. However, a new study suggests that while balance is important, it can inadvertently lead to negative outcomes, as evenly matched contests may result in losing streaks that deter players from participating.

      The research, published in Management Science, indicates that matchmaking can be more effective if it goes beyond simple skill levels and considers how players respond to their recent performances, including wins, losses, and their competitive history. An analysis of 5.4 million matches from Lichess revealed that an optimized matchmaking system improved engagement by 4% to 6% compared to traditional skill-based methods.

      The conventional skill-based matchmaking (SBMM) framework now seems too simplistic for platforms striving to retain players.

      The downside of fair matches

      SBMM aims to match opponents of similar skill levels to create fair contests. While this seems ideal in theory, the reality can be different. Players typically prefer not to face an opponent who is significantly more skilled, and dominating a novice doesn't provide much learning.

      The issue arises from the sequence of outcomes. A singular loss is an expected aspect of competition, but a series of losses can lead to a feeling of entrapment in a frustrating cycle.

      This is the behavioral disconnect that standard matchmaking overlooks. Each match outcome influences the next decision a player makes, whether that involves queuing for another game, taking a break, or quitting for the day.

      The impact on engagement

      The findings from the Lichess study lend substantial credibility to these insights. The optimized system demonstrated a 4% to 6% increase in player engagement across the 5.4 million matches compared to standard skill-based matchmaking. In theoretical models, the improvement could be as high as 50%.

      For players, the adjustments would be minimal. An improved system would consider recent outcomes as part of the matchmaking signal and focus on longer-term session patterns rather than relying solely on skill ratings.

      For game developers, even slight increases in retention can lead to significant benefits. As reported in the Global Games Market Report, the global gaming market is expected to generate nearly $188 billion annually, indicating that even minor improvements in player retention can translate into substantial value for the platform.

      When does retention go too far?

      Enhanced matchmaking does not exempt developers from the responsibility to maintain a fair queue. It introduces a more complex trust issue, as the goals of competitive integrity and retention may conflict when players find the system difficult to understand.

      This tension is particularly pronounced in pay-to-win models. The study found that monetary advantages could boost engagement in certain contexts by altering the skill distribution, but it does not classify this as a universally positive outcome. More engagement doesn’t always equate to a superior experience.

      The risk for developers lies in creating invisible matchmaking that erodes player trust. If they move away from strict SBMM, they will need to ensure that the matchmaking process continues to uphold competitive fairness. The next generation of matchmaking must be able to keep players engaged while avoiding the perception that the game is being manipulated against them.