NOTE: BEFORE COMMENTING, PLEASE READ THE BOLD PARAGRAPHS IN THE TEXT BELOW. This post isn't just about traditional SBMM.
---
When people think of skill based match making they think of good players being matched with good players, great players being matched with great players, and bad players being matched with bad players.
The basic idea is that you will be matched against and alongside players of your specific skill level. And even when that was the case, it's debatable if that really is "fair." Should players who put in the time and effort to become good at a game never get the experience of destroying less skilled players? Or is it wrong for good players to have fun at the expense of the less skilled?
For that matter, what is generally more fun? Is it a better experience to be matched with people of your skill level where every game is a hard fought battle that nearly ends in a tie? Is it more fun to win most of your games as you and a couple of above averagely skilled friends stomp 0.5 KD players all night long? There's really no truth here. These are subjective questions without any real answers. Different people are going to feel differently about all of this, and that's fine.
Where things become much more right and wrong is with what skilled based matchmaking has become. It's a computer algorithm that decides when you should win, and when you should lose, with the sole objective of keeping everyone online for as long as possible, and retaining the largest amount of people possible, so they can sell loot boxes or battle passes to the largest number of people possible.
It's you getting matched against people ABOVE your skill level, and with teammates below your skill level, when a computer decides you should lose. It's a game that refuses to allow any "random" group of players to stay together for longer than one match, because it wants to split you up so you can lose next time, or someone else on your team can win next time, all based on player retention. And it's indefensible to all but the shareholders.
I would argue that this is even worse than loot boxes, because loot boxes can be ignored. But despite the hate of loot boxes from customers, it really took a combined effort from both customers and the threat of government regulation before companies started to remove loot boxes from their games. It isn't very likely there will be such concern from any government regarding this newer breed of "retention based match making."
But what can be done? Is this really what all competitive multiplayer games will always be from now on, or can players demand otherwise? If a change happens, where will it come from, and how can it benefit all involved?
tl;dr: Just watch a minute or two of this video from the time stamp. Knowing this, what can be done about the situation?