And in a scheduled league or a tournament that makes perfect sense and I would totally agree with you, but that's not what matchmaking is... if it was, we could use a matchmaking system that paired people randomly with absolutely no concern for relative power or skill.Yes every game i play i want to win in the same way that tom brady wants to win every football game. I think its safe to say those on the competitive ladder are also quing for a match with the intention of winning.
Matchmaking is, as the name suggests, about finding an appropriate match for you when you queue up.. what makes a match appropriate? Ideally it would find someone of equal skill playing an equally developed team, right? In a perfect world where we have an unlimited pool of talent to draw from at all times that'd absolutely be the case... but it ain't a perfect world.
If it was a perfect world, what do you think your long-term win percentage would be? If the system could find you opponents of roughly your skill and teams of roughly your power it would be roughly 50%. In an open matchmaking environment there IS no "win" condition... you're playing forever... so either you're the best there is and you win almost all the time, or you're going to face tougher and tougher opponents until you start losing almost all the time... or you face totally random opponents (which nobody seems interested in doing) and you win about as much as your skill level (relative to other people) dictates. The latter is wonderful for high skill people who just want to win, but also great for low skill people quitting because they lose all the time.
Only if you decide the metric for your skill is whether you win your next match or not. Nobody says "magnus is possibly the best player in the world.. but he lost his last game, so clearly he's not" they go by ratings and rankings - long-term assessments of their skill. With a perfected handicap system you could win 50% (in the long term, again) of your games against them, but your ratings would clearly indicate that they were the best in the world and you're a neophyte... but it would make each game a challenge for them rather than a boring jaunt down kill-the-noob lane.I expect to lose to magnus carlson at chess, federer at tennis and phelps at swimming but im sure if there was only one competition in the respective field that the could play in on a daily basis they'd be pretty disappointed if i could beat them 50% of the time as it would make their hardwork and training irrelevant.
I think a lot of veterans just want to kill-the-noob and claim it was a learning experience for the other guy.
Again, only if in the open, unlimited play environment you're using "if I win the next game" as your metric for competition. Rating/Ranking would be the metric and it would even more clearly differentiate between the good and the bad coaches than current ratings/rankings do... similarly, tournaments would not use the 50% win system, it would take the data from the open play environment and use that to determine an appropriate "roster correction" value, and then tournament matches would use that in place of your personal correction value, meaning tournaments would be a straight up test of skill using elimination.I think it'd be fantastic in an open/new players ladder for people who play casually but would destroy competitive blood bowl.
So, you can make as many off-handed and dismissive comments as you'd like, but the logic is on my side for this... it's mostly just people who want to turn BB into a seniority system where they don't have to play hard games to slap around the new players that find the idea frightening.