Yes. Winning in a game with two players/teams and one winner is by definition zero sum. You can't have some players win more without other players winning less.

Yes. Winning in a game with two players/teams and one winner is by definition zero sum. You can't have some players win more without other players winning less. Asking for the difficulty of the game to be reduced for oneself fundamentally implies that you want the difficulty of the game to be increased for someone else. There is no other possibility. The most hilarious thing is when people ask that there be a ranked playlist with sbmm and an unranked playlist without. The one without, they assume, would be more favorable to them, since they would experience a random distribution of players (and they assume they are above average, naturally). But for players in the bottom decile of skill, unranked would have a dramatically worse experience than ranked! So they would leave for the ranked playlist. Now the new bottom decile of skill would be having a terrible experience in unranked, so they would leave, etc. By induction, unranked would quickly become depopulated. It is really tough to be a below-average player in a game without any matchmaking. You lose all the time and almost never have an impact. You can kiiinda get away with this as a developer in games that have very large teams. For example, World of Warships has no skill based matchmaking (although tier level is somewhat a proxy for skill and performs a bit of a weed-out of the lowest skill players in the higher tiers). There are people who play that game who have only a 30% winrate over a large number of games. This is in a 12v12 game where presumably things tend to average out in the mix of skills on each team, so having that negative of an impact on team performance is in some sense pretty impressive. The only thing difficult for me to understand is the resilience of the mentality involved in continuing to play that game if you are one of the way below average players. I would not have fun if I never had a positive impact on my team's performance. It's also worth noting that if WoWS had the playerbase to support it, they'd probably build SBMM too. But it's a bit of a chicken and egg problem. The issue is that their monetization system requires what is effectively forty or fifty different queues (5 tier-based matching bands * 4 ship classes * 2-2.2 game modes, depending on whether ranked is active). Queue times can already be quite extended in some tiers and for some ship ship classes. Developing a system that continues with this alignment of tiers and classes and also substantially reduces skill gaps is probably unsolvable without a much large player base or a more complicated role selection system.