Call of Duty Petition Calls for SBMM Removal From Public Lobbies

Call of Duty’s long-running matchmaking argument has gained a new focal point: a petition launched by creator Tdawgsmitty calling for skill-based matchmaking, commonly shortened to SBMM, to be removed from the series’ unranked public lobbies.

The request is not for Call of Duty to abandon competitive matchmaking altogether. Its central proposal is a split between playlists: ranked play would retain SBMM, while unranked modes would no longer use it. The petition also calls for clearer communication around matchmaking and a chance for the community to test potential adjustments.

More than 500 people had signed within roughly an hour of the petition going live. That early number is not, by itself, proof of broad player consensus in a franchise of Call of Duty’s scale. It does show, however, that the issue remains capable of quickly organizing players who feel public matches have become too strenuous, too repetitive, or poorly suited to casual groups.

What the petition is asking for

The campaign’s core case is straightforward: public lobbies should offer a different experience from ranked competition. Tdawgsmitty argues that players entering a ranked playlist are consciously choosing a competitive environment and therefore should expect matchmaking that considers skill. In contrast, the petition contends that unranked play should leave more room for experimentation, low-pressure sessions and parties where players have noticeably different levels of experience.

That distinction matters because “unranked” describes the playlist’s visible stakes, not necessarily the factors used behind the scenes to form a lobby. A match can have no public rank to gain or lose while still relying on a system that evaluates player performance when it determines opponents and teammates.

In the petition’s framing, that is the source of the friction. The complaint is not merely that some matches are difficult. Rather, it is that public matches can feel like a continuous competitive cycle even when someone wants to try an unfamiliar weapon, play after work without treating every match as a test, or join friends whose skill levels vary widely.

The petition additionally challenges the direction of Call of Duty matchmaking over time. It references comments from former Call of Duty developer Brian Bright about work on the cancelled project NX1 emphasizing ping and region, then raises questions about later priorities as Activision brought data scientists into work connected with marketing. Those points are presented by the petition as reasons to seek more openness about how modern matchmaking decisions are made.

SBMM, ping and region: the terms behind the debate

Skill-based matchmaking is a broad label for systems that use player-skill information when assembling matches. The source material does not specify Call of Duty’s current formula, the data it weighs, or exactly how heavily any individual factor is used. It is therefore important not to treat “SBMM” as the name of one fully disclosed, fixed rule set.

Ping refers to network latency: the time it takes for data to travel between a player and the relevant game server or connection. Lower ping is generally associated with a more responsive online experience. Region concerns where a player is located in relation to the available network infrastructure and other participants. A matchmaking approach that prioritizes ping and region is aimed, in broad terms, at connecting players in a way that supports network quality and geographic proximity.

These concepts need not be mutually exclusive. A modern matchmaking system can consider connection conditions and player skill at the same time. The practical dispute is over prioritization, visibility and outcome: players criticizing SBMM believe that its influence in public modes is strong enough to make sessions feel overly demanding or uneven, while the available comments from developers indicate the system is viewed as an ongoing problem to iterate on rather than a permanently solved design.

Why unranked versus ranked is the key dividing line

The petition’s ranked-only proposal is an attempt to draw a bright line between two player expectations. Ranked modes conventionally signal deliberate competition. Participants may be seeking tougher opposition, a more structured environment, or an external measure of progress. The petition argues that this is the proper home for skill-focused matchmaking.

Public playlists serve a wider range of motives. One player may want to learn a new loadout. Another may want to play socially. A third may still be aiming to perform as well as possible, despite choosing an unranked mode. Those overlapping goals help explain why the discussion is difficult to settle with a simple slogan. “Casual” does not mean every player wants the same thing, and a lobby’s perceived fairness can look very different depending on whether a player prioritizes challenge, variety, social play, connection quality or a low-stress session.

For the petition’s supporters, removing SBMM from public lobbies would make room for more variation in match difficulty and opponent mix. Critics of that approach could reasonably view greater variation differently, particularly if it produces lopsided games. The supplied information does not establish what system would replace SBMM, how it would weigh ping and region, or how Activision would measure success. Those are meaningful unanswered implementation questions, not minor details.

Modern Warfare 4 puts the discussion on a deadline

The campaign arrives roughly a month before Modern Warfare 4 is due to launch. The upcoming game is set to use the divisive SBMM approach introduced earlier in the summer in Black Ops 7, giving the petition a timely target even though no change has been promised.

Infinity Ward multiplayer design lead Jacky Reynolds previously characterized matchmaking as a conversation that will continue rather than a solved system. Reynolds said the goal includes making sure players can have fun and find variety in matches, while also noting that the developers speaking were not directly responsible for matchmaking.

That qualification is useful. It separates the people building multiplayer content from the team or teams responsible for matchmaking decisions, and it means an acknowledgment of the debate should not be interpreted as confirmation that the petition’s request will be adopted. The available remarks leave the door open to future iterations, but offer no commitment to remove SBMM from public playlists.

Why Destiny has become the campaign’s example

Tdawgsmitty pointed to the recent Destiny community response as evidence that coordinated player pressure can matter. Bungie faced major backlash after its earlier decision affecting Destiny 2, including online protests and players choosing not to support Marathon. Bungie subsequently said it would restore vaulted content and continue supporting the Destiny franchise. For more on that reversal and the stated plans around both games, see Bungie’s plans to restore Destiny 2 content and deepen Marathon.

The comparison is motivational rather than predictive. Destiny’s circumstances, community response and developer decisions are not identical to Call of Duty’s matchmaking dispute. A petition can concentrate a demand and make it easier for players to express support, but it cannot by itself demonstrate that all Call of Duty players agree on the diagnosis or the preferred technical solution.

Call of Duty’s scale adds another complication. A large franchise can contain substantial groups with opposing experiences of the same feature. Some may feel consistently punished by public matchmaking; others may value a system intended to avoid dramatic skill gaps. The reported petition does not provide polling, telemetry, an alternative matchmaking design or a stated response from Activision. It should be read as an organized request from a segment of the community, not a final verdict on the whole player base.

What meaningful transparency could look like

The request for clearer communication may be the petition’s most practical point because it is not limited to an all-or-nothing demand. Players want a better understanding of what public matchmaking is meant to optimize and an opportunity to assess changes themselves.

In plain terms, useful clarity would mean explaining the design goals without assuming that every matchmaking detail can or should be exposed. A community test would also need a clearly stated purpose: whether it is evaluating match variety, perceived fairness, connection quality, social-party experiences or another outcome. Without that shared definition, players and developers could look at the same change and reach incompatible conclusions about whether it worked.

For now, the petition has put those questions back in front of a familiar Call of Duty controversy. Its immediate demand is specific—keep SBMM in ranked play and remove it from unranked playlists—but the larger issue is how a blockbuster shooter can serve players who approach its public matches with fundamentally different expectations. Whether Activision responds directly remains uncertain. What is clear is that the approach to matchmaking will remain under scrutiny as Modern Warfare 4 approaches.