Also Matchmaking depends on your deck.
If the system wants everyone at 50% it matches you vs higher MMR.
But if you playing rock vs those higher MMR u still keep winning so they place you mb vs higher MMR and also decks that counter your to ensure you stay at 50%
Hitting the hard counterwall is making up for your winstreaks before.
And if Ben Brode talks in the way of mat hnaking he did on the pax their maybe some more shady things when it comes to matchmaking…please whales etc.
Excuse me ?! You didn’t even understand why your quest murloc deck was a bad deck and now you’re trying to school me ?
You’re one of those that can’t accept the reality as is and when someone tells you what you need to hear and not what you want to hear, you get offended.
I couldn’t care less about you nor do I ‘’stalk’’ you as you claim. Turns out we had a little discussion in a another thread and you happened to mention you couldn’t get to Legend rank, so yes I think my point was very relevant.
Like how the hell am I supposed to know what deck you climb and do not climb with? Stop with the oversensitivity.
I’m genuinely trying to help and give you legit criticism.
This does not happen.
Why would they care what rank you end up at? What makes it so that they have to turn on the mythical stop-you-from-winning switch at gold 7 two stars, instead of anywhere in silver or platinum? Why would they care that it’s you, in particular, who must stay at gold 7 two stars instead of whoever you’re playing against?
50% win rate happens naturally as a result of fair matches. That’s what fair matching means. They don’t have to cheat you to make you lose, you can do that all by yourself. And if you don’t, well, grats! You just ranked up.
This is all just a persecution complex because you’re not actually as good as you think you should be, so there must be something, anything, somewhere, anywhere, to make it not your fault, not really.
You cleary havnt watched the video, 50% is forced. That what Ben Brode states.
There is no fair matchmaking as he states in a skillbased MM they would have certain players quit because they get stomped all the time so you have to lower everyones winrate.
Which means doesnt matter your skill if you go over 50% you will face hardcounters.
No, it’s not “forced.” Read my post.
It is, watch the video. Its all in there takes 3 minutes.
If the devs lower winrates of highskilled players, when thats not forced i dont know. Its by the devs not natrually.
And btw, a cheesy deck like SM gets me from bronze to legend without bonus stars in 3 days no skill involved at all. Takes just al lill bit time for one pack more.
You’re still not getting it.
They don’t have to cheat you out of wins, you can lose all by yourself.
I know that, everyone does. But if you play the whole day rock for a 12 winstreak against rock paper and sissors and all of a sudden i only face paper for 10 straight games i feel cheated out.
Because that not a coincident happens on a regular basis.
He didn’t say that. He stated that a skill based matchmaking system (Elo/MMR) will naturally normalise win rates towards 50% because as you win/lose more games, you will be matched against players who have won/lost more games, respectively (more wins is assumed to mean higher skill and this system attempts to match players of equal skill). At no point did he say that a 50% win rate is forced.
He said make one group win more and MAKE one group loose more so that all can have equal fun at 50%
And the word MAKE sounds to me like forced. Because someelse influences how my winrate will be no matter how skilled or not i am.
Someelse ensure how everyones winrate is via a matchmaking algorythm they coded.
Yes but if you listen carefully he states YOU dont want that because then everyone stomps the little guy. Which means new players or else leaving the game.
Therefor push the little guys winrate by good matchups and down the winrate of good players by bad matchups.
I doubt u capable to read between the lines what he really said. No offence. It was a little insight of blizzards matchmaking philosophy.
But you aren’t. So the problem is your feelings, and not the matchmaker.
I think you guys are taking the wrong approach.
The word “forced” is very subjective. Like if an airport security employee asks you to take off your shoes, are you being forced to take off your shoes? You don’t need to enter the gate area, so you could just politely say no and turn around without issues. The dividing line between “suggest” and “compel” is individual enough that two different people could watch the same thing and use both words to describe the same event.
What’s more important here is what methods produce which results. If algorithm A produces effects X and Y, AND algorithm B produces effects X and Z, then first it is not the case that algorithm A must be in effect because we see effect X, and second if we do not see effect Y then that would lean towards algorithm B. What people use as “evidence” for rigging, such as 50% winrate “forcing,” is in truth evidence of matchmaking by winrate, and the other evidence is incongruent with matchmaking other than matchmaking by winrate.
The possibility to matched against a class that is represented 15% of the whole meta ten times in a row is like…well i should play the lottery.
The whole meta is not your meta.
You still haven’t explained why the game has to care that you in particular stop at some specific rank.
You still havnt explained why i should not feel cheated, you have internal insights about the development of the matchmaking algorythm we others do not have ?
Or is it just something you believe, because in your world a milion dollar buisness would never cheat on their customers?
So we pretty equal on our claims and going nowhere i believe.
Each game would have 15% chance of finding said class, if that was the case.
As it is, you’re not the only player, nor playing in a space representative of the meta as a whole, so there are several parasitic factors you’re not taking into consideration there.
The context for that contrast in Brode’s talk is
winrate based matchmaking
vs
no matchmaking (first come first serve)
And going from no matchmaking to matchmaking DOES make good players win less and bad players win more. Consider a player in the bottom 5%, with or without a matchmaking system that matches him with a player within 1% skill. Without matchmaking, his next opponent would be anywhere from 0% to 100%, average 50%; with matchmaking, his next opponent would be 4% to 6%, average 5%. That is what Brode meant by “protecting low skill players.” He meant protecting them with matchmaking by MMR, and only by MMR.
The core problem with the rigging conspiracy theory mindset is that it doesn’t look at matchmaking as a real life problem to be solved by problem solvers. Why would I protect the low skill players by creating an algorithm that scans deck lists, uses AI to determine deck archetypes, references archetype winrate tables, or even more — mind you, we’re trying to keep matchmaking time to a minimum to reduce time-to-play — when instead we can assign players a number that goes up and down with wins and losses and just use that instead? It’s a simpler, leaner, faster solution to the same problem. It’s both smarter and lazier, as opposed to working harder to achieve the same objective.
Simply put, rigging is extra unnecessary work. That’s the motivational reason why I don’t believe it exists.
PS Brode also misrepresented the Dunning Kruger effect in a graph. Essentially lying about it. He’s not infallible.
You mean what happend in Overwatch2.
I thought you put me in your ignore list.
Must be the reason why he left Blizzard then and build his own studio. No power for slackers i guess.
We can debate this back and forth none of us has the needed knowledge whats going on with the matchmaker.
This topic goes way back and there are alot unanswered questions when it comes to matchmaking and the resulting patterns.
I still dont know what your mission is educating people about how wrong they might be.