Bored peeps need click bait. ‘Rigged’ wins the keyword race hands down.
1 Like
Maybe you missing the point here, i dont have to proof anything. Beside many many others ,there have been observations made over the years in this game that are kindy fishy. And usually when its smells like rotten fish its mostlikly rotten fish…
No one i repeat no one has the truth about this topic. Not “us” not you… all we have is our observations and all you have are numbers which comes from a site associated with the companie we suspect of manipulating the matchmaking for whatever reasons.
See it like a debate between democrats and republicans. No side will give in, every side has the absolute truth and you cant convince no one who believes one or the other.
And no insults or whatever shady debate tactics will change that.
I get what you’re saying, but um words mean things. The word “rigged” means controlled the outcome of a contest by fraudulent means. No control = not rigged. Simple as.
So then the word you’re looking for is “opaque.” As in “matchmaking is opaque.” It’s not as opaque as you are making it sound, but it’s not 100% transparent either.
Well of course not. It’s like people don’t know what matchmaking by rank is.
Before we consider matchmaking by rank, let’s consider a basic matchmaking algorithm played out the 19th century way. There’s a waiting area (probably with a single chair) and a referee. If you enter and no one is there, you wait until a second person enters, then the referee official matches the two of you and you’re instructed to leave the waiting area to play your game.
Note that in the above example there’s no dice being rolled, no deck of cards shuffled. The “randomness” is “who’s going to walk through the door next?” It’s not pure random by any stretch.
Now let’s evolve that to matchmaking by skill. Add several chairs to the waiting area, and add a clipboard with a sign in sheet to put the time you’ve arrived and your rating. (The referee can look this up in the official records if necessary.) Now instead of immediately matching two people together, the referee looks at the ratings and the time, and makes a judgement call. The two considerations here are time spent waiting and difference in rating, and the referee wants to keep both as low as possible. This means that the longer someone’s been waiting, the larger a rating difference in acceptable.
One way to think about this is what all matchmaking is by time “checked in,” and “matchmaking by rating” is actually matchmaking by both time and rating. And again, nothing about this rolls dice. No random number generation is called. It’s just “random” who enters the waiting area around the same time you do.
All of this explanation is just what “matchmaking by rating” means as a technical term. What Blizzard is opaque about is exactly how the matchmaking algorithm balances the two priorities of time waiting and closeness of rating. Which makes sense if you think about it — if you think about the referee from the IRL version they’re probably using some kind of fuzzy logic, trying their best but not thinking about it with calculated precision.
Also it’s very clear from recent events that, after a certain amount of waiting, instead of waiting longer for a player who might have a severe skill difference lower or higher than you, Blizzard now just matches you against a BlizzBot. Skill differences greater than a certain amount in matchmaking are no longer tolerated by the algorithm as they were before. Therefore, the rise of the BlizzBot implies that the matchmaking algorithm was recently overhauled.
1 Like
No, you (person), you are missing the entire topic.
You do if you want anyone to take you seriously.
It doesn’t matter how many people believe something, their faith does not make it right or true.
A majority of people does not create fact. THe sooner you learn this, the heathier our entire society will become.
I do.
The truth is 100% that blizzard is correct until someone proves them wrong. Until you show us evidence of your claims, they are false.
2 Likes
If that would work like in the real world we could have skipped the entire iraq war and some other things.
It doesnt work like that, if you are suspected you have done bad things and no powerfull people backing you up, you will have a hell of a life.
Like investigators say, if certain things dont ryhme up, usually theres something the suspect is hiding.
Prove, but whatever.
The whole “But super data website says…”
Look, I could walk past my neighbors house every day for 10 years and never see their dog. It doesn’t mean there is no dog.
The data on these websites show what it’s programmed to see. If there is no “check for dog” in the formulas, then you’ll never know what is truly being represented.
I’m most likely wrong, and that’s fine, I’m just trying to get people smarter than me thinking of all the angles.
All these sites “prove” is what they are programmed to calculate based on data provided by the game. Are all variables provided to these sites?
1 Like
Exactly. Even Volkswagen was to a certain degree sucessfull manipulating the numbers for their catalysators untill they got caught. Even banks and we talking about respected industries with no such history.
1 Like
Technically correct. But the data from tracker websites is like a hundred dog turds in the yard. You’d need quite the conspiracy theory to argue that there’s no dog in the house, and moreover, if we’re willing to get our hands dirty, we can know what the dog (or dogs) ate.
3 Likes
We should have absolutely skipped it because the claims were false and they never actually provided evidence of WoMD. Great analogy!
I don’t know where you live, but I live in a place where one is innocent until one is proven guilty specifically because you can’t prove innocence.
But you don’t arrest anyone until you have proof.
No one told you to stop looking for proof.
Where is your proof? Circumstantial evidence that isn’t even evidence is insufficient to make the bold claim that a multinational company is actively defrauding its consumers, concealing the whole thing, and lying publically about their behavior and that this process has played out over nearly ten years, thousands of employees, and millions of users without anyone, not one person, bring solid evidence of the fantastical claim.
Like, in all seriousness, please, pretty please with sugar on top, bring one iota of decent information that proves this fact and I will dive right in with you.
See how easily you can dismiss anything that would exonerate the evil blizzard people? Again, this specific mechanism you used right here is why you have to prove they are lying and not the other way around.
If we all use your system, everyone is guilty of anything you suspect they might have done. It would be chaos and it makes zero sense.
1 Like
Where is that? In the usa were you can conquer entire countries based on lies ?
1 Like
Only when the GoP and their defense establishment are in charge, but yep.
Of course, this also applies to Russia… so, maybe I’m there and all this is more disinformation to re-elect our beloved Trump.
1 Like
Who said Blizzard was nefarious and evil and trying to pick our pockets?
I’m just saying. People have had concerns regarding match ups and I don’t think dismissing those concerns based on a big calculator on some website is fair to the discussion unless the actual formula is given to us.
Fair.
OR
The other neighbor with 5 dogs really hates my neighbor.
Either way, somethings fishy.
Which tells me you’re ignorant of how all of this works and why that position is dumb.
Why would the rig the system for fun? I’m sure they’re pretty high, but I don’t think they’re that high.
You obviously don’t work in law professionally. The standard for arrest is probable cause, which is much weaker than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Well, that’s a conspiracy theory. I don’t know why people act like some conspiracy theories aren’t true. Like in Better Call Saul, Chuck has a conspiracy theory about the Mesa Verde case that was true and later Howard had a conspiracy theory about the Sandpiper settlement hearing that was true. Conspiracy theories are just usually the product of a deranged mind, which is why in both cases the characters with the true conspiracy theories saw their reputations take damage when they publicly committed to their beliefs.
if we are talkin tv… conspiracies can easily become class-actions. no?
Statistics
20 characters
1 Like
As far as the military industrial complex goes, the historical difference between Democrats and Republicans is that they both vote in its favor, but the Democrats lie about their support. Only weirdos like Sanders and Gabbard would actually vote against a military spending bill.
But hey, that’s starting to change a bit. Now we’re getting Democrats who vote for war in Ukraine and have no shame about it, and we’re getting Republicans who talk about how the war is wrong and then vote for it anyway. Change? Yes. Progress? Not so much.
1 Like
If match ups are unfavorable or one sided too often, then people quit.
Think about what you do for a living and then start eliminating the people who give you money and tell me how that’s sustainable (do you know what sustainable means?)
Now don’t you go bringing up the S word in a thread like this. You’re asking too much. How statistics works is about as foreign to conspiracy theorists as world geography is to most Americans.
2 Likes
Chuck was also allergic to technology.
You seen Lucky Hank yet?