That is not how the game works. You have 50% chance of winning but the game cant calcutate if your teammates are trolls/feeders. There are way too many variables that takes place in your game that decide who wins. And those variables wil in the end decide who will win. That are stuff that cant be calculated by the matchmaker and maybe thats why you only have 40% so far casue you have not done enough to turn the game to your favor.
1 Like
Kinda weird to tote both lines here 
The problem of the âwhite knightâ claim is that itâs usually used without proof because the people that assert it are trying to use it as a label to denounce any âproofâ that doesnât agree with their complaint.
perspective perception influences the respective reception
People tend to only see things in polarized explanations; despite the greater availability for information resources, people arenât as prone to being informed so much as just wanting to reinforce what they already think. ie âconspiracy theoryâ The notion follows, as you put it, that blizzard has the âproofâ but that isnât true, and even when they put stuff out, the usual sort of complaints just assume they have to be lying.
The ârealâ problem is that theyâre not willing to accept âproofâ that doesnât agree with their claim, and if attempts are provided to show how the theory is wrong, they demonstrate the âbackfire effectâ. The âwhiteknightâ or âfanboyâ labels are usually just comfortable overgeneralizations to rationalize why they can ignore anything posted by people that donât agree with them.
The concern isnât that âblizzard canât do wrongâ is that when players donât know something about a game, they choose to blame the game and effectively frustrate themselves. Any ânewâ game someone picks up, chances are if something happens contrary to their expectations (or perspective) they will blame the game â they can call it âfakeâ or âbsâ or a number of words to indicate a similar sentiment , but the basic gist is they fault games for their own inexperience and ignorance.
Thatâs what [we] do.
Part of the issue of complaints and frustration is that they tend to only indicate that people are unhappy about something and not that theyâve actually identified the problem.
Take blizzcon as an example: blizz outright said Diablo 4 wasnât getting a reveal, but âfansâ still had expectations â that blizz was essentially lying â and where then disappointed when it wasnât revealed. That is the âwhiteknightâ fanaticism people claim happens for âForced 50%â complaints: they blame anything else they can, deny relevant information, and basically assume their magic label gives them carte blanche on ârationalâ thought despite demonstrating little of it.
So hereâs the thing about âforced 50/50â:
Itâs tl;dr impulsive response that people cling to with all the symptoms of a classic conspiracy theorist. The âbackfireâ of denouncing contrary testimonial to their own generally indicate [they] exhibit more symptoms of the âfanaticismâ than those that donât agree with them, but so long as a magic label isnât popularly understood enough to function like an âanti-fanboyâ they wonât have the self-awareness to realize the irony of their position and claim.
The âdefensiveâ reaction is that âfanboysâ âwhiteknightâ for a company â they protect it because it canât do âany wrongâ" rather than people that are enjoying their experience are sharing their perspective to players because tempering expectations, being better informed and altering oneâs perspective perception changes the respective reception of their stagnant situation.
Typical 50/50 complaints tend to deny pertinent information and essentially revel in impulsive complaints essentially made from âanti-proofâ and then demand people âprove a negativeâ as a means to curb their complaints.
Theyâve made a paradox of their position, didnât use grounded information to make their complaint, but consider it a valid conclusion be it âfeelsâ right.
The problem with that method is that thereâs more ways to show that it is problematic (occamâs, easier explanation, divergent testimonials, broad explorations of available stats, and so on) than oneâs that demonstrate it as a valid conclusion.
So if the declaration doesnât hold up, but the player is still frustrated by their observation and assumption that it âhasâ to be true, then thatâs the sort of conduct theyâll probably take from one game to the next to the next to the next.
So, Ledger Joker comes and says âItâs simple, we kill the misconceptionâ
If people are frustrated by effectual ignorance, then a possible solution would be to âkillâ (metaphorically) that, and then the player learns why other people âhave funâ in the context of the same game.
âPeopleâ - to overgeneralize, but claim to own up to that â are full of idiosyncrasies that are essentially hypocrisies âherencedâ (Iâm kinda making up a word here) by ignorances.
The gambling addicts tell themselves are sorts of bad ends to rationalize that âone more timeâ
The number/stats obsessed players are obsessed because they themselves aer bad at math.
The âhateboyâ calls anyone who disagrees with them a âfanboyâ and refuses to see/listen otherwise.
When âpeopleâ have their âanswerâ they donât need to keep looking, even if they canât show the âproofâ of their work. And I donât just mean concrete âproofâ that the claim holds, but rather â like math- âproofâ of their efforts: what theyâve done, their "commutative, associative and distributive properties â so to speak.
One of the telling âfailsâ of the 50/50 perspective is that is only used to explain their specific individualâs outcome: as soon as they look at the stat/matching/whatever for someone else in that same game, it doesnât really hold up. But itâs a convenient answer to scapegoat than any other reaction theyâve prepared to consider.
50/50 is the âflying spaghetti monsterâ of explanations and keeps itself afloat better through abject denial of anything else.
6 Likes
Iâm currently at #11 QM mmr (3100). So, I have to carry every single of my games.
I solo queued 100% of over 150 games this season. Yet, I have a 67,11% wr 
2 Likes
I was joking. /20 characeters
1 Like
Youâre overlooking that people at this end of the spectrum are not schooled in properly formulating a hypothesis using nomenclature that is grounded enough to communicate meaning.
The claim that there is a âForced 50%â, may well be reformulated into that the game suffers from a ânatural 50% gravtitationâ, which is not intendedly enforced by Blizzard, but it does âforceâ (as in the physical sense) the player into a 50% winrate. It is the white fanboys that reformulate the forced 50% into meaning âBlizzard matches you with crappy playersâ, in effect starting a defamation war.
At the end, nothing more needs to be said tough, as the game clearly exhibits win averaging symptoms, which can be limitedly proven by having multiple 50% accounts at different ranks with sufficient games. Since such is the case, we can just close the topic and accept âforcedâ 50% as not-existing as per the white fanboys definition, but existing as per the âregularâ players definition.
That said, the end result is the same: nothing will chance.
50% winrate is not forced it is an ideal balance. It means youâre at the MMR equal to your skill level, and streaks will happen either way. If you want to improve it, learn to look at ways YOU can improve it, rather than blaming the matchmaker or other players all the time.
Also about this as a concept⌠Your 7 wins in a row happened because you played the first 2 games really well, it put you in a good mood and you continued to play really well. Then the next day you played badly, got salty and started blaming matchmaker, which made you worse at decision making and therefore continued to play badly. Equally if it was the team mates faults (afk for example), the time of day you play or repeated match ups with these people can contribute.
Set yourself a rule. After 3 losses in a row stop playing (or play another mode). I set myself this rule for SL so after 3 losses I play QM or ARAM, and am currently at 60% win rate. I also realised after a few losses I would prepick Hanzo (my main) and refuse to budge, thinking âI want to play my fav so I can winâ but would still lose because Iâve potentially forced another play into a role theyâre not good at, then they get blamed for being bad. Basically Iâve forced a comp that doesnât fit the players im with, so Iâve learnt from this and adapted, and now both my Hanzo and overall win rates have improved.
So in short, no Blizzard isnât forcing you on 50% winrate, youâre just not adapting or improving
actually lots more can/should be said.
The concern expressed is one of âdefinitionâ â or perspective â and that is not an irreconcilable thing even if people are generally content to assume it is. That sort of assumption is a symptom of the professed problem â a willingness to change â and the whole âstagnationâ of the situation stems from people not wanting to change, or assuming it canât/wonât.
In your post you say it doesnât âforceâ but yet it does âforceâ so itâs just making concessions that the terms are split on their definitions and some of that split stems from expectations and misunderstanding. So the inherent answer still comes out to be "fix misunderstandingsâ as the thing that can change.
The objective that devs and players want are âfairâ games. The âsystemâ defines âfairâ as either side having an âequalâ âchanceâ to win.
Players see that as a per game by game basis, while the system is more accurately phrased as probability across a series of games. (since itâs based off of ELO) The problem with this process is that what players think is âfairâ is not an objective value, and it isnât going to be, because player performance, and cooperation, are not quantifiably consistent.
The issue isnât particular to just this game, just about any game (from my experience) that has similar matching systems gets the same sort of feedback/complaints from players that tends to ultimately boil down to similar âproblemsâ that go from game to game to game.
For them, they may conclude that something is âgood enoughâ (in similar dota-like games) or they may be outside of the âloopâ of bad players (because games have a bigger populace of bad players than good) or they are just perpetually unhappy and take that same assumption to each place that will actually give them an outlet to complain.
Stuff doesnât âchangeâ because some simply donât know what they can influence and make change of their own power.
1 Like
While you would end at 50% in ranked at a certain point when there are people better than you that you cannot beat and people worse than you that you always beat, in QM you should not end at 50% because there is basically no matchmaking.
Though we have all seen the terrible losing streaks after some wins. Suddenly you have the worst players imaginable in your team. Of course Blizzard forces this on you
2 Likes
I disagree with this. The large majority of my matches arenât fun whether I win or lose. I would say at least 75% of my matches are just stomps one way or the other. I donât enjoy winning the game when weâre 4-5 levels ahead. I like to play evenly matched games where one good play can be the difference between a win and loss.
I donât know how Blizzardâs system works, but I can tell you that the experience and skill level of players put on my team varies wildly. It can be from healers who solo top lane the whole game despite being asked if they could come down and heal for team fights to team comps where the tank is punishing out of position players and the dps are jumping on top of it immediately and just absolutely dominating the game. And yes, it does go both ways.
The forced win rate comes up all the time because the large majority of matches donât make sense and simply arenât fair - legitimately. I would be far happier losing 75% of my matches and all of them being really close than winning 50% of my matches in a land slide.
If this were true the majority of matches would be more evenly matched. They wouldnât all be 4-5 level difference games both way. I understand that an ideal balance would end up close to 50/50 as well, but the reason you can tell itâs NOT working that way is by the shear difference in skill of the players from match to match.
This is just due to the low player base. It tries to get an even collective MMR between two teams with whats available, and sometimes thatâs adding high numbers to low numbers unfortunately, not a lot they can do to fix that really apart from getting more playing
If one follows along the path of a fair system under sufficient probability, one goes nowhere without defining acceptable thresholds given that Iâve already demonstrated unfairness in the absolute sense.
What chance does one have in have in defining such acceptable thresholds when none can fix aforementioned misunderstandings. Why, Iâd wager youâd have an easier time setting about to extinguish all the stars.
thats why you canât rely on stats. it doensât prove anything.
who cares if ur artanis is a lvl 340. who cares if you have a 80% win rate with him. it means nothing at all.
I donât really know anything about the HOTS player base or how it has changed, but my experience with wildly different skill levels has been happening for years. I also donât really understand how MMR is earned or lost, but if what youâre saying is true I would expect in matches when my team has a low level MMR player off doing their own thing the whole match (Iâm talking like a healer solo soaking a lane or a tank never showing up to team fights), that the enemy should also have a low MMR player who has no idea what theyâre doing either, but that is very seldom the case.
Maybe Iâm just in a very special MMR area (Iâm about gold 3-4) where it feels very difficult to climb because matches seem very lopsided all the time. I hate having back to back games playing a squishy ranged assassin, where the first game the entire team is calling me garbage for low hero damage because Iâm playing super cautiously and only poking during team fights and then backing out without dying because our tank never shows up to the next game where I top hero damage and kills with the same hero because our tank shows up, postures for us while Iâm able to do more poke damage, and then goes in when we can secure a kill and lock down multiple kills after that, too. Itâs confusing because MY skill level isnât changing, my MMR feels like it is completely at the mercy of whatever the system throws at me.
This will sometimes be the case but you dont notice it, but thereâs a lot of things that can change this, the players mood, whether theyâre at the peak or bottom of their MMR range etc. I imagine when you win you wonât be so focussed on that enemy hero who is doing these things as you say. Thereâs so many human factors going into it and its such a team based game where 1 person can make or break it, it can vary wildly.
I started this season at Gold 3 and am now Plat 4, Iâm hoping I havenât just got lucky haha. Iâve said this before in other posts too but thereâll be about 30% of games that are guaranteed losses due to these people you cant do anything about, and same goes for wins, you just have to keep ahead in that balanced 40%
I mean, I might be completely wrong, and tbf you probably play on different servers to me (Iâm on EU), but I think having the mindset of being able to make a difference and improving will do much more good than sitting there blaming something you cant do anything about, both for the the attitude towards the game and improving gameplay
Itâs unlikely that I wouldnât notice it because I have good map awareness and Iâm working on my map pings, although I do often feel like my pings fall on deaf ears so to speak - or blind eyes. 
I completely agree with this thought, but I would be lying if I said I donât get frustrated when I ping teammates for retreat because I just saw the enemy team rotating down to their lane, they have 5-7 seconds after my ping, and then they get ganked because they didnât fall back. Or when I ask the tank to come down and frontline for us during objectives and they either completely ignore me or start throwing insults at me because Iâm not doing my role because all of the enemy assassins have more hero damage than me. And sometimes Iâll get the tank who decides to âlistenâ to me by going to every objective and diving in way before our team gets there and dying and then following it up by blaming the rest of the team again.
Oh yeah anyone gets annoyed at that, same here. Iâm more aiming at people like the OP who think âBlizzard are forcing me to lose so i canât do anything about itâ rather than accepting that 30% of games will have someone like this youâll get annoyed at that will lose you the game.
Just trying to debunk this whole forced 50% logic, like a dev already has anyway. Why would they force 50% win rate to annoy everyone and how would they include so many human factors and unmade decisions?
Isnât forced 50% in the form of win/loss streaks now?
I find this to be a very interesting post you wrote. Other than making a host of assumptions about my person (Lol), you are really asking âWHY would they do this?â
So, letâs talk theory a moment: Are you familiar with the concept of gambling addiction? HotS is designed to be addictive so as to make more money-- fair point, right? Itâs a gaming company after all-- So, question for you: what happens if you win ALL the time? You eventually lose the motivation to play; the game simply stops being fun⌠The fact is, even when losing, all humans generate endorphins and adrenaline-- which is part of why video game addiction is a thing in general.
So, letâs be real now, match making in this game is intentionally garbage. I would go as far as calling it an added artificial level of difficulty. When you jump into QM, assuming you are the equivalent of Master, what are the odds you end up with a bronze 5 on your team? What about 2 bronze 5?
The answer is very simple: It depends on your MMR, which in HotS boils down to a simple win rate. Eventually, when your MMR gets high enough, the game attempts to balance your MMR against your own teamâs MMR, in order to create an average that allows another team to be matched against you. The trouble is, the team matched against you is likely going to be a league or two above your allies. It is in this way, that the game attempts to âforce you to 50%.â
ALL OF THAT BEING SAID, what I would like (because you asked) is for Blizzard to release the general data on MMR, and the qualifiers the match maker uses to form teams. And no, I do not think that asking for a spread sheet is an unreasonable request. lol
2 Likes
There is not a FORCED 50% winrate but most players will have a winrate of 50% even when not playing with and against players of equal skill, so for all intents and purposes most (not all) players will be stuck at or around 50%.
I will not provide a speadsheet, as the analysis I did myself was on the old system, and it was only 100 samples. Instead I will prove it logically. I will also state it is possible to rise in ranks and that the current system merely delays the rise in ranks.
You have a choice of systems for matchmaking. The perfect matchmaking system would pitch people with and against players of equal skill. This isnât always possible so you have a choice of compromises. Either you allow players to get quickly to their skill level (say for instance by giving eveyone the same starting rank and letting them rise or not) or else you adopt an ELO type system.
The ELO type system has the advantage of getting even matches very quickly. Even matches and fair matches though are very different. One or two players on each team have to carry one or two players far below their skill level and the rest of the players who are slightly below their skill level. This can be fun for some of the players and extremely frustrating for some. It means though to beat the other team your carry players have to be better than their carry players, not better than the median players of your ELO range.
This is theoretically fair in that the better players have a higher ELO than the worse, however, they are more likely to hang around their particular ELO range because ELO only varies on win/loss, which slows down the rate of ELO gain.
Again, in theory sometimes you will be the carrier, and sometimes the carried. However, in reality, in some ranges you will usually be the carry. This is where the problem with this system arrises, particularly if there is a large range of ability around that ELO or where a large number of players who are dreadful are within your matchmaker range.
From an individual perspective, if you are one of the better players constantly carrying bad players it can be less enjoyable. Also, the slowdown at certain levels in increasing rank can also be less enjoyable.
So yes for most players you will be matched with players to balance out the game and it will feel exactly like a forced winrate over enough games. If you are a much better player than the top players within your matchmaking range you will be much better than the best player on the other team so actually it will not feel like a forced 50% winrate.
Rather wordy, sorry. Also, on the spreadsheet I compiled with only 100 samples, I found that I just focused on number of deaths, and found that in the ranked games I players I had both mean 2nd lowest deaths and median 2nd lowest deaths and that the mean worst deaths were more than 4 times my mean deaths. A quick glance through also showed that at lease one person on each team were consistently dying significantly more than the rest of the team in over 95% of the games. During these 100 games the winrate was not exactly 50% but it was lower than 55%. Again, too small a sample size to draw too solid a conclusion, but it wouldnât be too hard to automate something similar for a much larger sample size, although I wonât be doing it.
TLDR: Play in a team, donât play ranked solo.
1 Like