Don't make it so obvious you're forcing 50% winrates in QM

In QM it doesn’t work like that. The game doesn’t put players like that together. If you are extremely high in MMR you will be associated with people with far lower MMR than you.
The game doesn’t force itself to find enemies with similar MMR (ex : he could not try to find 1 enemies with extremely high MMR, but instead he could also try to get 5 players with MMR superior to your teammates in general, and then it can be difficult to impact the game).

Now you can bypass that by queueing with friends with similar MMR, but again if you and your friends have really high MMR, the random allies it will find can be even lower than usual, so you have to be sure you and your allies will hard carry the game.

What is also strange is when you meet a 5 stacks and let’s tell you have queued as 2-3 players, the 2 randoms players you get won’t necessary have a MMR equal to the MMR of the players in the other team. In many case i’ve observed players with extremely low MMR picked by the system to still fill the slots, which is infuriating when you know the game will be extremely difficult and probably one sided.


I will take an example on the game i just did right now at 12:30 AM of my country. I have queued alone and i have just faced a 5 stacks. The game is totally one sided, in my team 3 people didn’t soak the whole game (3 people at only 2k xp on a 11min game). I’m watching my mates’s profile at the end and 2 of them are under 50% winrate, one of them i a real beginner (81 games, 38.3%wr overall, 2.0 kda).

So i’m asking, why among all the players on that game right now, i have such players to face those guys ? It’s not even a dysfunction, this happen too much.

1 Like

I’m not talking about MMR, just win rate.

Which also isn’t true.

According to what replays people have uploaded, I have a 46% to 55% winrate, I am ok with this. It’s quick match. What do you expect from the randomness?

“MMR” is always hidden for QM. People act like there’s other factors that they use to ‘tell’ what it is, but QM mmr regardless of their impulse is hidden. As such, people can only draw inference on what the game did for that specific match.

That aside, what you probably “mean” is that the game also tries to match on “confidence”. When players win or lose streaks of games, that loosens the game’s confidence in the mmr it is using, and it does try to match similar confidence.

So, when you’re on a winning streak and then think you’re ‘forced’ to lose, the game matched a set of players with similar ‘confidence’ because two sets of similar confidence makes a “fair” game since either side is capable of losing.

If either side can ‘lose’, then it is “fair” chance for both. Or ‘both’ are being “forced” to lose because one of them will lose at the outcome of the match.

However, people usually don’t extend the “forced” aspect of the matching to the other team since they see whatever sets them off, and assume that they are then going to lose, so they do. Or retroactively, they assume the game then ‘forced’ the loss once they lose that game. In any given game, one team is going to lose, so word-smithery aside, someone is always “forced” to lose, so the system tries to be ‘fair’ based on the metrics it prioritizes for any particular region, or time of day.

The game only has numbers to make predictions, it doesn’t actually know how someone is going to play. Matching is based on probability not on an accurate appraisal of “skill” since any given MMR doesn’t know how someone is actually playing for picks, counter-picks, or team cooperation.

Once people realize the game is more than just trying to ‘force’ one person to “lose”, the “forced loss” argument falls apart; it’s not out to get ‘you’, it’s just a sorting system using a metric that’s fairly easy to exploit. MMR is flawed because it cannot appraise “skill”, can’t actually see what players do, and simply tries to work with similar-enough numbers in a limited capacity that is further strained at 3:00 a.m.

The difficult aspect of the game trying to make “fair” matches is that grouped players can also manipulate the matching to put things better into their favor, in a way a solo-queued player generally does not. So the match isn’t as “fair” as the matching system will ‘think’ because it doesn’t actually “think”, it just puts similar numbers together, and the “Law of Large numbers” creates confirmation bias that the system looks like its working when it appraises thousands of games a day, and not just a specific match that gave a specific set of people a bad time.

https://www.heroesprofile.com/Match/Single/63837720

Here’s a game that you faced a 5 stack. The matched tried to make it closer to ‘fair’ by having 4 group players on the other side, two pairs. While that isn’t the same thing, it’s an example of the system trying to match party sizes as the matching tries to prioritize some things over others, especially for QM.

If the game doesn’t allow dynamic party sizes, then waiting times for a “quick match” would expand to the point players would think the game is dead, and they’d stop playing.

On the side of the bigger stack, one player has a high account level (which lends itself to assuming a higher mmr,) while the rest have low account levels. By playing with lower accounts, they’re either completely smurfing, or using smurf accounts to help the ‘newer’ players by lowering the mmr average to reduce the matching range they’ll face at 3:00 a.m.

If I look at the sylvanas’ game history for that same night, the party changes heroes from game to game, so it’s likely that those are players trying to teach/learn a variety of heroes instead of using a specific composition to stomp games all night.

Because ‘smurfing’ masks a players “true skill” the system can only try to compensate by trying to give a higher mmr handicap to the disadvantaged size, which means it’ll try to match against players have have higher mmr than it might otherwise match against.

It’s likely that the game underestimates that handicap, but the handicap is also limited by the available players since players that want to avoid late-night stacks either switch modes (aram or custom,) or play a different game in the wee hours of the night since it is ‘known’ that players are more likely to face unequal matches when the playerbase is low.

2 Likes

I’m sorry,what isn’t true?

Tbh I’ve never gotten the “forced 50” argument.

If you are winning games, your mmr climbs.

If you are losing games, your mmr drops.

Eventually, you will be at an mmr range with roughly equal players to yourself. Assuming you don’t make substantial improvements (or take a multi year break and become significantly worse) you are going to plateau.

It’s not a conspiracy, it’s literally just how mmr works.

It would be far worse if the game just tossed anyone available into a game, since there’s so few players at extreme low/high mmrs (below b5, master and above), so those players would practically throw/carry every match.

1 Like

OP is just baby raging after a game of loses, this is just forums on a Monday.

Since the game averages out each team’s mmr to try to make a ‘fair’ game, when someone sees an ally have any number lower than any other, they assert the game has given them, personally, too much a handicap for them to carry. Thus, the game is ‘forcing’ them to lose.

It is their own ‘skill’ when they win, but it has to be the system ‘forcing’ them when it is a loss; that’s part of why the reverse assertion doesn’t come out when the player climbs back to 55%: they don’t assert the game ‘obviously’ forced others to lose, the “obvious” only matters when they were “forced” to lose to get closer to the “50%” winrate, regardless of wether they mean overall rate, hero specific, or whatever unspecified metric they used for the fixation of their qualm.

The idea for some is that “equal” skill means that the game will be “close”, so if the match is a blow-out, players tend to look for something to blame instead of look at the series of events that lead to a large disparity in the outcome of the game.

Similarly, despite the OP “knowing” that this outcome is “obvious”, they play out the string of loses until it becomes a win to ‘prove’ their assertion the streak was “forced”

That is the point of the “forced 50%”. It is something to blame, so they don’t have to change.

Thanks for making me and SamiSha’s point in another unnecessarily wordy way.

I’m not going to pretend I read that giant book of yours..

But I’ll respond with this.. This new season I pushed out to a 60% winrate.. then (shocker) once I hit 60% winrate in QM they forced me to lose 12 games in a row back down to 50%…

You can say XYZ about how Blizzard “doesn’t” force a 50% winrate, but my years of experience shows that to not be the case.

Anytime my winrate exceeds 55% or more, I’m certain a huge loss streak will be incomming to force a giant loss streak.

It happens every single time without fail..

So how is that not FORCED?

Yeah…

4 Likes

Yes, the game has a 50% system. As soon as your win rate (and the hidden MMR linked to it) exceeds 50%, you start facing stronger opponents and weaker teammates, thereby ensuring “equal chances of winning” for both teams. The same thing happens when your win rate is low—the game starts artificially “pulling” you up by pairing you with better teammates.

The developers are using you as cannon fodder to balance EVERYONE. They don’t care about match quality; they just need everyone to have a 50% win rate on the leaderboard. They call this “balance,” though in reality, this system delivers the worst possible gaming experience and has been the main reason players have been leaving Blizzard games in recent years.

Because the reality is that your progress is completely controlled and utterly meaningless. No matter how hard you try, the system will simply match you with the worst teammates and strong opponents, “leveling you out.”

The end.

3 Likes

if you are too good, then next match will be 100% guranteed loss

3 Likes

youre correct it is forced 50% win rate OVER time, I like many have been here since being an alpha tester have multiple accounts and it is very very obvious, and I could explain it but its beem explained simply many times and yet the trolls here will simply argue come up with ridiculous already proven wrong statements and flag my post like they do with everyone and everythign that doesent agree with them so they can continue propagating their lie.

2 Likes

yes they claim its"balancing" and it is a forced 50% win rate OVER TIME is the key once you pull ahead as youve seen it has you as a high skill player and pairs you with low skill to increase the chances drop your win rates and raise theirs its also why most high ranked players dont play past placement games anymore they know the system and know it will force losses on them unless they are full grouped

3 Likes

The game doesn’t know how a person is actually going to perform. The players that rant about Forced 50% tend to:

a) lie about their matches
b) make up metrics to suit the complaint
c) refuse to learn otherwise

OP here has demonstrated that they didn’t indicate that they play in parties for their QM games, but they’ve instead fixated on their “solo winrate”, a metric of their own making to fuel the complaint for when they have loss streaks. The game doesn’t care how OP got to their MMR, it still uses MMR and confidence as the matching metric, not “solo winrate”.

As OP admitted, they tend to play well into the late night, and they complain “as soon” as their fabricated metric reaches a certain level, they are “forced” to lose games because they continue to play through the loss streak.. However, despite being “forced” the OP manages to persist well above 50%, so they’re still not even in range of their complaint.

OP is also asserting absolutes – “always” despite indicating that they have fabricated the incongruity they are faulting with their misleading claims, so it isn’t "always’ the case despite the claim. It is only “always” when it confirms the bias.

Do they win more games than they lose?
Yes.
Are they conveying all the details that go into their matches?
No.

The complaint has to be “obvious” because it is the thing they are looking to fault.

That’s why it is “obvious” to them: it has to be for them to even notice such a thing.


The OP is complaining about QM. QM doesn’t have “placement matches” to protect their ranked MMR from one season to the next. Players with high ranks tend to also know that the game becomes a “clown fiesta” so they may choose to play in parties, in other modes, or form community matches in their discord to play in custom as custom-made games defy matching modes, especially in the time/seasons when the playerbase is lower and has a harder time making “fair” games.

A number of players have made their rules on when to play ranked and QM games due to limitations in the available playerbase at various times of day, week, and season.

But despite the ‘obvious’ differences between your complaint and theirs, here you are looking for something to validate your scapegoat that ignores pertinent details the game actually uses in favor of ones you want to fault.

The “over time” part of the “winrate” would be the difference in MMR. IF the game had a healthy playerbase, then MMR would have a greater distinction on match quality. However, the game is ‘dead’ and has limited players available for all times of day to play. So match quality tends to fall into particular ruts due to a lack of infinite players to actually form the games, and the game rules have been adjusted to prioritize faster matches instead of voids of endless waiting to make a “fair” match.

1 Like

Low IQ people cannot see, or refuse to see the reality of forced 50% WR.

1 Like

I wouldn’t say they’re low IQ, but there is DEFINITELY a system that is there to prevent you from climbing. Which is why Ranked is a terrible system. It Elo Hells players by throwing them trash and demanding they make lemonade.

3 Likes

I wasn’t “lying” about my matches.. I play Solo queue most of the time. I do sometimes play with 1 other person (my nephew) and extremely rarely I will play with my buddy at work with my nephew once in a blue moon. You yourself have checked my stats, you can easily see I was master rank in QM last season when I was complaining and it clearly showed I play more alone than in a group. (so yes, Solo QM is forcing a 50% winrate for me).

You’re making up metrics to pretend you have superior knowledge of the game, but why is it that everybody has a 50% winrate then? (unless they run full 5 man groups all the time).

Playing at “Night Time” doesn’t mean anything.. the match maker is still placing me in subpar groups to fight 5 man teams. What difference does it make what time I play? I’ve played during the morning, afternoon, and eveneing that it make ZERO difference to the match making quality so, stop it with the “made up metrics”.

I am a very high level player, and the fact that it’s so obvious the quality of players on my team versus the enemy team is clearly forcing a loss.

If I’m “making things up”, then why can I literrally call it when I’m going to go in a loss streak? How could I possibly know that? If I win too many games in a row, I KNOW FOR A FACT that I will have a bigger loss streak coming soon.

Yes, I play rarely “sometimes” with 1 other person, and EXTREMELY rarely with my buddy from work.. most of the time I PLAY SOLO… It makes no difference to my point.

5 Likes

There’s no forced 50% winrate, it’s just a hidden mmr system where winning increases your mmr and losing lowers your mmr. For example, a diamond player with a 50% winrate is not the same as a bronze player with 50% winrate, internally the diamond player has significantly higher mmr.

Besides, if you go on the solo-queue leaderboard on HeroesProfile you can find plenty of players who maintain 60%-70% lifetime winrates all solo queue in Quick Match.

1 Like