The V-C19 is turning all of them into nephilim … they are changing drastically, it s not even funny 
+ IQ turning into Idiocracy movie type.
1 Like
Yeah the world changed starting ‘21. Was easy to see most people were going to fail the test.
2 Likes
dont’t bother, Xen will just gpt-generate a response to you since ““““she”””” can’t actually refute any argument.
``https://www.heroesprofile.com/Player/Xenterex/223062/1``
Xen has a 45% WR in Storm League, and I suspect that win-rate is only so high because she frequently plays in 4/5 stack. I wouldn’t take any of her “““well written””” copy pastes as gospel.
1 Like
Such a lazy response. Xen, like it or not, has been writing his walls of texts with the occasional grammatical and spelling errors since before chatGPT was publicly introduced.
ChatGPT would never write a sentence like that. It also would use an em dash. Xen has consistently been writing in a style and cadence that is way more obtuse and convoluted than GPT would generate.
3 Likes
Why would the game want to prevent you from climbing?
BB, you really need to stop faulting other people for the lies your perpetuate to yourself for your outlet to find something to blame.
- You’re trying to cherry pick data to suit a complaint, and you do poorly at that.
- My SL data still isn’t amazing, but I also don’t spend 14 hours a day playing Hots – like you’ve also tried to claim [about me elsewhere]. (Can we please get IP bans - #6 by BouncyBoi-11674), especially since HP’s data of my games is from years prior.
- Even what you linked doesn’t align with your own claim. The ‘majority’ of my Storm league data was single player. 101 games > 16 games. If someone were to put in that iota of effort to notice your misgivings there, they’d still see the majority of my available games are played solo, even in Team League. That also debunks posts who’d claim I decry QM complaint topics because I abuse groups since – in case you forgot already – I generally play solo.
- Pretending my posts are AI byproducts is just illiteracy on your end. I’ve posted effectual ‘books’ on describing my writing mechanisms because ‘reading’ is practically a dying superpower these days. Oh noes, I confessed to using em dashes before
How could someone possibly know how to use other writing devices without being AI¿?
““““she”””” can’t actually refute any argument.
“Refuting” an “argument” is easy: just post proof contrary to the claim. Convincing someone of their argumentative errors is a nigh impossibility because “half the point of the argument is that someone doesn’t ‘agree’ with them, and all the particulars don’t really matter.”
Also:
Maybe Minky biased that one, but I’d also prefer not to have another account attempt to flirt with me on the forums – should you have bothered to recall those days since that seems to be some of the reference point for how you’re posting these days.
Here’s another:
Well, I guess the LLM were biased by Volun’s response since I don’t have ‘deep technical knowledge’, but I do look thinks up before I post since I think knowing more can improve things that otherwise, aren’t changing much. It’s almost like I have some sort of creed or motto about a willingness to know more 
Here’s a fun one:
Yep, my 6700+ is > 14,000 posts.
Cue the Vegita meme.
Turns out the “libraries are free” is an actual reference, but that “hand-holding” guide is news to me 
I also wasn’t going to make such a long post, but since once I had one AI ask, I thought I should share the others too.
Because the ‘time of day’ influences what players are available for making matches. In a ‘general’ trend since ‘nobody’ actually knows who is on and when, but ‘horror’ stories shared on various games and platforms tends to be ‘correct enough’ to form certain trends.
“Everyone” doesn’t. There are solo players that have a winrate that exceeds 50% even without partners, or stacking. Fixations on “50%” tend to be redherrings by people that don’t want more details, they just want validation for what they already think. That’s part of why you’ll reject concerns about the size of the playerbase influencing potential match quality in a “dead game”. The reverse also holds that players have winrates below 50% without intentionally throwing their games.
Reddit has more activity, and they have topics years old that describe some of the when/where/how of trying to avoid some of the foibles of QM because some types of people play at specific times; by not playing at those times, it avoids some of the short comings of QM, and they are sources more reliable than me, not because i’m trying to act “superior” --as people keep trying to assert about me – but because other players share their own experiences and try to improve their circumstances by doing more than just complaining or finding a scapegoat to fault.
That’s why these complaints have to be “obvious”, they’re made people players looking for something to blame, not how something works, or how to change things for the better.
1 Like
Xen I love you but you didn’t have to ask chatgpt to refute them. 
it’s less about ‘refuting’ and more about how AI content messes up and hallucinates; a concerning number of people aren’t interested in noticing what is AI slop.
fun note: the ‘libraries’ quote/link is probably the source of why the AI prompt claimed I had 14171 posts. The LLM doesn’t make a distinction from what is written compared to what is cited or quoted from another poster in this format.
This entire thread is got side tracked (chatGPT nonsense, and personal attacks for no reason from one person to another) from the fact that Blizzard “DOES” force a 50% winrate. The argue against is just semantics.
You can say, well Blizzard doesn’t FORCE 50% because they just use the “hidden” MMR to create matches.. and its up to the players to win or lose those matches.
This is true, except its obvious that when you’re the better, more experienced players you WILL hit a win wall. You’ll constantly be given matches where there are 5 decent players on a team against you as a good or great player and then 3 or 4 really below average players. This would typically cause you to LOSE, as the below average players will do the wrong thing, not soak, feed, and otherwise make bad plays which the average players will easily win against.
Then your rating goes down slightly and they give you another bad match, this goes on over and over until you lose enough that Blizzard decides to let you play with decent teammates or fight against players with no brain just like the ones on your team, in which case 1 player can make a difference in those matches. (this has the effect of giving you a 50% winrate).
In the end though, the QM match making DOES force you to lose after you win for a while.. it doesn’t matter how great you are, you won’t escape that unless you run a large enough premade to overcome the bad players in the lobby. (this is why 4-5 stack premades will often have 80% or more winrates in QM, because they not only get to CHOOSE their comp which is extemely powerful, but they also can choose non brain dead teammates).
It only takes a couple of bad players on your team to cause a loss.. 1 or 2 players cannot carry 3 or 4 bad players against 5 decent ones. You can be a Grandmaster God and never break a 50% winrate in QM. The MMR prevents that from happening.
2 Likes
Skilled players have demonstrated they can break the “forced 50%” winrate. That’s part of why the argument continues to fall apart and is perpetuated by players looking for something to complain about instead.
Players have given functional advise based on what mode and role, people want to play if they actually want to climb. And when people realize the reality stuff like that works, then they magically realize the problem they imposed on themselves all along.
That’s why people continue to say “Forced 50” has been debunked.
Your complaint is “obvious” because it’s what you already want to see, that’s what it has to be 'obvious" for you to notice. If you bothered to realize all the other occasions where people give advise how to bypass the flaws of the game, then you’d notice the other outcomes that didn’t occur to you previously.
The lack of observation and experience constrains the ‘reality’ you’re willing to actually see compared to what is ‘actually’ there.
1 Like
Playing in a duo is actually worse than playing solo. The odds of playing vs the 4 or 5 stack skyrocket, while you have little more security than solo.
The MM probably ruined more parties of actual real life friends than it saved (despite forumites pretending 5-stackers are all a bunch of real life friends playing a match of HOTS in the evening).
If there’s a forced 50% win rate, how does the game tell the difference between the good players, the average players, and the bad players? Aren’t they all at 50%?
2 Likes
The game doesn’t. There is no value because there is no ELO. ELO is 1v1, and to and extent, 2v2 3v3 4v4 5v5. That’s it.
Whatever value that answer may provide, the question was directed at those claiming there’s a forced 50% win rate.
Wowzers, you got him. Besides forced 50% not negating the existence of an internal MMR, the game could just check how much time those queued spent dead in the past 10 games. They have plenty of players spending half the game dead. 
Get 2 of those and the only thing making it not a forced loss is the chance the enemies lose internet access during the match.
In which case, the key to a high MMR would be to . . . spend all your time not getting killed by not participating in team fights, meaning that you would be put on the teams that are supposed to make the other team lose, by . . . spending all your time not participating in team fights?
Such a system is needlessly and ridiculously complicated, not to mention vulnerable to exploits such as the one I just typed, requiring further patching with each new exploit, as opposed to one which simply tries to match up people based on their win/loss record. The simpler explanation is twofold: MMR gap tolerances get larger as the game searches for appropriate teammates/opponents, and people who complain about a forced 50% winrate aren’t actually as good as they like to think they are. In fact, they’re roughly as good as the people they think are terrible. They’re just terrible in different ways.
Not really.
Feeding = Griefing
Not feeding doesn’t guarantee you’re not griefing. Your MMR also doesn’t increase by just not feeding either; although, in HOTS’s case, it’s very likely MMR is designed as poorly as ranked. Get 200 mmr for winning, lose 200 mmr for losing.
The simpler explanation is: all MOBAs have a sort of ‘forced 50% winrate’, but HOTS allows far worse rainbow matches than all the other MOBAs. You shouldn’t get a player that’s fake playing most of the match just because you’re playing ok-ish. It’s not directly the winrate that’s the problem, but how frustrating it is that the better you are, the higher the odds of being on a rainbow team vs an average team.
Yes, “matchmaking in HotS is worse than other MOBAs” is a reasonable statement. I’d argue that the smaller pool of available players for a (somewhat) dead game is the largest driving factor in a high portion of deliberately bad players showing up, though.
Because it just does. How else can anyone explain how anyone can play for an entire day and not only get 0 progress, but actually LOSE progress. When the game wants to insist you have a low WR, it will 100% f— you over so that you do. No matter what role you play.
People don’t want skill based match making inflicted on casual game modes. Skill based match making means every single game falls into one of five categories:
1: An unfun sweat fest where your lack of foresight means some oddly specific team comp and character choice means you get to deal with a hero who is impossible to deal with. Especially in quick pick where you pick blind.
2: An unfun blowout where your team gets ragged around by a team that really shouldn’t be there but because of some mathematical freak occurrence is seen as a ‘fair’ match.
3: An unfun blowout where you completely trash the enemy team and functionally have your time wasted by a game who’s conclusion was figured out after 5 minutes, tops.
4: A game where you fight a smurf who was either tired of ballooning queue times or wanted to get away from high rating sweat fests. See point 1.
5: A game where a smurf / plant / bot completely spoils the match because they’re trying to tank their rating, make an unfair match on behalf of the other team, or are otherwise just there to not play seriously.