Forced 50% winrate is real and Blue Lied again

General Discussion
1

I tried looking up the mega thread where Blizz posted in it, explaining how or where the concept comes from, but I can’t find it. Is it gone? Only 1 person in the thread made a comment about how it is indeed real. I’m going to explain it succinctly again which may have been done before, but it bears repeating because Blizz neglects this fact and so do most players.

If you go on a winstreak, your teammates get weaker and your opponents get stronger. I’ve seen this several times in my years of play. I’ve seen it in pre-season. I’ve seen it in 2.0. Here’s an example of what it looks like.
Ranked Play:
5 game winstreak:
-Game 6:
*Player 1 - Gold 1
*Teammate - Gold 4
*Teammate - Gold 4
*Teammate - Gold 3
*Teammate - Gold 4
=vs=
*Opponent - Plat 3
*Opponent - Plat 4
*Opponent - Plat 2
*Opponent - Plat 3
*Opponent - Plat 3

Now let’s say you win. It’s on to game 7.
-Game 7:
*Player 1 - Plat 5
*Teammate - Gold 5
*Teammate - Gold 5
*Teammate - Gold 4
*Teammate - Unranked
=vs=
Opponent - Plat 1
Opponent - Plat 2
Opponent - Plat 1
Opponent - Diamond 5
Opponent - Plat 1

Now consider the possibility here that one of your teammates DCs, and you ping control and STILL WIN!

Game 8:
*Player 1 - Plat 5
*Teammate - Gold 5
*Teammate - Unranked
*Teammate - Silver 1
*Teammate - Unranked
=vs=
*Opponent - Diamond 5
*Opponent - Diamond 4
*Opponent - Diamond 5
*Opponent - Unranked
*Opponent - Plat 1

And you get a DC again and you lose this time.

In Preseason I actually had my 8th game be 4 unranked teammates when I was rank 30. All of the opposing team was in the 10-15 range with the exception of one of them being an unranked player.

This absolutely happens, and to deny it is the most absurd thing one can possibly say with regard to this game. I know people that have experienced it. I experienced it several times like I said. It happens on a lesser scale for people that don’t experience a winstreak like that. It just gets chalked up as a potato teammate, factor of play, or an off game for a player, and it gets dismissed.

There was an actual study on Reddit posted by a player that tried to lose 100 games in a row to try and trigger the matchmaker to force him to win. It happened a couple times. He would dive towers all match, doing his best to feed the other team xp. He was eventually paired with Grandmaster players to force him a win. It happened maybe a handful of times out of 100 games.

Blizzard is lying to us and they know it!

9 Likes
2

That’s not how matchmaking works. You will not get GM allies by dropping to Bronze 5. It’s incredible the lengths people will go to just to lie anonymously on an anonyous message board.

But keep it coming, this is good entertainment :popcorn:

17 Likes
3

So the reddit post was a troll post and a fake? With all of his replays and data sheets? OKAY

1 Like
4

Ok, post that study here then. $100 dollars bets it’s magically lost and purely based on your “memory” of something that never existed.

You can’t get grand master allies by losing 100 games in a row. You will just get other bronzes with low MMR.

5

It was 3 or 4 years ago.

6

14 Likes
7

You people disgust me.

8

I swear to holy god there was a data sheet on Nasa’s site 5 years ago which proved the Moon is real, edible Parmigiano Reggiano cheese.

Don’t have a link now but once I travel up there with the spaceship I’m building with Elon Musk, I will prove it myself.

Anyone calling me a liar is an NWO reptilian by the way.

14 Likes
9

13 Likes
10

When you have no counter-argument, gaslight the person.
That’s what Blizzard did, and that’s what all of you have done so far.
When Blizzard came out and said it’s the “Dunning-Kruger Effect” that makes people think they’re better than they actually are, I knew this game was doomed to fail.
There are patents on algorithms that causes these matchmaking results to make people more addicted to play. It’s a form of stop-loss management. I forget the term as applied to video games. They worked it out that the longer a player plays the game, the more likely they are to make micro-transactions.

1 Like
11

I’m #8 on the QM mmr (3114). According to your logic, I should get bronze players (1800 to 2572) most of the time.
Here’s a work for you: Count how much I had bronze players in my 154 games as solo Q.

Heads up, my average team mates are gold/plats mmr.

5 Likes
12

According to your logic
Why do people do this? It’s so ridiculous.
I gave a succinct argument, and there are details in there that you neglected to identify for grounds for your inquiry.
The fact is the examples I gave were for midrange ranks. 1-50 . 30 is in the middle ish. Gold 1 middle of the ranks ish.
If you’re at the top, there’s no where for the matchmaker to attempt to root you. You’re established at the top. Also I don’t know how to make sense of this website. Is it the new hotslogs?
By my logic, you shouldn’t get any Bronzes, and if you did, it’d only happen once in a thousand matches. I’m exaggerating because I don’t know how often it would happen, but it would be extremely rare if ever.
Like I said, someone had to try to lose 100 games in a row to get paired with a GM only a handful of times. There was also a much bigger playerbase back then.

Does that page also say you only play D.va? Impressive. Not. ;p

People tried to debunk the forced 50% winrate claim by referring to GMs starting new accounts, tanking the mmr to bronze 5, and doing a Bronze to Masters climb. It’s a bad example because it doesn’t take into account how an account can become established in an mmr range. So in my case, having an account in the mid range of the pack, it’s more likely to happen. In fact, it may be the only place it happens. I’ve never seen data to suggest it, but I have heard from people that a GM player or a few have tried to take an established account in midrange (Gold) and try to rank out of it and encountered unwinnable matches but eventually pulled it out of there.

13

Feel free to link this “study” any time.

Use the perforated text option. Like so

youtube.com

2 Likes
14

I’ve never been able to find it again. A lot of things get deleted from Reddit. It’s not a good archive tool anymore. Hasn’t been that way for several years. It was also attacked and ridiculed into oblivion at the time, so it’s just not practical to find it. I didn’t know about archive websites at the time. Who knows if someone archived it.

15

So essentially,

Source: Trust me bro

To top it all off,

even when this study was “posted”, people thought it was ridiculous. Hmmm… :thinking:

3 Likes
16

And even then it statisticly is still possible to happen as the enemy might have had a similar troll making it effectively a 4v4 again. Or by randomness teams ended up unbalanced anyway.

17
  1. You’re clearly posting on a smurf account so any word you have to convey via experience is going to be by your word only. There isn’t a match-history to go with your claims of experience, so anything could be made up, bad recollection, conflated memories, or spouting the ‘friend of a friend of a friend’ type flaws.
  2. The value of someone’s word stems from verifiable accounts. What you have so far are bad recollections, dated information, and the inability to click the “Dev Tracker” button and find this page:Dev tracker - Heroes of the Storm Forums
  3. Most issues pertaining to mmr matching tend to stem from ignorance, confirmation bias, and lacking skills of observation. Good job on a successful batting average there.
  4. Of your claims to side evidence, you don’t provide any links to said claims. Heck, even though people have posted rainbow matches (in low population servers) you don’t even put in the effort to try to post those.
  5. So far the leading effect for your claims is to try to act like blaming others magically improves your presentation. It does not.
  6. What you call an ‘argument’ doesn’t do anything to set itself apart from confirmation bias, suggest it’s sample size isn’t outside of standard deviation (ie, exceptions to the norm) and it does not offset the word it claims to be ‘lying’ as there is both lacking of substance, a lack of representation of their actual word, and only your word alone to try to back the claim.

So by pretty much any worthwhile metric, you haven’t provided anything worthwhile, and yet think yourself to have done so. If your concern was that blizz said issues of mmr are due to dunning-krueger, you’ve done a better job of confirming that to be the case so far than of proving it incorrect.

9 Likes
18

I’m a little surprised to what lengths some of you are still willing to go to after all these years to entertain OP. There is a dozen of similar topics within two mousewheel scrolls and you’ve reached the same conclusion in all of them.

19

I don’t know why I would make this stuff up. I’ve played this game on and off since launch week. I’ve seen it all.
Everything critical of the game was ridiculed and downvoted into oblivion. I do recall the study getting decent upvotes, but it was gaslit and attacked with ad hominem bs.
The Subreddit has almost always been useless for objective discourse.

@Xenterex, I know all the arguments, okay. I’ve seen posts like yours dozens of times. It doesn’t disprove my experience. Thanks for the link. I did try to use it and I didn’t see it. It was too mixed with other crap. I just didn’t see it. Here it is.

You want to prove me wrong in a court of law, go right ahead. I know what I’ve experienced. I’ve seen the loading screens with the rank disparities. I’ve seen the total lack of skill attached to those ranks. I have several thousand games under my belt, so I know what I’m talking about. I’m not going to open my account up to damages like I have in the past. The censorship and punishments around here in this community are absolutely the most insane I’ve ever seen in my entire life of gaming. Nobody cares that the game lost players except the people that left and enjoyed what the game could have been, the rare matches that felt even, the matches that felt devoid of manipulations. If you don’t want to believe me, enjoy your life. I don’t care. I will still be heard.

20

Yes because something which happened 3+ years ago is valid today… True or not.