How can people say that winrate is not enforced?

What’s hard to understand about law of averages? After 10k or more solo games I’m barely a few points above 50%. Everyone will experience crazy imbalanced games but you can easily increase your success rate by grouping up. I can easily increase this to 60% average or more by playing together with someone reliable.

Few days ago I literally won 30 brawls in a row with one friend, after which I lost 10 games on Alexstrasza. You know, playing QM drunk at 5 am and people don’t understand groupping up for the heal.

The biggest issue I have is with separate MMR for different game modes. Ranked games are still a mess after five years considering there is decay involved but I’m noticing drastically higher skill average in my QM games despite people struggling to make the most out of dysfunctional compositions.


I can only speak for myself (i’m giving myself the benefit of being “good” given I was mid-low diamond multiple times in HL) but I fled from ranked once SL happened.

1 Like

Man I wish 50% winrate was a thing…

1 Like

Those statements can’t both be true.

Player level really doesn’t mean much.


I had like high win % when I was in Bronze EU and kept climbing in rank until plat where I have 63% currently.
Here on US I’m at around 54% in diamond.
According to the system, I belong in diamond, and should expect to get around a 50% win rate when I’m there. It doesn’t “force” me to have a 50% win rate in bronze, it slowly pushes me toward a rank where I should expect to have a 50% win rate.

Among my matches sometimes I get higher ranked players (on either team) which is either the system just putting who is available (within a range) to get a match going, or testing to see if the result it expects is what actually happens.

Win rate is not enforced.
Though the match maker could be better, in my opinion, if it took some of your performance into account, rather than just basing it off if you win or lose.
They “tried it” but they only went with stupid numbers that could be inflated, a system that could be abused. The outcome of a match depends on a lot more than just damage done or kills… like revealing enemies in bushes with an ability so an ally doesn’t face check them and die.

AZJackson has stated that the idea of the matchmaker forcing you to win or lose based on streaks is false.

Source: Plz explain the 50% win rate to me:

The issue is that you are that player who should not be in bronze, you are the one the Matchmaker uses to give bad players their 50%. If you are diamond or plat playing in Bronze, the system has failed and you are not where you belong and are just creating imbalanced games.

I have this account hardstuck in gold1-plat4 with ~50% winrate, my smurf (which is now my main I guess?) has a 70% winrate over 3 seasons in diamond. Clearly, My Gold account is stuck there because of the matchmaker…

1 Like

It’s interesting how people can understand the concept of “50% chance of winning” and come to the wrong conclusion of: “I’m forced to lose and win 50% of the time.”

The game tries to give you the most fair game it can give you. It’s not trying to force you into 50% winrate.


The MM will not be able to give you healthy allies, but will only try to distribute people around same rank against eachother. Say it again… it wont calculate or predict what mental state these players will be in when it distributes so you could by chance get the unstable allies with lesser experience in your team.

The chance that something like that happens is almost like a 50/50 coin flip. However… Sometimes the coin doesn’t land on either heads or tails but it lands in the middle… Standing… THAT’S when you get a good even match where both teams go sweat and tears and one team finally becomes a winner with struggle. Also for me persoanlly most enjoyable matches, win or lose.

Here’s a tip; Check what heroes are the most popular or broken atm and master that hero, then pick it in almost every match. This way u will always have high value and increase the chance that you climb.

Climbing around Platinum - Diamond is mostly luck for the reasons i stated above til you get to higher ranks where people know where to be and what to do more consistently.

One way you can solve this is ask yourself ‘why would they force everyone to have a 50% win rate?’ They’re trying to maintain balanced games, not force people to win or lose because what benefit would that gain for anyone?

That’s probably a bad idea.

Telling conspiracy theorists to explain why their conspiracy theory is “correct” doesn’t solve the issue.


Problem is the game doesn’t know what “fair” is.


So the game doesn’t make balanced comps… bit it still somehow is so godlike that it can predict who is going to play better. If Blizzard had that technology, why would they not just use it to make balanced matches?

Here’s the thing - I will buy into this conspiracy if you can explain one very simple thing to me: What is Blizzard’s motivation for forcing you to lose games? What do they gain by keeping this system? You can’t just say “money” either; you have to explain to me how that makes them money.

Once you can establish a motivation, you have an argument. Otherwise, it’s just blame shifting.


Imagine you are a trash player (bottom 1% of all players) and you usually lose every single game because you are that bad. Would you keep playing the game? So instead of matching you with players of your skill (impossible at that point) it gives you a team with better players than the average of the enemy team to balance the trash player’s chances of winning (Aka carried). Now that you get some wins, you are more likely to stick around and perhaps you start enjoying the game and decide to spend real $.

This is how I rationalize Blizzard forcing losses on unlucky people. To make it fair, they target people on win streaks/loss streaks to give them a decisive match or 2 after streaks to balance out the overall win rates of players. 80% WInrate players usually get dealt teams of potatoes and lower winrates get higher skilled players to balance the game.

Proof is: Play the game for a LONG time and you start to notice the trends and you eventually get these 1 sided stomps and you wonder how your team or enemy team is so bad (sometimes you even see people play and wonder how the game thinks they are of equal skill to you (they are not) yet they are the same rank. Those Unwinnable/Unlosable matches are the direct result of enforcing the 50%, the side you are on is all about luck.

The result is the current state of SL where nobody below diamond/masters has skill that is consistent with their rank.

I’ll use school as an analogy

They used to fail kids but now everyone passes no matter what (minus extreme situations). Reason they don’t fail them is because if they did, the kid would get discouraged and would not try to be good at school and would not attend College or University and spend money there. So now the kids all pass and when they get to college, they spend money and fail and then they realize school is not for them. But the colleges would not have gotten that dumb kid’s money if he had failed multiple grades. It’s all about creating this false sense of worth and accomplishment to promote a direction in life, or in this case, keep playing the game and maybe spend $, but if you lost all the time (and got called bad every time) you would not stick around and potentially spend $, so the game forces losses on some people by creating imbalanced matches to keep the bottom 50% of players happy (artificially).

Did I miss anything?


Let’s call this guy Bob the Caveman. Bob the Caveman does not exist. It is mathematically improbable for someone who isn’t actively throwing to actually lose more than 40% of the time. They have four teammates. If you’re earnestly trying to win and your teammates are decent, will just win lots of games, especially if you play a lot. Already your premise is based on nonsense.

Your proof is feeeeeeeeelings.

Here’s the thing, humans are not consistent. There is no such thing as Bob the Caveman who just loses and loses. We are not machines that perform one function. We have off days, we get tilted. Some days anyone could seem like Bob the Caveman. But, they’re not actually. They’re just having a bad day. The more you play, the more “Bobs” you will find.

You can’t just plug two humans together and expect a formulaic outcome. You’re implying that you can.

What’s more likely: the game forces you to lose, or there are just potatoes who play this game and you happen to run into a few after a series of good games. If your theoretical Bob the Caveman who loses 100% of games exists, he’s gonna be in someone’s game regardless. The game doesn’t have to force him to be there - if you play lots, you will just naturally run into crappy teammates because not everyone is of the same skill level.

In fact, those crappy teammates may say more about you than they do Blizzard. Every game, someone on your team is the worst player and someone is the best. When you win, the best player carries the worst. This happens in 100% of games. If you are in a situation where you are now the best player on your team and you lose, you were not good enough to carry, which means you were carried to the position you are now in.

It’s simple math. If you stretch data far enough, you will naturally accumulate more wins and losses. The more HotS you play, the more your winrate will level out at around 50%. There is no reason for them to force anything.

So you’re like… extremely conspiracy-based. Not surprising, but your analogy is full of holes. Namely, why the hell do high schools care if colleges make money? Actually, please don’t answer that, I don’t care. This is so wildly off topic that I don’t want to address it, but I hope you realise everything you wrote here is completely nuts.

A lot of periods. You’re s’posed to use those to separate different ideas within paragraphs.

EDIT: Actually, slow the hell down. How does anything you wrote answer the question I asked? What does someone who sucks at the game have anything to do with forcing “top players” who are apparently supposed to win 80% of games to lose half their games? Why the hell would Blizzard need to keep random, normal people at 50%? What does that accomplish?


I tried to illustrate the conspiracy and the analogy was there to show how this is also done elsewhere (or could), I don’t think you grasped what I was saying though. To put it simply: Their motivation is player retention. Someone who loses all the time would never stay, so you need to artificially bloat his winrate so he don’t get discouraged and stop playing. But to make Bob the Caveman win, you gotta make 5 others lose right? So the game stacks the deck in BoB’s favor because if the match was actually even, Bob would naturally lose more than he wins.

Just like if you keep failing college, you will eventually stop trying, so to keep you in college and spending $, imagine they passed you no matter what until your last year to get the most $ out of you.

Sidenote: Here’s a few periods, place em anywhere you want: …

So what you’re saying is…

There is no 50% forced winrate. There are just bad players who get carried sometimes. Which is more or less what I said. There is no need for an insidious algorithm to put Bob on your team - you will just find him on accident every now and then.

1 Like

No, what i’m saying is, the game keeps BoB in your games even though he does not belong there by stacking games in his favor to keep him at the same place at the expense of every other player.

Because of the bad MMR system, to place Bob at the correct rank would take many games of him losing and if he loses ~30 games in a row to get to where he belongs, he probably won’t stick around, but give him wins here and there and maybe he stays.

1 Like

And that makes no sense. Why would Blizzard care about one person at the expense of nine?

Also, you’re assuming this Bob person actually exists, which isn’t the case. I’ve been arguing theoretical, but your whole case is based on something you have no proof for. Simple fact is that no one is that bad.

Of course Bob exists (in theory) Bob is what we call players who do not play at their current MMR’s average skill level. Bob is the bottom 1% of his current rank (Let’s say Gold 5) Of all the Gold 5 players, he is among the worse. Because the current system cannot find a way to make Performance Based MMR and can only rank you based on wins and losses.