How many years does it take to fix MM

General Discussion
21

When matchmaker only has what is left of this playerbase then ofc games ends up being onesided hence the beliefe of 50% force winrate is real

If this game had million of players then matchmaking would not be a problem.

22

It’s been so for years and I haven’t noticed my record change by even a single % for better or worse as a result. Sure, you end up having to play some horrible matches in the off hours but that is mainly a problem of player availability.

23

even when they had enough players MM was still bad what was the excuse for not fixing it then?

24

∞

when people ask for a ‘fix’ to matchmaking, they’re looking at the wrong issue, so the ‘fix’ they keep hoping to get is never going to happen. Should you happen to look at other games that have ‘better’ matching, or more players, or longer years in the field, you’re going to find verbatim complaints in other games, even of different genre.

There’s a few key things that come up, time and again, that people don’t know, don’t want to know, and magically expect anyone else to ‘fix’ because… raisins.

1: the premise of ‘equally skilled’ is quantitively improbable and functionally a redherring. “Equally skilled” at what? A 4000 mmr healer vs a 4000 mmr ranged dps? The metrics of what rates x-hero main or role main or whatever aren’t some 1 to 1 ratio of influence. One person might be a better solo player, another might be better at getting others to cooperate with them; the range and scope of different ‘skills’ generally don’t meet at some magic ‘equal’ for people to easily identify.

2: Lanchester’s Law of Warfare demonstrates how small differences lead to sweeping victories. People don’t know how to see where the small breakpoint start adding up, so they look for some outside other that ‘forces’ things to be imbalanced in the wrong ways.

  1. Matches are only to 1. If people watch high-end gameplay, matches are played out as a best-of series. Even against people of ‘equal skill’ at high-end gameplay, blowout matches still happen, and the series is played as a best-of because ‘real’ games do have blowout victories. Players can be ‘equally skilled’ at the game but not ‘equally skilled’ at their own meta. But since people already have ‘this is over’ syndrome as is, they’re not going to do better should the matching actually try to do a best-of series to allows players to meta-against each other.

  2. Movies/anime/etc depict “masters” of "equal skill’ needing forever a day to resolve their fights. These ‘epic’ fights take longer and longer as a means to sell hype when, functionally, it only takes that long because neither “master” is actually playing at their skill level; they perpetually ‘underestimate’ the other and intentionally draw things out. The very basis that people use for their expectation for ‘close’ games (or being ‘equally skilled’) is based on a dramatic gimmick that often indicates people have to actively choose to be ‘equal’ by handicapping themselves, or that it wasn’t ‘equal’ from the onset, and the ‘masteries’ are effectively incompetent, or rather, overly limited by the author’s knowledge.

That same effect pretty much applies to the entirety of the playerbase: they don’t know how to have their ‘powerlevel’ magically make them better at the game, and the consequences of small shifts in how they play lead to bigger gaps on the other team. Once there’s a particular turn or "obvious conclusion’ they stop applying the “skill” that’s supposed to be the weight of the mmr, and it makes the make come off as one-sided.

That’s why, time and again, players blame the “matchmaker” and if it’s some omnipotent infallible potential and magically ignore that free will is an actual thing. A system to calculate probability to ‘win’ is fundamentally frustrated by the ability for people to choose to lose.

So, for more effective purposes and the simplest tl;dr: matching is never going to be ‘fixed’; or rather it’ll take ‘infinity years’ to “fix”. People that keep asking that indicate how much they don’t know, which really curbs their ability to have “fair matches” because they keep relying on some magically third party that doesn’t exist.

It’s funny that people imagine some sort of ‘fair’ matching for ‘equal’ skill when the reality of life is that it isn’t ‘fair’, and mankind isn’t going to actually fix that. People can accept something as ‘fair enough’, or realize the shortcomings they keep faulting as something else as areas they themselves didn’t apply more control over the situation (ie, their ‘skill’) or they could finally realize the dilemma they keep creating: the “fair” match they expect would required “forced fairness”, but that’s the very thing they keep trying to blame.

So the ‘fix’ people claim they want would actually have to exist, but since it doesn’t, they blame it anyway and remain oblivious on how matching ‘works’.

Until people realize the wonderful conundrum of what they expect, and learn to do otherwise, there isn’t a “fix” to be had with matching making. Matching is a sorting tool to impose superficial metrics on unreliable variables. But so long as people have any thing else to blame, they’ll keep ignoring the issue.

25

Play aram and see for yourself. Your teammate can be a level 2 noob or it can be Fan himself. At night it can even be an AI (Veteran AI).

There is no kind of matchmaking in ARAM whatsoever. Whoever joins first is thrown into a match.
You also don’t get more difficult games by winning more, or very bad games and teammates after losing a lot.

You can view profiles in ARAM score screens by /w:ing a player. A lot of ARAM players don’t even play anything except AI. I wonder if they know ARAM enemies are human?

1 Like