Your first statement here may be true, I’d have to see the scenarios the OP is describing to see what’s going on. As far as the second statement, I feel kinda bad for the players who can’t accept the reality that video game algorithms are deceptive. Easy to see various statements from the small user base of this forum who claim it doesn’t occur, lol.
The thing is yet again, nobody claimed such. In my reply to you I specifically said manipulative algorithms are at play in Hots and many video games. Years ago there was a Dev post where they admitted that to small degree the notion of a “forced 50% WR” is part of the MM, but didn’t function as simply as many people thought.
Again I would suggest you should stop deliberately misrepresenting statements from people posting here to suit your particular narrative. Aside from it being irksome, it diminishes all your arguments to post in such bad faith.
2 Likes
Hey it’s good to see someone actually admit the 50% WR. That’s a good start. As to your second paragraph, you simply can read this very thread.
Not what I wrote, but thank you for proving my point that you have no intention of discussing any topic on this forum in good faith.
4 Likes
What about those that has more than 50% solo. Why are they not been dragging down aswell ? Thats because the 50% winrate thing is where casuals will mostly hit when they reach thier max potential. To reach higher than 50% winrate solo you need to think in new ways and be better then you are.
Just confermation bias once again.
1 Like
Well I don’t think you can recant something you’re relating that came from the devs, especially when quoted. But, whatever suits your fancy. We’re all free to disagree over the severity of ideas.
describing ‘why’ people think 50% happens is not the same thing as ‘admitting’ it is true, as it is not. Not that you’d actually read through the distinction as you’re just posting rushed soundbytes to be ‘controversial’.
What people ‘experience’ and what they ‘interpret’ from that are often two different things. For all those magic times I try explain that to people that are afraid of something being longer that 6 words, congrats, the internet has put forth a youtube video people can watch instead:
I’d suggest watching most, but for the attention-deprived, I started it as the ‘black hole’ illusion just prior to the black dress as that touches on ‘reflex’ actions before going into how people interpret sensations when they don’t have enough ‘information’ as indicated by the black/gold dress fiasco.
Similar gimmick with 50/50, people have an ‘experience’ and rely on a reflex to thus indicate the interpretation and assume it must therefore be the case for everyone else, and no other possibilities exist.
Which is not the case.
2 Likes
I ve played a lot of online poker. Pokerstars and other providers make enough money out of the rakes. They absolutely have no interests in manipulating the game, on the contrary, if something like that came out, they would have to shut down everything. In my experience, it was aways the losing players that claimed pokerstars to be rigged, as they needed an explanation for their losing streaks. The same goes for hots 
3 Likes
The guy who gets firts place wins the same amount no matter who it is, so again, why would they care who wins?
1 Like
You’re trolling is imbecilic at best, but it crossed the line to just being disrespectful and in bad faith if you were being sincere.
3 Likes
Solo players eventually hitting a 50 percent winrate is completely logical.
If you have a > 50% winrate you will climb until you reach your current level.
Obviously a lot changes winrates for example, smurfig, grouping up, playing new heroes…
I’m currently 55% winrate with somewhere between 400-500 ranked games played.
This is the third account ive made and a lot of the heroes i’m playing in ranked I was completwly new to when I started this account - Tychus, Azmodan, Sylvanas, Tyrande, Alarak.
A couple I was pretty new with and have them at a low level on last account - Zera and Khara. I’ve started playing Tyrael again recently and ive barely played him for about a year, when I last played him I was lower skill.
Most of my “mains” are around 60-70 % winrate on this account. If I spammed them i’d probably climb much faster to “where I belong” and then lose more than I am at the minute and get close to 50 %.
My original account does have a few thousand games and is pretty much bang on 50 percent winrate like 50.1 or something.
Either everyone who is complaining about forced 50% winrate should be gm #1 and they are being shafyed by the system, or they are at around the rank they should be and need to improve and play a few hundred more games to rank up.
Which seems more likely?
4 Likes
The game attempts to match two teams with an average MMR so close to each other that statistically both teams should have a ~50% probability of victory.
The game is not prohibiting you from winning more than 50% of your matches if you are consistently better than the enemy team. The system is not forcing you to lose 50% of your matches.
Plenty of Master and Grand Master players who only play solo have lifetime win rates of 60% or even 62-65%.
(Going beyond that without the help of a premade is not really possible)
There are also Bronze players with lifetime win ratios of 35% and even lower than that. So they lose much more than half of their games, two thirds or more.
3 Likes
Bad premise but I understand your point. I wouldn’t pretend to be good enough for M or GM. Also your point about rising if above 50% WR fails to take into account the variations in points won or lost depending on the way the system values the match. Good effort though, your post much better than the others in this thread.
That doesn’t make sense, sadly. 4 players all superior to the other team can lose if their 5th plays badly enough. Otherwise your post is fairly reasonable.
Generally personal attacks are not indicative of honest discussion. Nevertheless, I understand strong emotions can influence our posts from time to time.
1 troll can absolutely ruin a game (unless one of the 4 players is a top GM tier player like Fan, which is not a realistic skill set to aim for the majority of players)
However in the long run if you are not that troll, chances are higher the enemy team will have one (since they are made of 5 random players that do not include you).
Only win rate in the long term makes us rank up. During that climb we will have to endure those games with 4 good teammates and 1 troll who ruins it, but that’s part of why even GM’s lose 40% of their matches.
There is no way to eliminate that random chance of getting trolls or feeders except playing as a party of 5. That is the main reason why these parties have win rates exceeding 90% especially in QM, but some also in SL.
I think the highest premade I saw in QM was way north of 95% win rate, and they had hundreds of games played. If I had to guess, these players were on voice chat.
2 Likes
good, we’re in agreement
This is a good point, but I have some ideas (observations and thoughts) here which might be interesting.
Raw rating based matchmaking is a rare concept. You know pretty much all the considerations: playing with the same people, sniping, team compositions…
I have also observed a slight tendency to have counters - and things like mount or skin coordination. Not to mention the appearance of names in the most fitting times, such as HelpTheNoob or HappySpreader. Keeps me joking about living in a simulation.
A relatively simple solution to this all is to use something similar to the traveling salesman problem, using weights as a second dimension. Since MMR isn’t entirely accurate either, a weighed sum of these metrics can be used to actually find optimum. A lot of measures can be used with various weights, such as composition winrate, counters, matching mounts, waiting time for players, mirror composition bonus, meta composition bonus, the possibilities are endless. Some of these can be hard filters before the famous expanding search criteria state (which is per player). Then you sort the potential matches and pick the highest score (or a combination of).
(And it’s not even silly. Would you have a fair match by rating where one team hard counters the other, or rather a perfect 50-50% as far as compositions go, but one team is slightly higher rated? The mounts part is silly but I swear I’m seeing things 
)
The rest is confirmation bias. You can have a counter in your first match, or after a few wins.
My Sylvanas streak yesterday, there was a Butcher in the first 9 or so. I’ve seen Li Li twice. Pretty much all matches had 4 AA per team (and Kael, likely because of Butcher). Pretty much all matches had stealth heroes. Notably, however, they were equally often teammates and opponents.
In short: it’s not magic actually.
ps.: Having one or two counters intentionally - as in, either logically defined or by winrate - as a weight can give a bit of replayability and fun. It’s like M+ affixes. We don’t draft, however we can still understand the setup given. Sure, it happens automatically, but it can be considered as “added fun scenario” in the above system.
2 Likes
The GM#1 comment contains a hint of sarcasm.
I’d imagine every player who feels they are lower ranked than they should be and the main reason they are not at that rank is the system is biased against themall differ in what rank they picture themselves.
Someone hardstuck silver could think I should be gold, another could think I should be plat.
Also with that mindset I feel there’s a good chance someone who was previously hardstuck silver and eventually climbs and stays in gold for a while will probably not be satisfied being hardstuck gold. Then it will be “I should be plat but blizz keeps putting trolls on my team.”
I’m not employed by blizzard/have an interest in defending hots
Based on what i’ve seen and my own experiences, to me there doesn’t appear to be a forced 50% winrate.
I do however see plenty of people who don’t seem as good as they think they are, make mistakes and blame other people for losing.
3 Likes
There are a number of studies into “illusionary superiority”, so it’s not uncommon to find someone that thinks themselves ‘better than average’ without actually knowing what an ‘average’ would be, let alone how to be better than that. Part of the issue of people not understanding how to be ‘good’ at something generally leaves them milling about at an unimpressive skillevel; since they don’t know they could be better, they don’t get better.
I can recall an incident with my nephews where they thought they had set a “world record” on Smash Bros. Ultimate’s homerun contest. They weren’t juggling the bag with combos; they weren’t using animation cancels to rack up damage points faster than usual; they weren’t throwing the bat to prevent the bag from launching prematurely; they weren’t getting more than 100% damage on the bag… They simply did a ground-pound on donkey kong and then used the bat and thought they had figured out something extraordinary. I’m honestly not sure why they thought so far as to think they had a ‘world record’ without looking up what the record was (at that time) let alone watch how it was attained.
A “typical” (assumption) player isn’t going to really know what is involved in “skill” but they are certain it was their “skill” when they win, and not a consequence of their lack of skill when they lose. It’s much easier for people to assume some system has to be out to get them if they aren’t satiated on their typical ‘false positives’ that reinforce their shallow expectations.
If a task does not hard-require people to have a specific skill to ‘rate’ their performance, they they will fill the gap with their ego instead, and damned be anyone that doesn’t agree with them on that
4 Likes