It doesn’t. What people commonly reply to on these forums are people spouting misinformation and then trying to use that as rationalization for lying and quitting. Games aren’t going to have ‘absolute balance’ because free-will exists and cusses like you have the ability to ruin the game for yourself with incorrect information.
Again, ‘normal’ players in this game think that basic play is basically cheating. You are the sort of player that denies information, asserts absurd claims, and does not improve because you think some boogie man is out to get you. Also, you think not providing proof is somehow providing proof.
It’s 'embarrassing" for you to answer because you are posting embarrassing things. You haven’t debunked what has been written, you aren’t proving what you are suggesting. What you asserting is a crappy Reductio ad absurdum by claiming Straw man of things people didn’t actually post. You are having a conversation with yourself and pretending that your garbled sentences aren’t a language barrier for you. It’d almost like responding to someone asserting the Earth is flat, but even some of those have 'oops-ed themselves into realizing their position actually ends up proving them wrong, and then they have to grandstand on a double-take instead.
You are trying to argue circular reasoning by taking the state of the game having reduced players to thus ‘prove’ that anachronistic information must therefore be complete. Starting with the claim you want to make and then asserting you can find conformation bias is not ‘proof’ of the claim. That same conduct also can be seen to influence how you play the game, which is part of why you keep looking for things to fault with it instead of asking how to make better use of what actually exists.
Or ya know, claiming you could do things that you don’t.
You’re convinced that the opposite of what you assert must be an absurd claim, which indicates you’re just putting forth a loaded question and then demanding people defeat absurdity that they aren’t actually posting. Your conduct is ‘illogical’ and you are faulting ghosts of conversations made to act like you made a valid point.
You want to assert you have ‘proof’ of finding things that agree with you?
Here’s a long article of graphs by Ghostdunk that was shared by Shardfenix on one of his 20,000 alt accounts of the same name. Shard is also a conspiracy nut and he took the information of that article as ‘proof’ for an assertion that doesn’t hold up to his claim. Ghost’s article, for tl;dr, comes to the conclusion that the changes made to the game (things you assert that haven’t changed) does make for ‘good’ matchmaking because the system does what it intended to do: provide a “fair” match where each side has a 50% chance to win. (However, much like with Dota 2, the illiterate portions of the gamebase seem to think having a "50 chance* must mean the game “forces” wins and loses in fallacious reasoning.)
Shard took the 50% analysis to mean the game can’t predict who wins instead of concluding that the game doesn’t actually make rigged matches; by providing the 50% change for either side to win, it makes the game “fair”. Granted, Ghost thinks that reverting the game to an older state would have had the same ‘fair’ adjustment and made for better game “feel”, but that’s also an anachronistic assertion that assumes present gameplay would retroactivity adjust to the previous changes despite meta, hero pool, and other mechanics having changed since 2017 as lane formations would not revert to 2017 even if the rest of the game did.
If you provide links for what influenced your perspective, then you’re probably going to get people that point out where you’re cherry-picking, drawing wrong conclusions and conflating information because you already thought the ‘game deserved to die’ likely because you keep looping the conduct of chronic complainers that’d rather conspiracy rant how a game is bad rather than own up and realize it’s easier to just fault a game instead of learn how to play it.
It’s a ‘meme’ for what sort of players keep on trying to fault matchmaking. Pointing out people are riling up on incorrect information doesn’t mean the game is magical and perfect, it just means that playerbase is that low on actually knowing how to play the game. It’s almost like there’s some sort of correlation between people that don’t like to lose at games also not liking to lose as arguments.
They’d rather quit and find something to blame instead of looking to improve their conduct and claim.