Is it true this game has rigged matchmaking?

I here it all the time and it seems mostly true. Playing this game from Australia is just horrible because there’s less than 500 active players.


And blizzard would sabotage their own game… because?


I hear alot of people talking about the spaghetti monster so it must be true.

Amount of people who believe in a thing holds no weight on the truth of the matter.

Also with small playerbase comes long Q times in high ranks and that leads to smurfs and it doesnt help matchmaking.

Basically matchmaker forcing wins or losses would be harder to make than one that evaluates your skill and matches by that and it would make no sense to make that in the business sense.


No it doesn’t.

Blaming the game (Matchmaking) or teammates is a common coping mechanism people have employed in all kinds of competitive activities (not just HOTS) to help people get over losses.


Nuh uh, my team played like gods but the referee was blind! It was a goal for sure!

1 Like

Not really rigged, just “averaged.”

This leads to a funny situation whereby as you continue to win, your allies become less skilled in the short run.

Rather than being a continuous scale, the players are all pooled into groups, which puts pressure towards the center of each pool. You go from “middle skill level” to “stronger skill level” in terms of your matching pool. Because the system works on averages, you are given weaker allies to balance out your increased rating.

If you get a lucky win streak, you can jump out and over the matches where you are supposed to be the “stronger skill level.” Then, you flop into the higher pool of averages. Therefore you will be the “lower skill level” of this pool. You will get stronger allies until you climb up to around the middle.

Keep fighting, you can make it up there! You just have to remember - the harder you have to carry, the closer you are to climbing out of this pool. Once you break past, you get easier matches for a little while.


Have never seen this in my games.

‘rigged’ matchmaking is generally what people fallback on to have something, and someone to blame, for games not going as they expect: winning.

HoTs has had bouts of bad or exploitable matching — the most notable being an inflated positioning for newer accounts, so it wasn’t uncommon for newbs/noobs/nubs to place higher than they should, and depending on early match luck, have seeded confidence resist them falling from the bloated positioning.

However, the bigger issue tends to be the skill of the ‘common’ player is pretty low, and with people impulsively looking for something to blame, they don’t have much of a reason to ever try to change.

Its not uncommon to find players that:
don’t communicate
don’t know how to use a mini-map
don’t keep track of events outside of their own screen
chase for too long
dive too deep
engage in range of enemy structures
stand in red aoe
hearth or leave lanes late to get to objectives
mindlessly clear lanes to ‘soak’ and then expose themselves to ganks
assume ally heals/cc/heroics are always available when demanded
think themselves equally skilled or proficient with all heroes or roles
think other roles too ‘hard’ for them to ever learn
oh, and split off on separate targets.

There’s more I could add to the list, but a key point is just how extensive the list actually is of lacking mechanical skill and observational sense when it’s just so much easier for people to blame something else. also, the whole 'lacking of observational sense" kinda indicates why people would be more keen to just assuming their games have to be ‘forced’ to win/lose/whatever.

When basic reasoning goes out the window to masquerade tin-foil theories that contradict themselves, then its usually a player issue, and not so much the extent of where people want to blame the game or demand devs “fix” for them.


In HOTS, the team’s weakest player makes a bigger impact than the strongest player, that is why forced carry “averaged mmr pool” is equal to forced 50% winrate.


People also forget that this is a team game first and foremost, and as such your ability to co-operate with others, and build team chemistry with random people that they put you with is often as important as personal skill when it comes to success.

This is a problem for MM is they could put 10 people of roughly the same skill together. One team is bound to work together better though, and have a massive advantage that usually turns into a win. That to outsiders might be seen as one team was higher skilled. When in fact it was more that they worked together better and deserved a win.

From what I understand, mostly.

The “pool” is a function of whoever is queued at the time and the length of time spent in the queue.

Small population and wide range of player skills waiting for a long time in queue will have a rainbow game, but with more players those “pools” are very flat.

The “pools” are not hard coded, they are generated on the fly.


It’s somewhat true actually. It’s caused by the disconnect between rank and MMR. If you have high MMR relative to your rank you will get worse teammates.

The matchmaker is trying to balance mmr on each team while keeping teams near the same rank.

So if your diamond 3 with 3000 mmr and your vsing 5 other diamond 3 players with 2500 mmr, then your teammates will have -500 mmr. Your going to have a worse player on your team with 2000 mmr to bring your win chance down.

This gets really bad in master+. I stopped playing ranked because of it.


I wouldn’t be surprised if it was rigged in some way but probably not.
A lot can be explained by randomness. Too many games end up one sided because of the random skills. winstreaks and loosingstreaks can happen randomly. If matchmaker was random, it would naturally create 50% win rate for like 90% of the players. it would create 3 ranks: a few people that rise to the top, a few people that fall to the bottom and then everybody else that will have 50% win rate. I wouldn’t put it past Blizzard Activision if that was the desired effect but I believe its probably because incompetence.

I won’t be surprised if the mmr algorithm works in such a way that for every win your next game has a 1% lesser win rate (49%, 48%, 47%,…), just to end your win streaks. Of course vice versa on losing streaks.

Only delusional players that think they are better than they actually are believe this.


Thats actually not how it works. Rank is simply a cosmetic, it has nothing to do with matchmaking. Matchmaking simply matches players by MMR, thats it.

To be honest, they should just delete the whole ranking visual (because thats all it is, a visual), show MMR for everybody to see and rank players in order of their MMR. That would stop alot of confusion and also get rid of the personal rank adjustment.

1 Like

Don’t ever compare MM on the ANZ to EU or US. The lack of active players on ANZ makes for worse balanced matches than US TL VS HL.

Only people inexperienced in the world or have the slightest understanding of a revenue-based corporation believes it wouldn’t be.

Spoiler alert!
Most things coming from any corporation that sells a service or product has a lie wrapped around every single endeavor.
That’s just how the world works. There are no ethics, just cost effectiveness.


As a person who works in industry that blanket statement is largely false.

Not all companies value only profit.

Edit: Then again the gaming industy lacks any kind of legal standards for their products, might be a bad industry to be in if you have developed morals

1 Like

So tell me how forcing a bad experience on someone is profitable. The more likely answer is that you and those like you aren’t as good as you think you are. Post 10 replays you can even cherry pick games that you won and think you played well. I guarantee most people on this forum will be able to tell within a few ranks where you end up most seasons.