No. People aren’t stupid. Pros, the announcers/casters and even good players all have said in the past that the matchmaking is bad, unwinnable to some degree or rigged.
Your dishonesty is just deflecting from the actual problem the game has, your paragraph did not contribute to anything but avoiding the problem. My apologies for being rude but we’re done here, you contribute nothing to the discussion. For what’s worth, you put some effort into the posting.
Actually they are.
Dismissive refusal of that is part of the issue of pretty much every problem on the planet, game or no. Being “stupid” is not knowing something; nobody knows everything, hence everyone is ‘stupid’. However, since people don’t accept that as a drive to know more (information denial become more prevalent in vocal occasions and markets literally driven out of misinformation and laziness for people to care otherwise) However, the lack of realization of that will get people to feel ‘insulted’ at the term, and they’ll go into the usual “oh you don’t agree with me” dismissal show in this topic.
Similarly, some ‘pro’ meta over the years have been driven by misinformation. While some do dig deeper into the game to find out particulars (esp when stuff like Math of the Storm still existed) it isn’t uncommon for rumors and myths to fuel the player perception because – as some studies can point out – there are correlations between being ‘better’ at something (performance wise) and superstition associated with that.
We’re not “logical” constructs and are more prone to wanting comfort than uncertainty, so a lot of interactions and expectations fall into ruts of hearsay and the like. People can like something far more than any ‘data’ can show for it (esp given the limitations there) so key aspects of what ‘pro’ players do is still influenced by perception even if it happens to be different from casual players.
The capacity for someone to believe something is simply a fallacy of authority; you can believe what they say, but if it’s only am impression (or you cherry picking their words to take that as their impression) then you’re just demonstrating that your claim “people aren’t stupid” is not correct.
It’s not dishonestly on my end to notice this and point it out; but it certainly takes dishonestly from others to just dismiss … yada yada the stuff I already wrote that people keep ignoring, but then demonstrating that it is exactly what they’re doing.
Part of the issue of ‘knowing’ something is the ability to make predictions. A lot of the aftermath of mmr evaluations aren’t ‘predictions’ in an honest sense, but they grab just enough to confirm bias in their evaluation because they aren’t getting what they want. So when the prediction doesn’t hold, they claim certain exceptions and then their position becomes better defined by the exceptions and thus can’t actually ‘predict’ in most cases.
Which is a flawed form of using their word as authority.
If people were less “stupid” and noticed that about their perspective (ie, they knew more and that influenced their perception to notice) they would draw a different conclusion because their efforts in processing that information would be different.
But when people have the conclusion they already want, they stop caring about the ‘work shown’. So just as in this case, you’re overly dismissive, flagrantly argumentative without substance, and are content to revel in the same cycle as outlined.
That sort of behavior is demonstrative of the flaws of your claim. If you were more honest, you wouldn’t have such a contradiction of claim and conduct.
Your take on ‘value’ only matters to you inso far as someone agrees with you, regardless of how “honest” or “smart” the contribution would actually be.
Reveling in dishonestly, blaming others for your own flaws, and disregarding anything that doesn’t suit you are very much examples of how people aren’t as “smart” as they claim to be; congrats on demonstrating what you didn’t read.
You are picking on the people making the argument instead of the argument itself and dismiss them as bias. i heard this tactic before. If this is not doubt mongering, i don’t know what is. So much with your bias lecture, they are moot you are just as bias with your presumption.
And spewing off topic bs that has nothing to do with the game.
He is showing his true color. All the meandering to get to this point.
I’m replying to people that chose to reply to my posts in a dismissive and self-defeating manner.
If people neglect to understand context, content and compromise their position with callus candor inconsistent with their claim, then it stands that part of that some conduct is conducive to them demonstrating some of their concerns are more within their control than they’ll suggest.
I don’t get met by rebuttal, correction, refutation or a number of other responses; I get responses of dismissive claims that look to draw offense because they’ll rather ignore material, pretend it’s something it isn’t, and act like they’re all the better for it.
If i draw exception to the inconsistent people post, that’s not me 'picking on people", that’s me engaging in an actual discussion. However, when people are too busy pretending what anyone else wrote, they’re not actually interesting in having a ‘discussion’, they just want affirmation that others agree with them.
Of what I have written, I already wrote how it ties to the game, and I even gave you the exact post number where your involvement in this regard started: your insistence in this regard is just more dishonesty from you.
This is a written medium: you can actually go back and read all the stuff you keep skipping; your own self-delusion only hurts yourself. The sort of people that persist in being ignorant and blaming others has pretty much everything to do with this game. Maybe if you get over yourself and take a second to actually inform yourself accordingly, you’d probably notice.
Cuz the whole basis of this topic, in conjunction with the game, has been about someone wanting to be informed about something (ie, “explain to me”)
When people keep trying to think ignorance is empowering, it’s going to come back to bite them cuz… it’s not.
You are just diluting the matter at hand, 95% of what you wrote is to pick people apart and off topic. Like i said doubt mongers.
While this is a thing, your MM is still pretty bloody bad. Not in terms of compositions but in terms of stacks vs non stacks.
You really, really need to work on that system.
Then maybe it’s time to stop with the ignorant postings? Only bloated nonsense. If you want to be taken seriously, then there are some circlejerks on reddit waiting for you.
I don’t care about being ‘taken seriously’ because I’m not the one riled up on superstitions and calling it otherwise.
I’m also not the sort that blames others at the neglect of personal awareness or one who persists in repeating themselves despite replies that suggest they could do otherwise.
For a set of posters that don’t offer rebuttals, or anything worthwhile but topical denouncement and claiming stuff on topic isn’t – and not actually engaging with the topic by reading the posts – i think you’re the one in need of that circle.
But if you guys weren’t have such issues with apparent self-delusion, you wouldn’t staking out in a petty argument and thinking you have something more going for you than you actually do. Plus you might bank on whittier replies, pithy quotes, actually posting something fun, suggesting, or anything more than chronic contrarian complaints that could be posted on pretty much any other game, and you wouldn’t even notice 
Let’s all be real… MM is terrible.
Skill gaps and half of the comps arranged in qm is laughable
Do you realize everything that you just said is also applicable back to yourselves? BIAS, SELF-DELUSION, PETTY ARGUMENT, CHRONIC CONTARIAN. Your rebuttal saying everyone has confirmation bias and ignorant is also a non-rebuttal, basically you are just falling back to the classic deny deny deny.
You are expecting singularity, if not it’s bias, ignorance and lack of awareness. It’s not realistic. And the closest thing we have to singularity at least in this game is the MATCHMAKER. Booyah!
Let me tell you about something known as Occam’s razor. When competing hypotheses are being compared, the one that makes the least assumptions (ie. the simplest one) is most likely to be the correct one. For example in space there is no such thing as fixed point. Therefore it’s possible to make a model where all the celestial bodies, including the sun, orbit around earth. It would be massively complex and go against most things we know about Newtonian physics and the general theory of relativity, but it could be done. Or we could vastly simplify everything and say the sun is the center of our system, which in all likelihood is the correct model.
Likewise we can believe that the MM is type of sorting algorithm that uses iterative MMR averaging over a great number of games to give people something it believes is a fair (50:50) match.
Or we could opt for a model that works by matching every win streak with an equal unwinnable losing streak to force, among many other sophisticated rigging mechanisms, to keep people forcibly in the rank the system believes they should be in, while simultaneously recognising smurf accounts and placing them eventually the same ranks as the main account. All for some unknown end which somehow is worth both the effort and resources of making such system while angering and alienating significant portion of an already small player base at the same time.
Both models possible. But the former is more likely. This is supported by the devs claiming to be the case, other games also using similar system and there being plenty of literature available on such systems. The latter is supported by pretty much nothing. So if someone would kindly offer some sort of concrete evidence it would greatly help any further discussions that are sure to happen in the future.
Easy. I have posted this like 20 times.
45:20 “The approach where it’s still kinda 50/50 but you don’t always give a 50/50 match, you give a variety of matches, you have some smart way of saying no for this match i’m going to give him actually a hard match
for this next match i’m going to give him an even match for the next match i’m going to give him an easy match.”
45:35 “it gets to the point when matches are super even all the time after a while it actually get kinda tiring…so i come up with the opinion that its ok to allow a little bit of balance here and there and have a mix of even hard and easy matches.”
Have written about this in the past with the Tyrael-combo and how the matchmaker tried to get these characters out of the game with increasing timers, absolutely unreasonable ban-behaviors from the users and first-picking characters in an absolutely uncommon combo which isn’t known or played at all.
Simply put, the mm searched for people with very specific behavior patterns (likely to play/ban chara X) so our winning streak could have been broken. Usual queues times during prime time were 30-60 secs but with each winning match it increased up to 20min.
Let this sink in for a moment.
And I still haven’t gotten an answer how a friend of mine had a 40-50 losing streak after he reached a certain level and was brought back to exact spot where he started in HL. Overall good stats, always positive, least deaths, team player. Plat > Diamond > Plat.
What is your proof over this chunk of info to begin with?
There is no proof. However, I played it then and can report about this matchmaker behavior. Or how often do you get somebody to say that the system tries to eliminate a Tyrael/Abathur/Lost Viking combo?
I hope you realize how ridiculous you sound now but do you really think MM is coded like this at all and not by the fact it only considers to average numbers from both sides as much as possible.
That whatever the player picks is technically not even considered in the iteration and its just people being stupid?
You weren’t there, you haven’t seen how out of nowhere the ban/pick behavior started to become absolutely ridiculous from the enemy teams we faced. We discussed this after our session for a long time and everyone came to conclusion that, given with the sudden increased queue times, and how every ban/first pick revolved around our characters we played in the combo, we were absolutely certain that we broke the loop and the game tried to adjust it under any circumstances.
We also checked the hero pick/play rates of the people we faced and they usually had high levels with the characters we played. In the end, we knew what was going on. Don’t forget, back then there was no “free pick” which characters we wanted the most to have. I’m sure things have changed since then but if you go from 30-60 sec queues to 5, 15 and 20 mins then you know something’s up.
Nope, I’m to 100% sure this is not the case back then.
This is due to uncertainty, which is the “other” metric that is used in match making, and AzJackson failed to mention.
During those first 50 games that you mention, your uncertainty is very big, so the MMR swings wildly per win and loss. This is why winning as much as possible in the first 50 games is important.
After the first games, the “system” thinks it knows your MMR well enough which results in the issues you described. This is documented in the original research by Microsoft, on which MMR is based
That link explains how the whole system works, and how it has a 52% chance of creating a good match.
An improved version is available, which yields better match making
Briefly, the classic TrueSkill model makes the following assumptions:
.The TrueSkill2 model modifies the classic model in the following ways:
Basically, blizzard need to get in with the times. If trueskill2 were implemented in HOTS, it would likely fix most of the issues with the game match making.
Highlighted some important parts.
Anyway, trueskill classic has 52% accuracy, trueskill2 has 68%.
Oh, surprise, surprise. Something’s not mentioned here.