Dude, stop ressing old topics to let us know Montana is toxic. We all already know this. The less you engage him, the less we see his toxic posts.
3 Likes
What you want is player agency. Control. You’re likely right that your skills and game sense don’t fluctuate enough for wins and losses and streaks in general to happen the way it does but I have no doubt you’ve experienced it as you say.
The answer lies in playing draft modes. You may not be immune to a 6 loss or win streak but you will have a small but noticeable measure more of control.
Quick match cannot possibly meet all of the demands of the variables required for balanced fair play given the mode itself a d the low overall population of the playerbase.
Aside from a more definitive and visible MMR in your actual rank (which means nothing don’t stress the color haters) you get to draftyour hero with similar ™ skilled players vs similar skilled enemies (much like QM) but you also get to draft or ban or synergize around your pick to give you that bit of control to maybe edge a game closer to a win or even a loss.
Gl out there
To be honest, most people will tell you it’s random and luck.
I disagree. They have a fracking patent on adaptive matchmaking which acts similar to EAs. If the words adaptive match making does not make you suspicous nothing will.
Yes, you can win or lose any game. But purely by matching certain heroes against other heroes they can ensure a certain outcome in 80+% of the games. Now if we consider in ranked every person has certain proclivities in hero selection ranked can be arranged similar. You can overcome this with grouped games, otherwise you can’t.
Totally subjective anecdote: I play only QM because I play the hero I want to play and don’t want to get flamed for it. I expect random games. I don’t expect Valeera or Abby with either Tracer or Butcher or Illidan suddenly every game until I drop very low in the win-rate and suddenly get Vikings or many many squishes without heal or tank. I play almost only calamity cause it’s a fun play-style for me. So yeah they can easily ensure the outcome.
On a tangent concerning ranked. If it is to easy to breeze through the ranks the end up where you should end up, why did they have to hard code many high level players back to Masters and higher when with patch (I can’t remember) they suddenly found themselves in Gold (+ / - tiers). Should they not have easily carried the game?
If there is a theory how conspiracy can happen, it happened, or soon will.
Show me those evidence of yours that matchmaker is like EA.
1 Like
The first thing you need to do is understand the basics. Use your abilities whenever they are ready to use and try to do as much healing / damage / stunning as possible. It’s the very first thing any player should do. Also, I’d advise playing simple heroes (raynor, azmodan, thrall, muradin, lili) and play versus AI. If you cannot win versus elite AI, you’re not ready for quickmatch.
I’d rather be informed than be ‘suspicious’. However, you’d rather bank off of half-baked ideas rather than actually know much of anything, and then some how be surprised if people don’t agree with you. 
- an ‘adaptive matchmaking’ means the system has to adapt to different priorities. In case you haven’t dealt with programs (such as python) or ai (seen in this game) or ya know, any automated processes whatsoever, these systems are going to have a ‘bias’ because the order of instructors is going to influence the order that something is carried out.
If - conditions
else (a) - conditions
else (b) - conditions
while something might suit (a) & (b), since (a) is first in the sequence, it’ll have the priority and whatever conditions of (b) happen, means that they are secondary to (a). However, by being ‘adaptive’ there are conditions where the system may then change the priority of how it evaluations the order, ie if [conditions] (a)>(b), else (b)>(a).
- Patents are public domain. That means people can actually bother to read what is in these things instead of speculating about whatever horror story catches their fancy. So they can read something like:
17 . The system of claim 15, wherein the plurality of match variables includes a second match variable and the plurality of coefficients includes a second coefficient corresponding to the match variable, wherein the host computer is further programmed to:
change a second default value of the second coefficient to a second tuned value, wherein the change from the first default value to the first tuned value comprises a decrease to de-emphasize the first match variable and the change from the second default value to the second tuned value comprises an increase to emphasize the second match variable.
Which is the whole a/b thing I wrote about above. And in case it wasn’t evident, that is a quote from a match making patent* (because there are more than one,) and there are different ones applied to different games (because those games have different matching parameters)
Some of the listing values the proposed system would have to consider lists: > 14 . The method of claim 1, wherein the first match variable comprises:
a latency between the first player and the second player, a player skill level, a team composition, a presence or absence of preferred players, a time that the first player has waited to be matched, a location of the player, and/or one or more explicit user preferences received from the first player.
And what is the preferences of the first player?
8 . The method of claim 4, wherein the first gameplay preference relates to a preference to play as a particular role
So congrats, the ‘adaptive match making’ has to consider ‘skill’, region, latency, choice of roles, available team compositions, and a number of other details and needs to ‘adapt’ to the priority of some factors more than others ie, a quick match setting may emphasize wait times over other factors if someone has been waiting a long time.
So what you assert as a ‘suspicious’ detail is what the system is supposed to do. That’s part of why blue/devs/ama tend to talk about how the system confirms certain success in it’s match-making parameters.
However, since people don’t know how these sort of things work, they assume bad things, and look for something to blame because it’s much easier to get riled over ignorance than be informed.
- Patents don’t mean something is actually used.
There doesn’t need to be a single line of code written to file for a patent. If they want to prevent an idea from being used, or taken, then a company can file a ‘patent’ to be seen in the public domain, and prevent competitors from using something exactly like their descriptions, or they prevent patent-trolls from trying to claim damages because they ‘stole’ something from a nobody company that only looks to ‘troll’ businesses with litigation and force settlements to avoid protracted court fees.
If a company wanted to protect actual code, it wouldn’t be as a patent.
- “random” tends to mean “[I] don’t know how it was done”. And as pointed out with all the above items, yes, your match was ‘random’ because you don’t know the process on how it was made. However, as a rule of thumb, computers aren’t ‘random’ at all.
Also, people have a bad understanding of ‘random distribution’ and what they actually claim to want wouldn’t be ‘random’, so they’re creating a conflict of claim and want, and faulting anything else for the problem they created for themselves.
- If you weren’t expecting to get matched against certain heroes, you might want to check out a replay parser site to see what sort of heroes are popular. A lot of the commonly complained about heroes in QM also tend to be some of the most popular picks because… it’s QM and QM is where people play to settle in a rut of complaints (because they don’t pay attention) or they go to QM to pick on those players that refuse to learn to do otherwise because they’re already convinced something else is the problem, and their ignorance evidently has no bearing on the experience they have.
I could go on, but you’re basically putting a post of how much you don’t know, thing it explains things, don’t know how proof works, and somehow thing that ‘proves’ something it does not.
A couple of decades ago, a number of tv shows would end their program with a slogan/jingle on how people should strive to know more. Ironically, with the ease of information accessibility, people tend to know less now than they did before as the accessibility to information also makes it easier for people to find confirmation of what they already think they know, and to ignore anything that questions the integrity of that opinion. But regardless, have a magic wall of stuff you can ignore, and act all that much better for deriding it 
*US20160001181A1 - Matchmaking system and method for multiplayer video games - Google Patents
(example of patent used above)
4 Likes
And they are very expensive. You don’t do this if you don’t expect too make much money with it.
Code is not a Patent. You write well, but also much misinformation. A patent never needs be Code. Mostly never is.
And companies answering to shareholders love wasting money…
Despite all you have wirtten, most of which is of Point here is the thing we Both Agree on:
You are not ‘informed’. You believe they are acting in good faith.
The difference is I believe they are acting as H*omo economicus. Not necessarily in the interest of players. That people are of a differing opinion is not surprising and never should be, it can be sad, but is never surprising.
Ps.: Could a blue allow the word Homo again? It’s scientific term. You Yourself should hopefully be a homo sapiens too.
Here’s a magic telling clue: when people respond line-item to things in a sequential order, it generally indicates they didn’t read the whole thing through.
You are trying to insist on disagreeing with me, but not only do you fail to actually demonstrate a point of disagreement on parts (“code is not a patent”. Might wanna reread what I wrote and think that through) you then make assumptions that don’t apply because you’re trying to second-guess things based on your ignorance, and not on actual information.
This has nothing to do with what I wrote; it’s a bad assumption by someone not reading things, that doesn’t know what I’m talking about, and then tries to fault me for their ignorance.
There’s an article regarding nine years of litigation regarding a patent troll. You can find all sorts of other articles that were made over the years with the ever-increasing amount of claims that Worlds INC made in regards to patent violations, but the bottom line is that filing a few patents is far cheaper than years of legal battles.
For someone trying to claim something about a concern on ‘wasting money’ you sure didn’t think through what I wrote. Good job on demonstrating the very first line I wrote in my previous reply
1 Like
- You demonstrate irony at its finest.
- Of course I disagree with you, have I not stated that several times? And then you go on to nitpick a sentence taken out of sequential order… see my first line
You are even acting in bad faith, by taking one-line statements out of sequential order and context.
- Now who is assuming things?
- Second I can never know exactly what you are talking about. It’s one of the biggest issues of communication.
- Yes, it has everything to do with it. I state that adaptive matchmaking is not adaptive in a way to increase constant enjoyment for the player. You REPLY to me, because you are of a differing opinion. The DIFFERENCE is you talk about being “informed” and “knowing” things, but ironically have less proof than I do.
You write a nice wall of text of Patents on adaptive matchmaking as you believe its implemented. Nice. I don’t. I stated this. The hilarious part I find is in your superior acting.
- Where did I state I would be surprised that people somehow disagree with me? I am surprised that you are inventing things I supposedly wrote. Acting in Bad faith again, you are. But it guess it goes nicer with the superior attitude. Essentially you are not as ‘informed’ you think you are. As Tyson would put it “You know enough to think you are right, but not enough to know you are wrong”
- Thank you for proving my point without realizing it. Where-in did it state, or I state, that adaptive matchmaking does not consider this? Heck I even stated this, that was my whole point. It influences game outcomes heavily through these variables.
- Hmm, what was that about reading the whole post again?
P.S.: Yes, I concur, I missread part of your text (the code part; happily it seems we both agreed essentially on the issue). It happens to people from time to time.
- Yes, they tried to patent abstract ideas (see your post link) too make money. If you wanna be truly informed on this check the mobile phone patent wars (i.e. icons, swiping etc.) The time frame is completely irrelevant to anything, why stress it? Cause it sounds impressive? Filing a few patents is not cheaper, if you don’t intend to use them… There are many patents that are fraudulent, a sad state of the system, but that is neither here nor there.
- Thank you, for again demonstrating your attitude. And for proving my first line in this Post.
Final statement, we are of differing opinions on the issue. We agree to disagree, but could have done so without the aggressive language. Neither of us has Proof, but have believes formed on personal experiences within the game, and theories on the why and how.
I hope you can handle having people with differing arguments, experiences and maybe I truly just experienced good and bad luck on prolonged stretches, shaping and skewing my opinion. Or maybe I am right, as long as the code is not open to scrutiny neither of us shall ever definitely know.
I also apologize for the many spelling and grammar mistakes in the text, english is difficult for me.
A thread from August 2020, is still somehow dragging itself along like an American Soap Opera. I’ve lost the plot, who bumped off the downstairs maid and who inherits the family fortune?
I can’t. Do I need to? Can you show me Proof it’s not? You also can’t and don’t have to. We have no access to the code.
A person better versed on the EA matchmaker is UpperEchelonGaming. I see similarities to theirs.
Essentially it’s my opinion formed through personal experiences. Though the hard coding people back into the brackets truly never sat well with me. I might have been misinformed on the iusse. Possible. You may have been around long enough to read the Posts above sub B5 impossibilities to rank up anymore, and remember when GMs were suddenly Gold. That is my “proof”. Maybe insufficient for you and others, but this along with personal test and experiences is sufficient for me and others.
That was the Bump it seems (11 month bracket), and then is showed up in the top Gen Discussion again, and then People (read me) read the comments and then also comment without ever bothering to check the date 8).
But is Life not a grand stage, amusing and rocky, until the curtain closes for some, and opens with an inheritance for others XD
1 Like
You’re doing it because this game has potential. But that will never be realized EVER. Blizzard will just pump out more trash like OW2 ignoring anything that doesn’t please the majority of the rejects on battlenet.
No, you haven’t.
Unless you’re running multiple accounts here – which has other implications at hand – you have 1 reply to me, and simply posting you ‘disagree’ with ‘most people’ regarding ‘random and luck’ does not me you disagree with me, or with what I have written previously in this topic. When people bump topics after months/years, they generally have not read other posts beside the OP or a specific reply they might be quoting. So, I do not have any prior indication of you ‘disagreeing with me’ and you so declaring seems to be more you relenting on the ‘problems of communication’ instead of actually trying to work around them.
Yea, reading isn’t about things being in a specific order, and only in that order to be understood only in that order. If people are reading a story, then the story may foreshadow something the reader will overlook; once they read further into the story, they may then realize what they read before has more implications than they initially thought, and then re-read something to realize there more be more clues. Is this a fictionally story going on here? No, but that’s an easy example of the importance of ‘reading comprehension’ in people understanding that reading isn’t just about explicit sequence of line after line.
If I read the whole of something, then I’m going to address things “out of order” because there’s a cohesive thought I am writing about (the ‘thesis’ if you will) that will want to address particulars in a different order. Many people only skim through the words, react on an impulse, and look to specifically disagree at things by making claims that they did not actually verify to be true.
Rather than taking the time to check what they, or anyone else actually wrote, they instead fault anyone else for their effectual ignorance. However, since this is a ‘forum’, there isn’t an obligation for people to react on that specific impulse: they can take a moment, double-check things, re-read something, and try to minimize pointless argumentation that stems from their own misunderstanding.
Sure, someone can’t know ‘exactly what I’m thinking’ but they can actually read what is written and respond to that, instead of fixating on select terms and arguing bias and ignorance.
I’m not going to address your line-item list sequentially because I can overgeneralize a large portion of it to be all making the same mistake: you did not read through what I wrote, just want to argue strawman statements, and then act like it’s my fault that you’re doing that.
Your statement about ‘irony’ is especially telling in what you skipped, how you think things are my fault, and the issue of people trying to claim they are better informed by their ignorance. You don’t care about what ‘proof’ is, so since you want to make up confirmations about your suspicions, “of course” you’ll claim you know better, have more ‘proof’ than anyone else, but… not actually show anything for it.
If you want to make an assertion about something you think to be true, then you need more than just claiming things to confirm that. While nobody here is going to copy/past the actual matchmaking code, people can make inferences on related information to see the ‘probably’ of correct information. We’re not limited to deducting reasoning or positivism to deal with ‘suspicious’ activity. Similarly, things are not only a two-sided issue of “oh i think this, and you think that, and things can’t be resolved”
That’s an assertion made by people that don’t know better, don’t want to know better, and are essentially offended by information. The trouble with trying to claim “we agree to disagree” stems from people posting demonstrably false information, and then trying to fault other people for it.
You have posted incorrect things, blame others for it, skim reading, and then reassert things that you haven’t done. Yes, there are issues of communication, but there are also ways to get around that by people actually doing their due-diligence rather than just looking to blame someone else.
Unless you think there’s some other account that you also posted on here, or some other forum you’re posting on that you think I’ve read, a number of the things you have posted as a reply to me are demonstrably false. As such, it looks like you aren’t even putting in the effort to read what you actually write, so of course you aren’t going to read through what other people have done.
When people demonstrate issues of not-reading things, then it tends to confirm they are acting out of superstition, and they don’t have an interest in reconciling their concerns because… that’s how superstitions work. People don’t want ‘to know’ because they claim they already do, and they’ll just look to argue with anyone else for the sake of arguing.
Disregarding what someone writes in favor of attacking something else you inserting instead doesn’t make it ‘right’, and it doesn’t make it a case of ‘agree to disagree’, it just makes it a case of someone wanting to revel in their ignorance, and blame everyone else for it.
** That ** is a bad faith argument there.
Cutting Your whole text short.
You take things out of contextual order, interpreting new meaning into the a story with “foreshadowing”, expectations you have, in other words, overgeneralize (always a good idea to do that), thinking I blame you personally, talking about ‘proof’ and that you’d know better when in-fact I was the one claiming we are on the same level of factual knowledge of what actually happens, while you claim to have proof and know better. Yet I simply refuse to listen to your proof. Which proof?
The assertion that there is one objective Truth, always, and is rational and thus everything else is irrational, is so wrong it’s not even funny. But that would be going off a tangent.
Let’s reiterate, there is no objective ‘proof’ how adaptive matchmaching in HOTS works. If you claim there is you Lie. Yet you claim I must be wrong, because of your large text on adaptive matchmaking. Which is actually irrelevant. For either side. You claim I blame others. For what? Citation needed.
I entertain the possibility of being wrong, if there is proof or a valid good argument. If have been shown this today. Your essay on matchmaking and patents was neither.
Finally I am done with you. Your attitude did not change. You posts make it clear you want to make it personal, stating consistently lies, that ‘I am surprised when people disagree’ or ‘that I blame others’… It shows, as stated before, the worth of your character, in my opinion.
Your thought process does not entertain the possibility that you do not Know better. Hubris at its best. You’d do well in academia, maybe you even are. In the end its another paper and thesis amongst the possible 60% of ‘proofs’ in social studies.
Make it stop mommy! Also, I think this has rather veered off topic for a thread that was created in 2020.
2 Likes
I just accept that when I win it’s because I played better and when I lose it’s because I played worse.
I try not to focus on teammates or enemies or hero balance or map balance etc…
If I lose, I could have done better
To try and help explain why I still play; I simply just like IP and have grown very fond of it while growing up into adulthood. Apart for many bugs that are ignored the gameplay mostly feels smooth and fluid and mechanically it is still one of the best Blizzard games when it comes to player vs player aspect.
Every match is still just as fun as the first but nowadays I don’t play as much because it has become stale. I’m long past the sunken cost phase and will unfortunately never get to spend all the currencies I’ve earned on something meaningful. Basically rerolling every chest despite not needing any rare cosmetic simply because it looks nice when you open a legendary.
Hots game streams understandably aren’t fun anymore because it’s very unlikely I’ll get introduced to some new idea that could alter my gameplay in a meaningful way, and pretty much everyone plays the same 10 heroes everytime. Basically every single player game released in past 10 years has kept me interested for full 2 hrs before I decided I wouldn’t have the patience to go through 15 hours of story mode. Thank God for Twitch, it save me so much money.
Such a shame that they failed so miserably at monetizing a product with such high replicability factor and low production/maintenance cost.
yea, gonna do you a favor here and point out a big part of your disagreement stems from complications of understanding english. However, language barriers aside, you have one big issue with communication in general: there are more than two options for understanding something.
What you have presented is superstitious claims; little else than tin-foil conspiracy rants. What i posted is why those fall into conspiracy rants. I did not show ‘proof’ that you are ‘wrong’, i presented information that your claims are made with false pretenses, and that you don’t actually care about 'proof.
In turn, you have chosen to disregard what I have written, claimed that makes me the ‘liar’ – despite you not understanding the entirety of what I wrote, and blaming me for your incorrect assumptions about the content therein.
THAT is more demonstration of the problems you present: you assert fallacious claims that are not supported by what you assert, and yet you think that ‘better’ than anything else someone has posted, or at the least ‘equal to it’. Undercutting information, denying possibilities you refuse to consider, and faulting other people for you thinking them to be dishonest – despite you not wanting to read things through – is just you looking for something to blame.
If you want people to ride your tin-foil rant theory train, you’re going to have to do more than blame other people for not agreeing with what you write. That goes for any whatever language you’re trying to use to argue.
1 Like