Algorithmic Handicapping is Wrong for Online Games

[Serpentine60-2393]

@rhainsict-1418

Like…. Kinda…. But not really because you need to be learning from your mistakes.

Sometimes that mistake simply is swapping to a support (assuming you’re a support main) that can kill the DPS player who seems oppressive towards your DPS/Supports.

No I mean ops habit of making these threads

[Devils-1895]

@Cleopatra-21937

It’s needed complexity this time. If player loses too often, they give up and stop playing; if player wins too often, they say “it’s so easy it’s boring” and also stop playing.

@Vorna-11793

But the most common effect is basically placing you in games where your team has a huge disadvantage, assuming you should be able to carry them if you are SO good.

I think it can be unintentional result of matchmaking extrapolation. Basically, matchmaking creates match based on where you should be, if you continue like that, rather than where you currently are. And if you peaked at one match, and matchmaking extrapolated those results to create your next matches, you can end up in unbeatable game.

You are expected to show constant improvement.

@Vorna-11793

But that is the problem, the carry mechanic in this game these days is almost none.

That is why you rely on smurfs, to prevent matchmaking screwing you over - as 1 smurf = one less possible potato player on your side.

What you are once again describing is pointless complexity that a system would work out on its own without any systems being added to it.

If you are losing a lot then your MMR will go down and the games will get “easier” because you have a worse MMR. There is zero purpose in trying to “force” a win because the system is already increasing your chance to win by lowering your MMR when you are continually losing games.

Conversely the exact same thing can be said about when you win. As you win your MMR grows and your opponents get better and you are more likely to lose. There is no purpose in fiddling with a system that already does exactly what you propose on its own. It is completely needless complexity and again any junior developer would know better.

[Cleopatra-21937]

@Devils-1895

If you are losing a lot then your MMR will go down and the games will get “easier” because you have a worse MMR.

And how far will you go down? It can be far enough for you to quit playing. Which obviously isn’t result developers want.

[rhainsict-1418]

@Serpentine60-2393

No I mean ops habit of making these threads

Ahhh…. Yes….

Well….

Dunning-Kruger, Egomania, narcissism, projectionism….

It’s clear there are a lot of issues not being addressed.

It’s something you tend to observe in the older generations.

While us millennials may come off as entitled and spoiled (true or not) we’re also very aware of our spirituality.

[Devils-1895]

@Cleopatra-21937

@Devils-1895

If you are losing a lot then your MMR will go down and the games will get “easier” because you have a worse MMR.

And how far will you go down? It can be far enough for you to quit playing. Which obviously isn’t result developers want.

Except literally everyone I know has experienced either a 8+ game win streak or lose streak and many have experienced several. Note: while this sounds rather shocking in a system designed to give you a 50-50 win rate it actually isn’t as you can model similar behavior by flipping a coin though it is slightly less likely than those odds as coin odds are static whereas previous results do have an influence over the next in this context, but it is still a semi common occurrence.

Now during these streaks the game WILL feel harder/easier. This is just common sense. An 8-game win streak will move you from between 150 and 170 SR higher (more obviously on a fresh account) which is a pretty sizable jump which can easily account for any the issues you address so again the algorithm already does what you are saying it does by simply adjusting your MMR as you win and lose. In fact it is in the algorithm’s best interest to place you where you should be as fast as possible so any inefficient programming to do what you suggest would actually hinder the process which gives you a 50-50 win rate anyway.

[McSpanky-11120]

I ain’t reading all that.

I’m happy for you, or sad that something happened.

[Cuthbert-11649]

@TacoLobster-1493

Suppose that tomorrow, Blizzard says “Good points, our bad. We’re eliminating MMR entirely.”

So, what’s next? How is matchmaking done?

Great questions, let’s answer them. Matchmaking would be done according to rank.

@TacoLobster-1493

Is it 100% random?

Yes, with rank distributed across teams as evenly as possible.

@TacoLobster-1493

How about SR? How is that calculated?

SR would go up or down at a flat rate per win/loss, relative to the SR level of competitors, with no “Performance Based” adjustment.

@TacoLobster-1493

Will SR calculations take into account the skill of the various players (and, if it does, aren’t we back into secretly determining numbers based on metrics that are invisible to the players)?

No. When you say “the skill of various players,” you must be referring to MMR. I want MMR to be eliminated, especially in ranked competition, and that is what we’re assuming in your hypothetical dream scenario.

@TacoLobster-1493

How do you know those results will be any better than the current system being decried?

I don’t know what you mean by “better.” The results would be fair.

@Devils-1895

there is some sort of special algorithm out to force you to be at 50% win rate by making sure you win or lose your next game.

That is wrong, and it’s not what I’m saying. Please read the original post or watch the video.

@Serpentine60-2393

“The true sign of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting something to change” -
Albert Einstein.

This is a false meme. Einstein never said that.

@Devils-1895

If you are losing a lot then your MMR will go down and the games will get “easier” because you have a worse MMR.

There’s no guarantee of this. Match Making Rating is based on performance, not win/loss record. A player can go on a losing streak and maintain high MMR if they are playing well.

[rhainsict-1418]

@Cuthbert-11649

That is wrong, and it’s not what I’m saying. Please read the original post or watch the video.

You cherry picked his statement.

[Devils-1895]

Performance is a PART of the formula just as winning/losing is a larger part of the formula. Similar to how performance-based SR works you will not gain for a loss but you could lose less if the system determines you were playing well. Another part if we are talking about SR is probability as well as your closeness to the rating in question. If you are above the average SR of the game/favored to win you will obviously gain less.

The performance-based aspects exist pretty much to counteract smurfs. They do not exist above Plat for that very reason (and that it was probably too hard for them to accurately gauge what is working/not working in a GM game whereas its much easier in a Plat game). I have to see an example of it being consistently wrong since the first few months of the game when they had trouble judging Supports properly. It does its job of getting you closer to where you belong so that you can have a 50-50 win rate. This is the end goal and it is continually accomplished without any shenanigans needed.

[Hyphen-21921]

It amazes me the amount of information someone can have and still have insanely unrealistic expectations.

If anyone literally informs themselves about how matches are created (including stack size and time waiting on the queue), this thread would be pointless.

Can they do a system that is 100% fair? Absolutely.
Will players still deflect and complain it is not totally fair and they are always the “exceptions” ? Yep
Will those matches take an eternity to create? Without any doubt.

Theres literally the same difference between a 2300 player vs a 2500 and then a 2500 vs a 2700. Using their current rank, to prevent golds from playing vs plats is absurd. Mostly because :

• Its not fair really. They have to prove they can play vs Plats to BE in plat. So a 2470 would climb SUPER EASY and have a hard time deranking (because his/her team mates will always be at least equally or better).
• Passive Boosting exists: People get boosted by luck to certain ranks and they truly dont belong there. Without internal MMR, the boosted people will have a way way way way way harder time deranking than ranking up.
• Current Ranks would be based on a DIFFERENT MMR system: What a pointless stance to begin with. So you are going to kick off a system but use the previous one history and thresholds as a starting point?

Yeah no thanks.
No FR, really no thanks. Lets keep the current MMR. And dont even get me started on a “hard reset”.

[Cuthbert-11649]

@Hyphen-21921

Can they do a system that is 100% fair? Absolutely.
Will players still deflect and complain it is not totally fair and they are always the “exceptions” ? Yep
Will those matches take an eternity to create? Without any doubt.

I’m advocating for Competitive Play to be Solo Queue only. Solo Queue matches based purely on rank would be fast and easy to make. You could expect matches within seconds rather than minutes. The reason why Competitive Play is a farce, and why it’s matches take so long to make, is that Overwatch designers tried to accommodate groups in ranked competition, which is impossible to do fairly.

[RodimusPrime-21295]

That could work, but some players are not like you.

They want to play and compete with friends. So you would punish them because of your false belief.

[Hyphen-21921]

So you want an online multiplayer competitive FPS to NOT be able to play with friends/people you know ?
“Tell me you want to kill a Competitive FPS game without saying the word kill”

Also the stacking is just 1 factor and its not the “toughest” one so even if you take that out of the equation, my statement stays:
It would take an eternity and players would still complain, therefore making it a useless change, full of negatives and solving less issues than it creates.

[Sparru-2911]

@Cleopatra-21937

It’s needed complexity this time. If player loses too often, they give up and stop playing; if player wins too often, they say “it’s so easy it’s boring” and also stop playing.

But you don’t need any extra tinfoilhat systems for that. Working matchmaker already solves that. If you keep losing games your SR and MMR will keep going down and as such you will be put in games with other people with lower SR and MMR. You will eventually start winning because the other people are worse and worse. Impact factor of a single player is also relatively low in OW which means even bad players get carried to free wins at times. All of this is also true in the opposite case where someone keeps winning. They are put against better and better people. Unless they are some incredible savant never seen before they will eventually lose. No magic tricks required.

@Cuthbert-11649

Solo Queue matches based purely on rank would be fast and easy to make. You could expect matches within seconds rather than minutes.

What online shooter have you made with millions of players that has a competitive matchmaker that only takes seconds to make fair games?

[Cleopatra-21937]

@Sparru-2911

But you don’t need any extra tinfoilhat systems for that. Working matchmaker already solves that. If you keep losing games your SR and MMR will keep going down

So you get sad from many losses in a row and quit playing. Not good. “Eventually you start winning” is not good enough.

So “tricks” are required, as wins have to be mixed in lose streak to keep player at least somewhat motivated to continue.

Same applies to constant winning - you may simply not reach point, where your legit losses await, as you got bored and stopped playing before that.

[Neopets-11146]

Last time i checked, the forums weren’t a place to post your thesis.

if you expect people to read, you’re going to need to make a tl;dr or condense the heck out of it.

[Sparru-2911]

@Cleopatra-21937

So you get sad from many losses in a row and quit playing. Not good. “Eventually you start winning” is not good enough.

So “tricks” are required, as wins have to be mixed in lose streak to keep player at least somewhat motivated to continue.

Same applies to constant winning - you may simply not reach point, where your legit losses await, as you got bored and stopped playing before that.

What is “many”? It’s pure conjecture. People have had long losing and winning streaks. When does these “tricks” happen? Performance based SR under diamond already helps avoiding long streaks as it boosts you either lower or higher than those wins or losses would normally take you. Losing 10 times in a row would already take you much lower than you were. Also when someone quits is completely personal. It’d be incredibly complex to try fix games for the entire playerbase and when someone has to win or lose.

Here’s a 100% winrate Reaper

100% WINRATE UNRANKED TO GM SOLO QUEUE: REAPER ONLY

Heres a 100% winrate Ashe

EDUCATIONAL 100% WIN RATE UNRANKED TO GM ASHE ONLY BY TOP 100 PLAYER - Overwatch Guide

Why didn’t the system force them to lose? Because it doesn’t exist.

[Sparru-2911]

@FantaZ-21730

You either phrased this wrong or you just didn’t realize how contradictory it is.

It’s actually really funny how they don’t understand this. For some reason they act like all the enemies are not real humans playing this game but instead just npc’s that are there to fix games for them as the entire world revolves only around themselves.

[Cleopatra-21937]

@Sparru-2911

What is “many”?

It’s statistical average of games, where your average player is likely to give up.

@Sparru-2911

all the enemies are not real humans playing this game but instead just npc’s

For matchmaking players are npcs with various stats. Which, based on their previous performance, can be predicted with some accuracy.

[Cuthbert-11649]

@Sparru-2911

What online shooter have you made with millions of players that has a competitive matchmaker that only takes seconds to make fair games?

Your idea of “fair games” is different from my idea of fair games. You are talking about the 50% odds that I am taking issue with, which rely on algorithmic handicapping. Creating a fair matchmaking system that works quickly is not impossible, and it’s not rocket science. And like I said, it would be easy to do based on rank, with solo queue.

@Hyphen-21921

So you want an online multiplayer competitive FPS to NOT be able to play with friends/people you know ?

I think accommodating groups in Quick Play is fine, but trying to accommodate groups in ranked competitive play is impossible to do fairly.

@Hyphen-21921

It would take an eternity and players would still complain

Under the system I’m proposing (ranked-based, solo queue matchmaking), matches could be created practically instantaneously. The whole reason matches take so long to make is because of group accommodation and handicapping.

So you’re wrong, matches would be fast and players would have nothing to complain about, under my proposed system.

@RodimusPrime-21295

That could work, but some players are not like you.

They want to play and compete with friends.

That is what Quick Play should be for, not ranked Competitive Play.

@Sparru-2911

What online shooter have you made with millions of players that has a competitive matchmaker that only takes seconds to make fair games?

Your idea of “fair games” is different from my idea of fair games. You are talking about the 50% odds that I am taking issue with, which rely on algorithmic handicapping. Creating a fair matchmaking system that works quickly is not impossible, and it’s not rocket science. And like I said, it would be easy to do based on rank, with solo queue.

@Hyphen-21921

So you want an online multiplayer competitive FPS to NOT be able to play with friends/people you know ?

I think accommodating groups in Quick Play is fine, but trying to accommodate groups in ranked competitive play is impossible to do fairly.

@Hyphen-21921

It would take an eternity and players would still complain

Under the system I’m proposing (ranked-based, solo queue matchmaking), matches could be created practically instantaneously. The whole reason matches take so long to make is because of group accommodation and handicapping.

So you’re wrong, matches would be fast and players would have nothing to complain about, under my proposed system.

@RodimusPrime-21295

That could work, but some players are not like you.

They want to play and compete with friends.

That is what Quick Play should be for, not ranked Competitive Play.

@Moira-21906

Watch the gameplay in the video and there is also a part where he claims he’s “destined” for higher ranks

I’ll admit the word sounds fanciful, but it is not incorrect in this context. When players talk about being “ranked correctly” by Activision/Blizzard’s duplicitous system, they are assuming that other players have reached a destination where they “belong.” Of course that is absurd, because we see how rank fluctuates between Bronze and Platinum. In an algorithmically handicapped ranked competition, nobody ever truly finds their destiny.

@Devils-1895

Similar to how performance-based SR works you will not gain for a loss but you could lose less if the system determines you were playing well.

Don’t you see how crucial this is? This is why the win/loss result of the game is so important.

Also, why do you trust an algorithm to determine the worth of your contributions to the match? Do you worship it as some divine and infallible judge of player performance?

How are you people tolerating this? Are your minds so bent, your wills so broken that you would be lorded over by a glorified slot machine? Don’t you want to play a real game with fair and transparent rules?

It’s clear that I’m not speaking to true competitive players. I also think you have lost your respective grasps on the concepts of fair competition, truth, and democracy.