Algorithmic Handicapping (MMR) is Wrong for Overwatch

[Cuthbert-11649]

@OzoneOOO-1681

Here is where we left off 4 years ago, btw.

The question I asked is at the bottom. I admit, I have been curious.

@OzoneOOO-1681

Explain: how on earth having balanced matches is unproductive for ranking by design? According to my understanding, it’s the MOST productive. Surely you can convince me at least away from MOST productive if you think it’s UNproductive.

I have tried to answer this very question in the original post, which I think you have read:

@Cuthbert-11649

In every match, MMR tells matchmaking which players are relatively strong and which players are relatively weak. The MMR/handicapping system does not put all of the strongest or weakest players on either team (6 v 6) because it predicts that as a one-sided match.

Instead, matchmaking ensures that both teams have a balanced number of strong players and weak players. If one or two players from either team are real standouts (for good or ill), the ratio of strong and weak players might be closer to 2:4 or even 1:5, on either team. MMR is free to place the next-best 6 players in the match to oppose the best individual player, and it often does.

The degree of difference in skill between players is different in every match. But MMR picks up on every discernible difference between players. According to those differences in player skill, matchmaking arranges the teams and effectively handicaps matches, with no regard for individual players’ SR, outside of the 1,000 unit range.

So what’s the problem?
These kinds of matches are unproductive by design; they consistently prove as little as possible about the relative skill of the players participating. When matchmaking uses MMR to mix strong players with weak players, it guarantees in every match that some strong players will move down in rank, and some weak players will move up.

Hypothetically speaking, the most productive match is one where all 6 of the strongest players are on one team and all 6 of the weakest players are on the other. Because in the win/lose result, the strongest players all gain rank and the weakest players all lose rank. Even an impartial matchmaking system would not produce this type of match all of the time. But MMR/handicapping turns it into a unicorn.

MMR circumvents the natural selection process that is supposed to be taking place in Competitive Play. It makes the ranking system inefficient, stagnant, and keeps the ranking system from sorting players according to their merit.

So let me put it differently:

@OzoneOOO-1681

Explain: how on earth having balanced matches is unproductive for ranking by design? According to my understanding, it’s the MOST productive. Surely you can convince me at least away from MOST productive if you think it’s UNproductive.

I think we can all agree the ranking system is the most “productive” when it puts players in the correct order of skill, and lets them rank up/rank down in accordance with their development or degeneration as a player. I’m saying that algorithmically balanced (handicapped) matchmaking is bad for that function because it ignores rank while also making it a certainty that not all of the best players or all of the worst players will have a chance to win or lose the match together (i.e., gain or lose rank). The gain and loss of rank is guaranteed to be distributed evenly between players despite their innate skill and also because of their MMR.

I believe that in ranked competition, matchmaking should be 100% rank-based, random, and solo queue only. To form a match, the Matchmaker takes 12 players from the queue with the same or nearly the same SR score. MMR and PBSR do not exist in this system. Teams are assigned randomly, SR gains/losses from the outcome of the match are equal between teams, flat between players, and nearly the same amount from match to match. I think we can all agree that is a fair system. The system we have is an abomination, a Frankenstein’s monster.

I appreciate you for keeping this topic in your head for all these years, and I’m sorry for the burden we share.