You seem to be working backwards here and thus, misunderstanding the 50-50 quote. What you seem to be saying is that, in the following order, the matchmaker finds 12 players of similar MMR, and then arranges them into two teams to make it a 50-50. I actually don’t agree with that. What I’m saying happens is that the matchmaker creates a 50-50 match BY finding 12 players of similar MMR. The difference here is that you’re saying that arrangement matters, while I’m saying that arrangement doesn’t
If it grabs 12 people that it can’t arrange teams to create a 50 / 50 match then it discards people and keeps looking.
If it only did that then why would there be a need to “synthesize a win rate”? There wouldn’t, they would just grab 12 players of similar MMR and no winrate would need to be synthesized, the match would begin.
This is a hilarious joke. You continue to push self-contradicting examples and ideas, and claim people pointing out the logical flaws is them not understanding it. Ridiculous. Let’s break down exactly what you are saying.
If Blizzard is already calculating win-rates, why would they also create some hand-coded hard-threshold on MMR to see if players are “close enough” to assume the game is balanced? That’s just redundant. They don’t need to define a threshold because if MMR is actually really close, the win % will be 50% anyway.
It’s not that they couldn’t do what you’re saying, it’s just a worse way to implement the same thing. There’s no need for redundant checks. Similar MMRs <=> 50% game.
Lol, you have literally no idea what MMR is, do you?
Estimating a win-rate is based entirely on the MMRs of the players. This is one of the MAIN purposes of any MMR system, to estimate the probability of who will win by comparing MMRs.
Overwatch’s MMR is basically Elo for groups with a few other minor tweaks. The fundamental concepts are the same. Seriously consider reading a little about Elo.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system#Theory
Very ironic that in the same comment you said “I couldn’t grasp the concepts”, you revealed you have absolutely no understanding about what MMR even is.
Are you actually a super troll? How could you not believe someone gets to a moderately high rank solo?
-
99+% of my games have been solo, 100% for the last few seasons. Season 2 is the only season I actually grouped semi-regularly.
-
Plenty of players have STREAMED CLIMBING TO HIGHER RANKS THAN MINE SOLO. Anyone can go on youtube and watch people do it. How can you deny something you can literally go watch?
I’ll make you the same offer I made Cuthbert a long time ago: Add me on battlenet. We can join any type of game you want and I’ll explain how the system works to you. No personal info or anything needed, just chatting through Overwatch.
But I get tired of running circles on the forums. You say something objectively false, I point that out. You ignore it and move on with an example that is self-contradictory, I explain the flaw, you ignore it and move on to something else.
I promise I won’t be an a-hole, but with direct voice-to-voice I won’t let you get away with constantly moving on as your points are disproven. The discussion can progress 100x faster if we can immediately cutoff silly statements like “Blizzard estimating win-rates means they don’t just match on MMR” and address these misunderstandings.
1 Like
Because groups still exist. Matchmaking would be simple as hell if Competitive was solo-queue only or clans/guilds only, but unfortunately, you can get anywhere from 2-5 stacks playing, especially when you consider the even more matchmaking-breaking 1000 SR difference between highest and lowest members in the group. Trying to make a game where you have a 5-stack that looks like (2750-2700-2600-1900-1800) is not a fun time.
But not a program assessing “criteria” to decide their mmr and then forcefully balancing based on that. So yes your example of one sport is bad.
Take OWL, balance teams using this automated system and see how competitive it is. Never mind, you’ll turn it into an argument about something other than how stupid that idea would be. If it isn’t stupid, then why don’t they do it? It is how comp works so either it’s stupid there or it is stupid for OWL. OWL players should all be close to the “same skill” right?
We proved this before. And this assumption you have is on how volatile mmr is. Basically factually wrong. Unless you actually know the code and are defending something we can’t possibly know.
Patently wrong there. Go read them. They are designed to both balance teams for extended gameplay, and to show skins to newer players as a way to encourage purchases. Both do not belong in a comp mode.
You’ve been given a quote (and patents, and a lead designer youtube clip describing this exact process) that this is what they are doing. Thus it is not redundant because this is something actively being done. For a reason even!
So, if it is not redundant then it is describing a handicapping system. Not the fringe upper or lower extreme games “how else do we balance it” like you believe.
2 Likes
Here’s a prime example of handicapping. The person in this video is by his own admission a Grandmaster smurfing in bronze. What happens? The match comes down to the wire with the other team almost winning despite the smurf obliterating the other team. This link should take you to the match at around 56:35 (Junkertown). The matchmaker has handicapped this player so that he easily has the worst players on his team. Watch at the beginning too, the smurfs team almost doesn’t make it past the first checkpoint despite him killing almost their entire team with widowmaker.
This is what makes the game rotten. This should have been a complete blowout with a grandmaster smurf. Now consider this, a person who should be around just 1000SR higher (say, a person who is in mid bronze but should be in mid silver) trying to carry this team so he can rank up properly, it would be impossible if the GM smurf barely could.
4 Likes
the fact that there is no single blue post debunking it after so many people saw it just proves this theory, besides english is not my first language but in Forums TOS there is this:
Inappropriate Language
This category includes language and/or links to websites containing such language or images which:
- Are a mildly inappropriate reference to human anatomy or bodily functions
- Are otherwise considered objectionable
- Bypass the Mature Language filter
If a player is found to have participated in such actions, he/she will:
- Be given a temporary ban from the forums, depending upon severity
I think if this is not true and is truly misleading then this post should be banned for being “otherwise objectionable”, right? And it was created 6 months ago.
1 Like
They don’t care blizzard would be don’t you guys have phones ???
I persist in my argument because it’s important, and because Blizzard has failed to refute it. But I don’t consider the argument to be won, in the absence of their comment. It never will be won, unless it reaches a court of law. Consumers need protection from predatory corporations like Blizzard and the addictive products they design.
This thread is actually over 1 year old. It stands as warning about Match Making Rating (handicapping), which Blizzard has failed to inform players about, either through Overwatch’s user interface or terms of use. I stopped playing Overwatch myself when I realized what the handicapping system was doing to me; how it was wasting my time and energy.
This thread serves as an off ramp for other players to escape Blizzard’s abuse. If you listen to what Blizzard’s own executives are telling us – if you a literate, intelligent person – you will see there is no choice but to stop playing.
2 Likes
I believe one day, Blizzard will divulge the MMR formula.
1 Like
Perhaps on the order of a judge 
You might have a case in Europe if loot boxes were tied to wins. Which they kinda are cuz of medals, but anyway, I digress.
So before divulging the MMR formula, the first ‘baby step’ would to be; have SR/MMR the only thing gained and lost in a comp match.
1 Like
I don’t think there are any baby steps here. Blizzard’s whole Competitive Play model is based on the wrong paradigm. They need to start from scratch, and make matchmaking based on rank exclusively. No other measures of “performance,” no handicapping.
obviously a better ranking team will stand to gain less MMR for a win when facing a worse ranking team, correct?
This is handicapping, but it’s also how a ladder system works.
but yes, no pbsr, no bonus points for delivering a payload that is tough to etc…
1 Like
Regardless of all theories and speculations about how mm works, I can definitely “sense” that if I play bad 1-2 match in a row it’s going to punish me by pushing me in worse games, with worse players and viceversa. Doesn’t mean im gonna necessarily lose those games but i can feel it at all. This game is hardly stat based no matter what people say about teamplay, I’m quite conviced that mmr is someway a stat that can go up or down regardless of winning or losing.
This is what players perceive as win/loss streak and bring that frustration actually ruining the quality of at least 80% of the matches.
MMR doesn’t correspond to wins/losses the way SR does (and even SR is only loosely related to win/loss, because of performance adjustment). Hypothetically speaking, you should be able to gain/lose MMR whether you win or lose, depending on how you played. But we don’t even know if MMR is a single number like SR is.
Unless it was changed somewhere down the line, Blues have expressly stated that MMR gains and losses are contingent upon winning or losing. How much it moves would be the part of the equation that is missing, but if you lose or win, you could reasonably expect it to drop or rise accordingly.
3 Likes
Did you know the only way to climb is to get better and if you don’t get better you will wont climb you will stay were you are.
3 Likes
It’s probably worth mentioning that you can get better but drop rank if you don’t improve at a higher relative rate than the rest of the player base. I think it throws some people off that playing longer doesn’t automatically equate to a better rank.
2 Likes
Incorrect. We know PBSR contributes very little to over all MMR/SR. So if you lost a game but performed outstandingly, you would lose 20 MMR for the loss and gain 5 MMR for your performance. For a net loss of 15.
MMR is probably 2 numbers. Your rank, and how sure the system is about that rank. Look up Glicko rating system.
We need to fight for Blizz to divulge the MMR formula. Participants participating in participations, need to be made aware of the rules. Anything less is sacrilege imho