I think we agree in every respect except for our outlook. From my perspective, algorithmic handicapping is a different paradigm from what was established in Team Fortress 2 (Overwatch’s predecessor). TF2 had random or voluntarily handicapped matches on servers where players knew each others reputation. MMR was invented for Overwatch to accommodate random assortments of groups and millions of players who are all strangers to each other in a ranked environment, which is not possible to do in the first place.
These inventions are only going to get more sophisticated and more absurd as time goes on because they do what they are supposed to: they keep people addicted to the product.
QP also uses MMR.
I have only “reposted” this thread once or twice. However I have edited it hundreds of times, and re-iterated it from poll to essay to video documentary. The version I have posted here has not been posted anywhere else, it was written specifically for General Discussion.
As both Microsoft’s and Activision’s patents indicate, matchmaking can certainly get worse. Their business model depends on it.
If this is a rhetorical question, it’s a good one
Sadly, that is the case.
You got it.
This is where I lose many, many people such as these:
I don’t blame anyone for being confused on this point. It’s something I am still trying to explain better, because it is a complex case of game theory. I have tried to explain in the OP. If you don’t get it, then you don’t get what is happening in Overwatch’s Competitive Play.
Bhodi has the salient point, so I will refer you to his answer for now. Not sure if I can put it more simply and completely, but I’ll keep thinking about it. All I can say is that there is more to say. Bhodi’s response implies a great deal more which is worth our meditation and discussion.
The matchmaker tries to match 12 players with each other who are as equally skilled as possible.
There is no “desirable” outcome to the match - that would only be the case if the matchmaker intentionally gave one team an advantage.
If you perform better than the matchmaker thought, you can shift that predicted 50:50 chance in your favor.
Do this consistently and your MMR/SR will rise. If you can’t do it consistently you will stay at the 50% winrate because you are were you belong.
This would still be the case even if MMR was removed and matchmaking would work solely based on SR.
The only ways to get rid of the 50:50 chance would be to either intentionally give one team an advantage over the other (which would be the definition of rigging) or to match 12 completely random people with each other.
if I may give my 2 cents
SBMM (skill based match making) in general has the issue of each match is going to be wildly different sometimes because of how the game is set up
That’s not true, the desired outcome is that the match last as long as possible and be closely contested, giving both teams a near-equal chance of winning. The “advantage” of either team is calibrated by the distribution of players according to their MMR, which is based on performance statistics relative to peers in their SR level.
If MMR was removed and matchmaking was based on rank (i.e., SR), then everything would be different and I would not have a complaint. If you think MMR is so unimportant, then why do you think it exists in the first place?
In reality, no match begins with perfect 50% odds for either team to win, because there are measurable and significant differences in skill between players with the same or similar SR. Without MMR, some matches would have near-100% and near-0% odds for the respective teams, at the outset when teams are assigned. Players’ team assignment largely determines the outcome of the match.
Players know that team assignment matters (or at least, we used to know it). Microsoft and Blizzard/Activision know it, and that is why they have instituted algorithmic handicapping in their multiplayer games, even in ranked competition. They don’t want players to experience one-sided matches because it makes weak players quit. They don’t care about real competition and meaningful ranking, they only care about keeping butts in seats.
The difference is that without MMR, the outcome of the match would be intrinsically related to the skill of the players participating. Under the paradigm of MMR/algorithmic handicapping/forced 50%, the outcome of the match is intrinsically unrelated to the skill of participants. You could use the match result as a true measure of skill, without performance-based skill rating adjustment at the end.
Lose a match? Rank down. Win a match? Rank up. That is real competition, not what we have.
P.S.: I have given the first paragraph of the original post another edit. Hope this helps.
You are completely missing the point.
The matchmaker is not determining which team is going to win in advance.
That there is a desired result from using a matchmaker is pretty obvious.
In this case it is to make matches as fair and close as possible by matching equally skilled players with and against each other.
But that has absolutely nothing to do with fixing the outcome of the match.
I never said that it is unimportant.
I just explained that removing MMR will not solve ŘïĝĜèĐ’s issues with the 50:50 chance.
The 50:50 odds are obviously calculated “in a vacuum” and do not consider factors like which heroes or maps you are good at.
The matchmaker does not, can not (and most probably should not) consider all possible variables that can affect the outcome of the match.
So you want Blizzard to intentionally make their matchmaker worse by matching a team of “bad” players against a team of “good” players?
Then how does the matchmaker decide who gets into the team that wins and who into the team that loses?
Also I see no point whatsoever in doing this as long as there are enough players of about equal skill who can get matched against each other.
Like I already explained:
Even if you base the matchmaking on SR instead of MMR you are not getting rid of the average 50% winrate.
You can find the experience you are looking for by participating in Overwatch tournaments with premade teams.
If you haven’t already done so I would strongly recommend to give it a try - also to gain a broader perspective on the issues that come with.
the should employ what ever algorithm maximizes fun.
anyway esport is kinda pointless anyway… South Koreans will win end of story…
the causal end of things is way better…
now if they employ algorithms to some how make the game grindier to sell crap then they can go of somewhere and explode… because that is not fun… unless your made out of money… and really really shallow…
" I was reincarnated as the 7th Prince so I will perfect my magic as I please" (can’t type the japanese name here because it’s not seeing it as japanese.),
Saving 80,000 Gold Coins In The Different World For My Old Age,
Regarding That We Decided To Live In The Countryside With The Female Knight Who Came To Us
I Don’T Want To Be Empress!
Who Made Me A Princess
Doctor Elise: The Royal Lady With The Lamp
Recommend the first one, but the others I vary on opinion.
You’ve never had the pleasure of playing a game that doesn’t have an over-engineered matchmaking system.
In games that don’t have MMR or skill-based matchmaking, no one complains about the matchmaking, so everyone can focus on their own performance. In FFXIV, for instance, new players are automatically in the “new player” pool, and veterans are in the “veterans” pool, and they can also opt into the “guide” pool to get extra rewards for helping the noobs learn the boss fights. Other than those broad categories, matchmaking is totally random, and no one complains about the matchmaking or group composition or what-not. They just play and have fun.
In UT2004, no one complained about matchmaking because all lobbies were random, and you could switch teams mid-game if you wanted. Everyone just played and had fun and didn’t rage about their algorithmically-determined fates.
“Skill”-based matchmaking algorithms will never work. Any effort spent on them is a complete waste of resources. As long as game developers try to get more and more clever with matchmaking rules, you will continue to see these sorts of topics in game forums.
You can’t have a competitive pvp game without some sort of skill based matchmaking. It would make the game miserable for newer players or those who are worse at the game.
In and out pvp games this matters much less in, games like Call of Duty are big examples here, but in Hero Shooters, Mobas, and tactical shooters you NEED some sort of skill based matchmaking. You don’t want pros going against little timmy who can’t hit a shot to save his life.
I agree that clever matchmaking algorithms will get more sophisticated and absurd, but what you’re overlooking is the fact that we’ve all had enough of it and we’re not going to put up with it in a new game. There are too many other games that don’t invoke the cocktail of negative emotions that Overwatch does. Personally I’m so jaded that whenever I see a game that has a competitive ranking system, I reflexively laugh and say: “This BS again? Nope.” To a certain extent, everyone who has played and quit Overwatch (and Heroes of the Storm) is of a similar mindset, and at this point there are about 10x more former Overwatch players than current ones.
That happens to be the one that has the match as close to 50% chance of winning as possible. If everyone one was matched completely at random it would be absolutely miserable for everyone but the top 5%. Even then they would probably get tired of stomping games eventually.
Like I said, you’ve never played non-MMR-based games, so you don’t understand how much better it is without clever algorithms deciding who’s better or worse than who, and whether and how a 50% probability of winning a match should be calculated.
Quake 3 Arena was the first FPS that had serious professional competitive events. No matchmaking. Unreal Tournament '99, 2003, and 2004 all had long runs in competitive amateur and professional PvP, and none of them had matchmaking algorithms. Team Fortress 2 – no “skill”-based matchmaking, and somehow people still play it after all this time. Heck, people still play Q3A even though it’s 20 years old.
As for modern games, I already mentioned FFXIV, but Star Wars: The Old Republic’s PvP modes do not implement clever matchmaking, and that’s what makes them so fun. Yeah, as someone else mentioned, you do get to know the player IDs of the top people, and that’s great – that’s a community in action. Sometimes they get stacked on one team, and you know what happens? Since there’s no SR to hoard, they soft-throw by doing fun but non-optimal strategies, or by choosing Starfighter ships that they want to learn. That’s how it works out naturally when we’re not clawing at each other’s faces for precious SR. It’s just fun. And yeah, you do get noobs on your team sometimes, but no one grouses about it because it’s all random – there’s nothing to complain about, and you see both sides of it every time you play. Without MMR and SR, there are no throwers or boosters, and toxic chat is rare and unwelcome. Cheating happens from time to time, but what’s the point? There’s no incentive to pay money for legitimate hacks when you can’t show off your SR and rank icon to people who otherwise see no value in you as a person.
Cheating and boosting will poison any online competitive gaming system. Until those problems are consistently super-rare, you will never know where you really stand in the hierarchy. So why bother trying to prove your worth when someone with more expendable income than you can easily buy their way to a higher rank? Why rage against a matchmaking system that forces you to play at the top of your ability every time you play? That’s not fun, that’s stressful. It’s work. That’s why there are 5 million monthly Overwatch players right now, and 45 million ex-Overwatch players.
Sorry, thats completly wrong. Public server where laughable. Since raw skill mattered much more in game like quake or q3a, even small skill differences lead to aweful unbalanced teams.
Joining a public server guaranteed me a 99% chance of winning, it felt like easy bots in overwatch. Unless there where someone higher in the food chain.
Team games like CTF where so loopsided that it was no fun at all. Team-DMs had to be balanced 2 vs 6 or worse. UT2004 Onslaught was, a really fun mode, was actally impossible to win with 1 idiot on your team.
So all hardcore gamers played on private servers, where everybody knew everyone and everyones skill. Yes, this was incredible fun. But there is actually no possibilty you can expect this from the millions of players to be their main mode nowadays. You can still replicate this with custom games tho…
You misunderstand me, this is what I meant by doing it organically. A matchmaker that successfully gives every match 50/50 balance will result in players that have a 50% winrate. The only exception is players that are much better or much worse than the broader playerbase, in which case they’ll deviate from that.
