ok. I don’t think it’s a good form. But really, I’m glad you have the good sense to stand up for what you believe in without being insulting. As I said, we aren’t going to change each others minds. Hope I gave you something to think about. If not… .maybe I’ll see you in a future match. Who KNows?
2 Likes
Let’s assume what you’re saying is true and Player A is popping off and has three massive games in a row where they destroy the enemy and carry a game.
The following game - Player A is put on the team with lower SR (and presumably MMR for this discussion) to test if they can continue to carry. This is done to gauge the MMR value and the confidence metric attached to it for Player A.
What, in your opinion, is wrong with that scenario?
nothing is wrong with it, other than competitively… if you play better, you get better opponents. not worse teammates. That’s how you test your mettle, and learn how to be actually better. you lose by a better strategy, instead of losing due to a worse one on your team.
1 Like
Why not? Many people play with an SR goal in mind or just want to see gains made. If it takes longer to reach that goal, or for the player to feel like they’ve improved, wouldn’t that screen time also increase the likelihood of making lootbox purchases?
I don’t think it keeps people from their appropriate ranks, but it would seem to force asymmetric matches and favor loss streaks at that player’s real SR. A player may absolutely deserve to be 2600, but their stats might support an upper MMR percentile for that bracket. Meaning, they will get more difficult games and potentially cause SR losses. If the player knows they should be 2600, but drops to 2300 as their MMR re-adjusts, they are likely to continue playing until they reach that 2600 SR again.
A sort of “rubberband” effect to keep players around longer.
I think your response perfectly summarizes the problem of player perception with the competitive mode in OW, honestly.
I said Player A was put on a team with lower SR. I did not say that the Player A was sandbagged with bad teammates. Player A likely has “better” (from an MMR standpoint) teammates than in their first game. They possibly aren’t even the best or highest rated on their own team.
The natural assumption people tend to make is that “I am doing great, and that means I’m better than other people at this rank”. That is instantly upsetting when the ascension comes to a screeching halt, and people tend to blame teammates when it does.
2 Likes
I think as the playerbase has become diluted (smurfs/alts/less new players) the parameters have changed. I thought for a long time the Matchmaker was fine. Now… I find myself playing with actual bots. I don’t think I’m the greatest. I have no aspirations of trying to grind past Gold. I just want good games. And I don’t think that the matchmaker is providing them. And I don’t know what can be done to make it better… I know what I can suggest with the current one to make it less bad.
2 Likes
I have no problems at all with what you’re saying. I absolutely think the matchmaker could be improved, because match quality can be all over the place. Perhaps it will always be like that, but it just really sucks at times.
To clarify - I think the matchmaker needs work. I just think it possibly needs work in ways that the idea of handicapping doesn’t necessarily apply.
I want you, me, bronze Bob, and diamond Donny, to all have good, fair, and fun matches.
2 Likes
I don’t like averages as they stand right now. I think it needs role average. I bet that would stop my crusade… and I’d go back to thinking the matchmaker is fine. I think because of the numbers of players in each role, the bell curves are skewed and a Gold Tank isn’t the same as a gold dps isn’t the same as a gold support. I think that may be the easiest band-aid to apply until OW2.
2 Likes
I think I understand your position. I don’t know if you’ve played League of Legends but they recently introduced a system called Clash where it does a sort of in-game tournament structure.
I hope it takes off well because I think many OW players would enjoy this mode and if it’s popular there then it could be considered by the devs.
Although, I think you’d prefer more of the Apex Legends approach.
Personally I think it would be a bad fit in OW where the skill expression is much more stark and you have to fight for 10+ minutes just being stomped. Even if everyone in Apex is better than you, they still have to fight each other, so you don’t have to be a punching bag every match.
I don’t see why they would need to specifically code in something that would just happen as a byproduct of the system anyway.
I mean even this idea as presented, do you believe that this is something that could be reliably determined from the collected metrics in the game? We don’t tell the game why we are playing, it can’t tell that we are playing another 10 matches because we needed to get our rank back vs playing another 10 because it’s a lazy afternoon.
To alter player behaviour they have to determine player behaviour but I don’t see any reasonable method of extracting that information in OW.
Their Business analytics told them from the rate a game feature that players like winning and hate losing. So I very much doubt they want to artificially give a player losses.
I guess you could argue that it’s a dark pattern that they know they will win a match if we load up and play a few. So accurate MM again is probably preferable as it maximises the wins available.
2 Likes
Increasing screen time is a pervasive marketing technique that is utilized in nearly all modern websites, tech, and applications. They aren’t “inventing the wheel” here.
Incentivizing player longevity is a key aspect of the gaming industry.
Even if they were “inventing the wheel,” machine learning is capable of extracting and exploiting that information. That’s how it’s done in other markets. There’s also a large body of research concerning game frameworks and their incentive-based intrinsic motivators.
If MMR works the way described, it would do that. That would be accomplished by finding the optimal rating for the player and then increasing the number of losses so that the player is allowed to experience “winning” several games after dropping. It also facilitates win streaks that achieve a “peak” rating–something that might be artificially induced and serve as an incentive for the player to “reach” again.
If that’s the case, it’s less about the statistical win/loss ratios and more about the psychological and physiological management of the player “feeling good” about winning at their skill rating. Perhaps without that system, players would more readily notice the stagnation in their SR and subsequently decrease screen time?
1 Like
In all honesty, this doesn’t help me find where we are in our conversation. I thought we had already gone back and forth about this? You told me to provide proof. I said that my only proof is developer statements and patent filings. But I don’t know what else is required, these are primary sources of information that should be acceptable as proof in my opinion.
Other players have created mathematical models and done statistical analysis on their own games to prove the concept of my argument. But nothing can be more definitive, I should think, than an explicit corroborating statement from Overwatch’s Lead Designer. The description of MMR that Scott Mercer gives 100% matches dictionary-definition handicapping. Automatic/algorithmic handicapping is wrong for ranked competitive play. That’s all there is to it.
3 Likes
I don’t disagree that I oversimplified what I said in that quote, but if you had also read what I said in the first place, it would make a lot more sense.
1 Like
Overwatch players have been calling for in-game tournaments since I started playing 3 years ago.
Nobody is asking you to claim that the MM is perfect.
Just as a reminder….
1 Like
This isn’t proof they are doing anything.
Even if the patent was for handicapping… it would just be proof they have patented the idea. Not that they are using it.
As someone has explained PBSR is not handicapping… You play well and win, you gain a little more. You play well and lose… you lose a little less.
So if you are playing better than everyone slowly you climb to where your stats say you should be. nice fair system,
2 Likes
even the thing you quoted didn’t say that. Nothing is perfect. And I never claimed it is. I offer solutions to things I think are imperfect, knowing that my solutions offered will add new problems. What problems? who knows what problems.
That is reductive at best, if you’re not trying to be insulting. At worst you absolutely have twisted my words.
It’s been a long day of fighting over things that only Activision/Blizzard can lay to rest. Let’s all have a breather.
1 Like
I haven’t fought once. I am giving the benefit of the doubt that rhainsict did not mean to be insulting. But letting him acknowlege if he is. Because I can block internet strangers all day. LO<>
1 Like
As much as I honestly don’t agree with you, I’d still have a mimosa with you on the beach….
4 Likes
I think you don’t get it. I don’t want to be thrown into matches that are impossible to win, and I don’t want to be forced to babysit the worst players in the match. It’s not about sr, it’s about fair chance of winning.
5 Likes
Have you ever considered that only playing mercy/Moira/Lucio, and how you’re playing them, could be the reason you don’t have a fair chance of winning?
1 Like