This is just a complete misunderstanding of the argument being made.
1 Like
They’re saying they don’t want a managed experience, where who wins and who loses is partially determined by Blizzard’s matchmaking system, since that system may contaminate/subvert the pure expression of skill with other motivations like player engagement or total play time.
What you call an “unbalanced experience” is just what happens in real life when any assortment of people get together and compete.
Would anyone want the NFL to take a quarterback from one team and put him on the other team because it’d make for a closer contest? Would anyone consider that competitive? Would you want to be winning at a poker table, and have a great player placed at your table because you were doing too well?
Their argument is let the process sort itself out as it does in countless other environments and may the best man win. The other aspect of their argument is that MMR based matchmaking conflicts with “competition” as it is typically understood, asserting itself to be one thing, when it is really something else.
4 Likes
Who cares and so what? Where did OP say that climbing isn’t possible?
1 Like
about nobody being able to climb? not sure. About Cuthbert himself not being able to climb due to MMR? several times in other posts
I’ve never seen him say that, and I can’t see that being a reasonable argument since some people do climb, obviously.
2 Likes
Here he is saying that he thinks the system is preventing him from climbing.
An FYI for if you didnt know, Cuthbert is a gold player, reach plat, dropped down to silver, yet thinks he is a GM level player. I think this is the reason he is making these kind of posts, he thinks way too highly of himself and the fact he cant get close to GM must mean the system is wrong. He has even stated before in a now removed post that he likes games without MMR because its easier to get more wins, A.K.A. he likes to play against people worse than him, not equal.
2 Likes
I think you have to separate out his evaluations of his own ability from his criticisms of the game. They’re two different sets of claims. Lots of people will say “you’re just complaining because you’re hardstuck” which is an ad hominem attack that has nothing to do with the soundness of his argument. He could be the worst player in the world, and his criticisms about the game itself could still be valid.
His claims about his potential as a player can’t really be addressed one way or the other since they’re speculation. Assertions without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
4 Likes
Although this is true, it can be hard to determine how objective someone is being when they provide this as an aside to their claim. We should be weary of the truth of it.
Unless there’s evidence for the claim, it has no place in the argument and doesn’t need to be considered one way or the other. It doesn’t matter how objective he’s being, what matters is his conclusions. If it’s a flawed argument, his level of objectivity, be it high or low, can’t salvage the argument so it’s a non-factor.
2 Likes
Remember when people were concise and got to the point?
Yeah Me neither.
3 Likes
I would need hard proof Blizzard is forcing wins/losses on people and the “50% winrate” isn’t just a byproduct of being placed with/against people of equal skill to your own.
If no hard proof can be provided (And frankly it hasnt) this thread basically just falls onto conspiratorial thinking and not keeping your ego in check.
1 Like
This is my concern right. If you get a fair game it’s still a 50/50 chance of winning, especially with 12 people being involved. I honestly don’t imagine it would look much different to a lot of people if it went one way or the other.
1 Like
It wouldn’t. People might win more when they’re climbing but you’ll peak eventually. I used to be a big Brawlhalla player and I was in the “top 500” by rating. Once I peaked I basically just entered a cycle of winning a few games and then losing a few. The same thing would happen in OW. You’ll reach the SR you deserve to be and you’ll just enter 50/50 matches anyways.
3 Likes
And for example, what would qualify as proof in this situation? Also Blizzard has already stated that they’re going for 50% odds that either team could win.
False. You’re implying that anything for which there is no “hard proof” is “basically conspiratorial” thinking. That’s just objectively false and your reasoning is on that is flawed.
And if you’ve got no “hard proof” that his criticisms are ego-driven, you’re just “falling into conspiratorial thinking.” …Your logic…
2 Likes
I mean I appreciate the effort here but he specifically mentioned there not being a meta if the game was balanced. So while you put a lot into that it doesn’t have much merit here
Well, I’m a bronze ranked player, and I’ll tell you right now that if MMR disappeared and I had to get slaughtered by play against gold+ ranked players almost every game, I’d simply stop playing.
I also don’t think my gold+ rated teammates would appreciate having me on their team dragging them down.
It’ll never happen. Big tech are some of the largest donors to politicians, who then put policies into law that favor big tech. It’s a whole club, and you aren’t in it.
It’s called corruption, and it runs much deeper in our governments than most people realize. It’s disgusting, both/all political parties do it, and there’s nothing you can do about it.
As for “forced 50% winrate”, you aren’t forced to win 50% of the time. The matchmaker makes matches that it thinks will be even and both teams have a 50% chance of winning. In order to climb (or fall), you have to prove it wrong. That’s how it works, you’re not going to be able to stay at the same skill level and rise or fall drastically.
2 Likes
Lol, ignore my response. I got confused about who you were responding to and therefore what you were asking.
Just something to think about. How does everyone feel about the content of this video?
3 Likes
I didn’t watch the video but I can give my opinion.
I think the algorithmic matchmaker that’s designed to make certain matches harder and easier is good…if the game wasn’t too team dependent to where your impact is at the mercy of your teammates doing well. If it was other games like Valorant, this system would work quite well, provided they don’t make the game unwinnable or unlosable, but only slightly harder to win or lose depending on your performance to keep you more engaged.
So on paper this system makes sense and I’m not against it. But when it’s implemented in a team based game that’s overly team dependent like OW1, I just don’t see it being a good idea. That video you’re referring to is talking about League of Legeneds as well and from my knowledge MOBA games in general are also heavily team dependent as well similarly to Overwatch, so I don’t see it working in those genre of games either.
This system would only make sense on games that’s more skill-based and less team dependent, like StarCraft 2, CS:GO, and Valorant. The more team dependent the game is, the more they should tone down on this handicapping system IMO. In summary, I think it’s okay to have it in Overwatch, but it might need to be toned down a notch as long as the game remains heavily team dependent.
2 Likes