Algorithmic Handicapping (MMR/PBSR) is WRONG for Overwatch 2

People literally aren’t observant enough to notice. Or they think it is coincidence after coincidence. So what does it matter, really? Let them enjoy whatever gives them just a bit of fulfillment. They clearly ain’t getting it in a 1v1 game, cuh.

1 Like

I want overwatch to be as challenging as possible without feeling boring

no they havent, they are part of a group of people that are hardstuck and instead of trying to improve, they blame a system that doesnt exist in OW

Thats just stupid. There is no way in this current age that an AI or program can, in real time, predict what happens in a game. There are way too many variables.

But lets do a thought experiment shall we.

If the system is trying desperately to force a win on one team, but say at the last moment the “winning team” hard throws, how would the system respond?

If the system is trying hard to force a loss on one particular player, but they then group up with some players that the system wants to win, how would the system respond? It cant force a win on some players on a team, and a loss on others.

You see, this is why such a system cant exist, there are way too many variables.
If such a system does exist, then competitive integrity would deminish to a point where there is no chance


Seriously this again? You have been banned I believe for spamming this subject over and over again.

You have been posting the same flawed argument over and over again over the years.


Putting you against people of your own SR isn’t handicapping. /thread.


All forms of statistic apart from win and lose are not 100% related to winning or losing. Blizzard using these stats to dictate rank is misleading - they will lead to inaccuracies and perceived unfairness.

However, given that everyone plays within the same system and are ranked in the same way, it is absolutely fair. Just because you dont like how the system works, doesn’t mean its handicapping.

So why not go for a pure system where you rank up based on wins and loses? Smurfs and new players. A win/lose ranking system wouldnt put them in the correct rank fast enough and smurfs would end up ruining low rank play even more than they currently do.

I’m not saying i like how SR and MMR work, because i dont, but its not fraud or handicapping.

1 Like

I stand with you friend!

:pouting_cat: :shield:


The matchmaker should put you against people of your own rank/SR, but it doesn’t. It’s the point of the thread.

What do you think MMR is for, if not algorithmic handicapping?

But everyone does not play within the same system; MMR does not apply to the highest ranks. But It applies to the vast majority of players, in the middle and low ranks.

And everyone is not ranked the same way. Performance-based skill rating adjustment precludes this.

Nothing is as you describe, you are getting it all wrong.

1 Like

Just get unbanned? :sweat_smile:


No, really, everyone is in the same system. The single system has different rules at different skill bands to remove some of the effects of the anti-smurf precautions at the highest ranks (not enough so, but i digress).

Its not like there’s a different game mode for low ranks and high ranks, so, same system.

Everyone IS ranked under the same system and for good reason.

Thanks Deromar, good to see you too.

Algorithmic handicapping can be applied to PvE! This has been done in games like Left 4 Dead, where the developers have openly talked about handicapping algorithm which they called “The Director.” The Director of Left 4 Dead was programmed to adjust the volume and placement of zombies, availability of dynamically spawning resources, and timing of game events in response to the relative strength of each team. The Director was applied to both the pure PVE game mode and single player modes, as well as the PVP game mode which had a PVE element with one side playing survivors and the other playing zombies.

Great question, thanks for asking! This is why I periodically go inactive from the forums; when I come back there are fresh people ready to participate with fresh ideas. Left 4 Dead is one of the first and most prominent applications of algorithmic handicapping that I am aware of. I do not know if it has been applied to Overwatch’s PvE, but in all likelihood it is. Activision/Blizzard has ostensibly modelled Overwatch on titles from Valve Software, such as Team Fortress 2. Far be it from them to break the mold.

Sidenote for all the skeptics out there: I’M NOT MAKING THIS UP, you can Google “Left 4 Dead Director” and verify for yourself.

I have tried EVERYTHING ELSE THAT I CAN THINK OF, besides posting on this forum. I have talked to lawyers. I have reached out to social media influencers. I have contacted game journal publications. I have made my own YouTube channel and a DOCUMENTARY about algorithmic handicapping. I have done everything short of accosting strangers downtown and telling them about algorithmic handicapping. Nothing works, I am gaining no traction. This boat is dead in the water, I am the first to admit.

But yes I do think Big Tech is a soulless monster, a lurching and devouring golem. I know there is no shaming such a thing, so that is why I try to talk to other people. I’ve been able to do that a little bit on YouTube, but I have been better able here.


Why do you keep saying that MMR does not apply to the highest ranks? MMR applies to all ranks. You may be confusing MMR with performance based SR acceleration, but those are two different things.


Wow I had no idea about the whole Left 4 Dead thing. That’s crazy that they can dynamically adjust difficulty like that even after you pick a difficulty “setting”. The only other examples I can think of are newer Super Mario Bros games where the game gives you more items if you keep dying and maybe Resident Evil where zombies get tougher the more you kill them, but these games have no difficulty settings. It will be interesting to see if Overwatch 2 implements this or not, since it would require a lot more development and testing (maybe this is why PvE is taking forever?). I think making the game dynamically easier is less of a problem than making it dynamically more difficult, since this doubles as an anti-frustration feature, but I could see problems with both if it was poorly designed.


Not about being stuck, or climbing at all really. These players have no ambitions to climb the ladder. They simply want consistent fair matches. I don’t see the issue with that.

1 Like

I thought this was a joke and then i saw people pointing out you’ve been posting the same thing for years.


Lets assume everyone in a rank is about the same skill. How does the algorithm decide who ranks up and who ranks down? Winners go up and losers go down, right? Even though they are the same skill. Do you think the algorithm would allow a handful of these players to win (or lose) every match?

Everyone is ranked under the same system, but there are different qualifiers once you rank up or down. They are called qualifier matches and are made purposefully more (or less) difficult in order to test the player to see if they really belong in the next (or previous) rank.

It’s the same as confidence level. Every player that plays has an MMR. And that MMR also has a confidence level. Low confidence means the algorithm doesn’t really know where a player belongs and will test them accordingly, often resulting in higher SR gains/losses. High confidence players will see low SR gains/losses no matter how good/bad they play. That is algorithmic manipulation. It’s not insidious, for the most part. It’s meant to detect trolls, throwers, and smurfs, but it certainly affects every player to some degree for better or worse.

1 Like

I doubt thats what Cuthbert wants as its a fact that back when he played he was a gold player yet he though he should be GM and maybe even T500. I really doubt that kind of player want something like consistent fair matches and not a system he thinks he’ll get to GM with


I don´t really think he knows what MMR actually is
At least sounds like it


What makes you think he wants to be GM?

How is that a fact?

It’s an intellectual trap of an article that relies on heavily bias information justifying a flawed view that really, the easier answer is that the player just wasn’t up to par.

Man wants a system that gives a constant win rather than loss.