Ya, no, this is definitely the answer I expected. I mean, how can you sit here and preach about this but when that hypothetical comes up suddenly you clam up and then start leaning on the “I’m probably better than you anyway” argument? What kind of validity in your position does that provide? What kind of support does that give the foundation your argument stands on? Do you even understand the implications of that hypothetical, and that the perception of your treatment through this algorithm likely represents a skewed analysis of your own performance?
And to use this
How can you seriously lean on this if you haven’t played in years? More so, your skill level on OB is 1769… So, please tell me this is an alt account. Please. My SR is 1200 higher than yours. That’s not an algorithm. Do you really think having a low SR arbitrarily means you are actually good and just held back?
You have not offered yourself any credit in your response, but I can see you just wants likes, subscribes and views that stroke your intellectual validations.
Completely absurd. In a ranked competitive system, why should skilled players be algorithmically forced to help unskilled players win matches? What right does Activision/Blizzard have to design and advertise ranked competition this way?
I haven’t “clammed up,” I have answered your hypnotical with specifics and a logical extension. What you are actually noticing is my contempt for your wrong-headed thinking, not that I have been silent as you would like me to be.
We can both claim whatever we want about our own level of skill in Overwatch. Your only reason to raise the hypnotical is to insult me, and my response is likewise. Anyway fun thought experiment, bro.
Read what you wrote- why do the people playing in the match matter? Why does it matter what team they are on? It matters because it is their skill that determines the odds of the match. What if the matchmaker were wrong about the skills of the players involved in the match? What if someone were smurfing or throwing? Would the matchmaker still decide the odds of the match? Or would it be the decisions and abilities of the players in the match?
The matchmaker cannot, in fact, determine the odds of the match, because it is neither playing in the match, nor controlling those who are. But recognizing that it is, in fact, the relative skills of the players in the match that determine the odds of the match goes against your pet theory, so you try to obscure this fact.
You cannot honestly believe, though, that it is not the players in the match who determine the odds of the match. So why do you say these things? Why say things that are obviously untrue? It’s not as persuasive as you think it is. It just makes your argument look weaker.
You should never have to rely on an obvious untruth in an argument you expect someone else to take as credible. (And you really should, at least, attempt to address the fact that all Elo systems operate by making predictions of the outcome of the match before it is played. Your argument relies on people not understanding how Elo systems operate.)
HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THIS. I have stopped playing Overwatch, because of the problems I cite in this thread.
Furthermore, Activision/Blizzard says nothing of Match Making Rating or algorithmic handicapping ANYWHERE in Overatch’s user interface or even in its Terms of Use. Hiding this information constitutes fraud and false advertising when they implement a ranked competitive mode.
You do realize, do you not, that in any given match players will have differing skill levels, yes? There is no way, absolutely no way, for the OW matchmaker to make any match without putting less skilled teammates on teams with more skilled teammates.
What you seem to want would prevent any match from being made. Unless, of course, OW cloned you prior to the match and had you and 5 of your clones play on one team. But since you suppose that the matchmaker can break one law of physics, why not suggest it should be able to clone players in order to ensure that there are no players who are less skilled on one’s team.
So, this is not true at all. I’m going to take another crack at this, because I can expect that you have probably had a lot of aggressive commentary regarding this hypothetical.
The point behind it was, and I reiterate but in an effort for scientific discussion, whether there is or is not a handicap, and you experience what still appears to be a forced win rate/loss, what would your perception of that situation be?
You must put aside your personal feelings regarding this, and your personal ideas of how good you are, and answer this objectively. This is not about your ego or what you think you deserve.
The point of this revolves around the idea of perception, a perception that I do not believe will change as this game deals with 12 people of ever present variance, whether the gap is wide or not. Those dynamics will still result in 1 sided games, because of human beings.
But you could challenge any assumption or hypothesis this way.
If you took thee steps in your room and the fourth one put you on the ceiling, would you rethink your views on gravity? Well you would have to, because you would be on the ceiling.
As people love pointing out, I do not own the IP of Overwatch. There is probably real test data on what you are asking, and I do not have it, Activision/Blizzard does.
Given the issues with said ranked competition being online, people abusing said competitive system is inevitable. Thus, the existence of smurfs and alt-accounts mean countermeasures need to be taken. Those countermeasures that improve low level play experience are exactly what you’re upset about. If you removed MMR and SR, smurfs and alts would stay in low ranks longer.
How are high ranks helping low ranks? You said that removing handicapping would benefit high skill players - that doesnt mean they’re helping low skill players. The system is designed to help low skill players already.
Blizzard/Activision have the right to design the rules of their competition how they wish. Its competitive. Its entirely fair too, since everyone is part of the same system.
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.
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.
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.
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.