Where exactly did he say “FORCED 50% WINRATE.”?
2 Likes
Exactly. The context of that post was clearly about forcing 50-50 match odds, which is what the mmr rigging does.
50% winrate is a byproduct of several other factors. There are EOMM (engagement-optimized) patents that try to play with your actual winrate % for some quick gratification and then force you off with loss/churn, but it’s hard to show they apply to overwatch beyond the blatant screenshots.
1 Like
…nowhere in this post do I say “winrate.” The post by another user named malachi after mine says “winrate.” Are you referring to Malachi’s post?
Now I’m even more confused. Are you referring to the list of “Suggested Topics?” Those are controlled by the website, they are not part of my post.
The post of mine that you linked does not say “winrate.” The original post of the thread does not say “winrate.” I have never said “winrate.”
Forced 50% match odds is a thing caused by MMR, that is what I refer to as “algorithmic handicapping.” Forced 50% “winrate” is not a thing, that is a miscnception about how handicapping works.
1 Like
Seriously, can you please explain to me the use of “force” and “rigging” on a system that creates fair matches of undeterminable odds? Or do you not think the “50% odds” is the same as “fair” and “undeterminable”?
3 Likes
Because of stochastics.
You’re forcing the odds, outcomes, expectations, variation, margins - all those higher order uncertain things you’re trying to force them and rig/tamper the lobby selection around all the data+classification you have (mmr) instead of the basic scoring metric (sr) of fairplay sport.
Instead of saying “this is you and some peers, ranked and awared by SR, selected randomly. play to win gl hf.” They’re maximally rigging the outcome.
A lobby tailored for 50-50 chance is one that flattens everyone’s expression, agency, affectance. A natural lobby formation sometimes has 80-20 odds and no performance data is collected because the claim of any legitimate ladder is that SR measures, ranks and pays out by skill without any discriminatory or handicapped progression.
2 Likes
But wouldn’t peers, ranked and awared by SR, selected randomly, also be 50% odds? Assuming that SR was meaningful and accurate, of course?
I just don’t get the difference? Like, if you can create the 50% odds matches, dont’ you already have everyone ranked correctly?
2 Likes
If matches are random around a small SR range then you will percolate to your (proper, deserved, final) rank and achieve a longrun 50% winrate performance once there. This assumes you don’t improve and your skill is relatively stable within that rank. By percolate I mean a random walk against the backdrop of noise (smurfs and rank mismatch effects) biased by your signal (delta over current rank to final deserved rank). The sharper that snr (gradient) the faster you’ll get to your rank (where you would see longrun smooth 50% wr but of course be subjected to local streaks and stomps).
There is zero reason to have an MMR system except for false/fake competition - inclusion for skill-based minorities. The promise of fake pixels you didn’t actually earn really sells and word-of-mouth drives even more sales. But in the end it’s still a rigged sham and this company will pay for it.
2 Likes
Wait, are we talking about winrate or chance to win?
2 Likes
When I say winrate I mean winrate. When I say 50-50 odds I mean chance to win.
They are two different ideas people often conflate. They are related but the driving mechanisms differ.
1 Like
Sure, but I was asking about odds and you had a paragraph about winrate.
What’s going on here?
2 Likes
Selected randomly from within a small SR range would have matches with 80-20, 1-99, 49-51, etc. But the tighter the SR range and better constructed SR metric (reset + steadystate) you would have very, very few 1-99 type matchups. And over the long run you would see that 50% winrate “emerge” assuming you remixed and sampled (randomly) the same pool and no1 changed skill.
Random like this is natural competitive fairness. And you would see fairness emerge, data-free, transparently, for everyone always - rather than having anti-fairness forced down your throat every lobby.
2 Likes
So you actually think that the MMR is good enough to create matches that are, in fact, 50-50 rather than matches that are, in fact, 80-20 but that the system erroneously thinks is 50-50?
Because unless you think that MMR is very, very good, then I don’t see the problem.
And if you think the MMR is that good, then I still don’t see a problem, because it already has you ranked.
2 Likes
Not saying I disagreed, with him, I’m saying I disagreed with you.
The Las Vegas comment is a non-sequitur.
You’re confusing “fair chances” with a lottery system. They’re not the same thing.
And again, you’re question begging. You’re asserting that the current system is fair, without proof; you also can’t prove that the system doesn’t break under a host of different circumstances, or that matchmaking isn’t “engagement based.” A randomized system does away with all of those concerns. So no, you cannot say the “black-box” system and one that operates with no such constraints are functionally the same. That’s not logical.
You also fail to understand statistics apparently. Do you believe that every player in a randomized matchmaking environment would have a 50% chance of winning every match?
Inconsistent how?
You’re basically contradicting yourself here and agreeing with the opposition. I don’t know how many times it’s already been stated that these current practices ARE self-serving and ARE anti-competitive and ARE profit- and churn- driven. The irony here is that you people are advocating for a “get gud” ethic, while seeking to protect a system that debases pure skill.
The argument you’re disagreeing with here is “let competitive actually BE competitive.” There are a TON of different game modes for people who want different experiences. Let competitive be for people who are willing to deal with the harsh realities of a competitive environment. What a concept…
You’re advocating for better players and worse players to be dragged all over the place by their teammates by inflating their wins and losses.
So just say “I’m for the side that doesn’t put the sole focus on competitiveness, I’m more concerned about churn, profitability, player retention, etc.”
I’m also not convinced that people will quit any game or activity in which they’re not carried. Are you saying that every instance of real-world competition or any real world activity where people are not protected from purely skill-based progress is abandoned, or that that activity or competitive environment dies?
“We?”
This is a slippery slope/strawman fallacy here. No one is advocating for a silver players to take on OWL league pros.
The post you’re referencing is a web of speculation and unfounded assertions.
Also, why should I believe that what you say here is true? What evidence do you have that 50% win rates cannot ever be forced (accounting for your sole exception)? I’m not sure that anyone’s ideas about the matchmaker have anything to do with “respect.” These conversations should exist in the realm of observation, inference, and evidence. And generally speaking, just because you disagree with someone’s conclusions is not a reason to belittle their ideas.
What am I clearly “misunderstanding” about the “50% thing.”
And if a curated experience doesn’t change the outcome, why does it exist?
I don’t know what this means.
If you “don’t know” why people feel this way, then you don’t understand the arguments being made.
No I don’t realize that. In SR-based matchmaking, a player would only hit a 50% win rate once they’d arrived at their true skill level. Their win rate leading up to that skill level would not be 50%.
3 Likes
As i understand him, the odds of per matches should be naturally tend towards 50-50 if possible and not forced all the time persistently by the system, it should be opressed by ourselves within an appreciated SR range over time not by that system that forces it straight away. Well i would see the question then occure, does the matchmaker Blizzard implementated can’t do that already?
4 Likes
Exactly where its from actually 
3 Likes
I’m not sure why you said anything then, because I was just relaying a message. You can’t disagree with me here because I only relayed Cuthberts point.
Look man, I don’t think that forced 50% win odds are a thing in the same way that you seem to, but that’s what that means. A 50% win chance is fair, a fair coin, a non-predetermined outcome. I’m not the one saying that the system gives 50% odds. I don’t think the MMR system is that good. I think it tries, but fails. But if you’re claiming that the MMR system forces 50% odds, then you’re saying it’s fair.
If you don’t want each match to be a coin flip but rather hitting a 7 with two dice, then say so. But there are odds attached to everything and if you don’t want it to be 50%, you want it to favor one side over the other. That’s the only two options.
I think it’s clear the developers don’t put a sole focus on competitiveness. I think it’s very odd and extreme that you do. That kind of focus generally only comes at the top levels of any game, video or not. It’s normal to “relax the rules” for those who aren’t top players. It’s a vidya game, bro. If you want different rules, start an OW club and set your own scoring system and brackets.
I also don’t think that a system that randomly assigns people to teams without regard for skill will actually be any better than currently exists. There seems to be some consensus that there should be some restriction so that you don’t have kids playing vs. pros, but this is where I fail to understand your side.
Wouldn’t the best way to make matches be the 12 most evenly matched people possible? If you can do that, who cares how it’s done, whether by SR or MMR? Would this not create an expected 50-50 chance to win either way? I fail to see how an expected 80-20 matchup is somehow competitively superior to a 50-50 one. I fail to see how a match using similar and accurate SR wouldn’t also qualify as “forced, rigged 50% win chance”.
What? Again, are we talking about winrates or chances to win?
If you’re so skeptical and cynical that you think that it’s plausible that winrates are being forced by Blizzard through putting leavers on your team, then ffs stop playing the game. I mean, I’ve stopped playing for less blatant violations.
Um…seriously? Because a 50-50 chance is by definition fair, most likely to be fun, gives the most information about relative skills, and due to the systems in place is technically feasible.
If you put two people of equal skill together in any game, they’ll have a 50% chance to win, each. What I see here is like going out and finding two equally skilled people, giving them a game, and then someone coming in and complaining that this is a “rigged, forced 50% chance” match.
I mean…? Like, what do you want? Unfair matches where the outcome is easily determined beforehand?
Again, you’re confusing win rate and win chance. Which, I mean, it seems you all should know better?
If SR is accurate, then putting two people of the same SR together in a match will create a 50% chance for each of them. I realize I just repeated what I put in above, but like I said, I fail to see any problem here. In fact, what you say you want seems to be what you have, it’s just that you don’t trust SR and MMR to actually match each other. Which is reasonable, but there are so many convoluted terms and descriptions and cries for justice that it’s really hard to tell what you want.
I think you’d find if you focused your wishes and chose your words more carefully, more people would agree with you. But that also means that you’d have to deny and correct those people that really do believe in conspiracy theories.
You’re flirting with the claim that the MMR doesn’t even use skill as a primary factor. We’ll never know. But if it were using engagement instead, you likely wouldn’t see so many complaints. If you could, or did, change the matchmaker to not prioritize ping, skill, and queue time but instead put it as whatever makes people happy…I don’t think you’d see as many complaints (unless of course it were otherwise broken).
3 Likes
The match maker already accomplishes this.
How is the system forcing? 
3 Likes
if only we COULD
it’s unfortunate, they made sure to put a clause in their tos that prohibits third party matchmaking. Pretty much the only reason we don’t have our own faceit or esea.
Doubly unfortunate because it’d have done a fantastic job at gathering likeminded competitive players into a pool without cheating, smurfing, trolling, or other disingenuous players. It would be interesting (and likely a lot of fun) to experience a competitive ladder with only those dedicated and legit players. Lot of complaints would probably evaporate… 
Ofc, the downside is that the live game’s competitive system would probably drop in quality. But, like, is that even a big deal…? It’s already a world apart from pugs, much less scrims. 
3 Likes
It should postmissive as taleswapper explained and why it should of course, the opposing side on that matter think its done premissive at paring the players, which in their eyes is unnecessary or “uncompetitive” in the long run its not naturally.
With a reverse formula of expected possibility of winning a match, its a messy one if you take single instances like SR or MMR only into account but should be possible. How it excactly looks like is the puzzle piece, currently i looking into a coding project of some people on github called OpenSkill, unfortunately it describes models of rating and pairing only hypothetically as i have looked at it, a matchmaking system intervene with that is nonexistent curently or i didn’t found it there it may give some hints and yes if you read on it first its based on Micrsofts TrueSkill rating system, it will may give you goosebumps :).
3 Likes
I mean, it puts people like me that don’t really want such a competitive system in a tough spot. OW is the only game like this I’ve ever played BECAUSE of its excellent MM system. Aside from bad actors, I was never in a match with someone that is significantly worse or better than me on average.
A system like is being proposed, if I understand it correctly, would be a train of “smurfs*” wrecking lower levels on their way up. I would be the head people stepped on the way up the ladder. For those people, I have no doubt that there would be a better feeling of progression and accomplishment up to the point of hitting the peak, but it’s cruel to those below them.
The system is meant to get people to the appropriate level quickly, and the appropriate level is where they experience both a 50% win rate and 50% win chance. It wasn’t without it’s problems, of course, no system is, but I think the people who are both really understand the system AND are still against it on competitive grounds don’t understand that the system they despise is what makes this game palatable for most.
I think that some can recognize that problem and the response ranges from not caring (kinda your response) to acknowledging that it’s an issue, but failing to see that this is the issue solved by the system as it is (kinda BrightTitan’s response).
*they wouldn’t actually be smurfs, of course, just better players who are working their way up the ladder.
3 Likes