That what AI is, good ol fashioned math.
But thats besides the point Blizzard says your SR essentially chases your MMR & they said they try to make the matchmaker create be 50/50 matches, you cannot realistically do both of these things because if matches were 50/50 on average (or the closer it gets to it) you couldn’t chase anything reliably. How does one rank up or dowm reliably when the projected outcome of every match is 50/50 on average? (essentially a coinflip)
Yes!!! People forget most of these math and statistics structures were built decades ago and the hardware caught up.
Not to mention this whole system of predict a match ahead of time and receive feedback is machine learning…
I see, so even having it explained to you is pointless. Looks like you’re going the way of Cuthbert and Receipts; on my ignore list.
Live in your own world - can’t say I didn’t try.
And here i thought were having a logical conversation. You explained what you explained but you did not answer my question, which is regarding something which the Devs said themselves.
I’ll humor you a final time. Call it a going away gift. You want me to talk about 50/50, right?
This is my final statement on the matter:
That whole thread, actually.
Still doesn’t answer the question and is a real lame way to back out the conversation. What am i really expected to read the entire thread? Can you not simply answer the question? Simply a cop out.
You quoted it yourself
One thing that should be noted is the team based competitions are never fair. Traditionally when two sports teams go against each other it’s never a fair match one is always better than the other they’re never created so that they have a 50/50 chance, no official competition ever has. At home video games are the first to do this and while having a constant neverending competition would work fine if it were a just 1 player vs 1 player but gets strange with team dynamics.
You understand how probability works dont you? More specifically averages over time. You also understand that the way they calculate this probability is by measuring Your capacity as a player and the probability is calculated before the match even starts meaning it takes into accounts you as a whole and it winds up as a 50/50 chance. If a fair match was achieved in this sense it would be a 50/50 chance of winning no matter what you did because it took into accounts your skill already.
Now there are some things you can do that can make a difference, like if one match you suddenly decide to start grouping up with your team whereas you’ve never done that before, that would be something that could not be calculated because you’ve never done it and can win you the match. However as soon as you do it it is no longer something that’s incalculable the next match will take that into consideration and will reassess you as a player to balance the next match again close to 50/50 as possible. They’re very limited major things you can do that would make major differences and they get taken into consideration as soon as you decide to do them, once you run out of big ones like that only one thing is left, mechanical ability and mental stratagem and realistically no one improves within one match that drastically to ever make much of a game winning difference, especially in a team game where your personal impact is already limited.
No I’m not saying the game is rigged against you or anything, but realistically, as a game designer myself how exactly does rank progression work if players are consistently put in 50/50 Matches. Now I have my own theories on how It can probably work but I want to hear your answer.
Yes, I expect you to at least look at a topic I specifically said addresses your question. I’ll summarize it though.
My answer is that “it works itself out, over time.” and you’re far too distracted by the moment to moment to see that. Things could be unfair for a few matches and nothing is ever going to be perfect 100% of the time and that’s fine. Pull back and realize that there are 11 other people in that game beside yourself. They are the balancing factor and on the other side is someone who is theoretically on your level, maybe a bit above - that’s why the matchmaker works on team averages.
I tend to wonder about those with your mindset - have you even noticed that the team with the SR deficit is always placed on attack first on Escort and hybrid maps? Have you ever wondered why so many KotH matches result in a second round victory by the team that lost the previous round? Have you closely examined this games map design?
Doesn’t matter, I’m content with not knowing. There is so much more to game design than just whatever matchmaker the system is using. Arguing is exhausting though and I’m done now.
Have a good life. I’ll be muting this thread now, btw.
Im looking at it from the game design aspect, your assuming this to be entirely something else that its not.
Ah an aspiring psychic i see.
Good for you, and i guess that answers my question to you, you dont know the answer.
Of course there’s much more to game design but I wasn’t ask about that “much more” I was talking about this particular aspect because it interests me simply because I don’t know how they do it and probably because I do game
design myself.
Lol, how dramatic. Goodbye forever Compton 
They can be made fair, but it often is asymmetrical balance.
Mainly because heroes exist - Symmetra main and Genji main are both DPS mains, but they are not equal in any way, despite matchmaking treating them as equals.
Matchmaking just doesn’t account for “compatibility” of players. Creating sometimes “fair” compositions, like 2/2/2 with both supports not maining main support heroes(Ana, Baptiste), or both DPS being projectile main vs enemy team with Pharmercy, etc. It’s when by all statistics, game should be fair and balanced, but in reality it’s one-sided.
What i meant wasn’t that competitive games are not fair, competitive games have always been or at least attempt to be fair. The activity which they compete in is fair, but competition is inherently unfair otherwise there wouldn’t be such things as 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc because those rankings signify that even though teams A, B, C came to compete as supposed “equals” team A could be far better than team C and team B could be mediocre, and team A was always going to win against Team C, but what never happens in any official competition is trying to guarantee any fairness beyond leagues or divisions, but all that guarantees is that it wont be an absolute slaughter but not necessarily that you have a 50/50 chance.
Anything with a predicted probability of 50/50 is a essentially a coinflip in the end, the fact that you participate in the game is about as important as you participating in the flipping of the coin, it doesn’t change the predicted probability.
A human players inability or lack of interest to expand their hero pool isn’t a match making issue, nor is it unbalanced. People who are better gamers (relative to their ability to solve a problem) are rewarded.
their understanding and explanations of these systems lack the scope, depth, and sophistication you should have on this topic.
Realizing that OW matchmaking makes for a very poor game experience does not take any advanced studies in SBMM/MMR. Balancing something is not the same as creating a good game experience.
The fact that your main goes up and down in a perfect sine curve feels “forced” and “unnatural”. It’s not just a poor experience - it’s really really poor. You don’t need to study anything to feel the effect.
The fact that your various accounts are stuck in different ranks and that the hour of day that you play your various accounts is more impactful on your rank than the fact that it’s the same person that’s playing them is a poor experience.
The fact that you always get matched up against an enemy player mirroring your performance typically playing the same hero no matter which account and rank you are on keeps your rank mobility “unnaturally” low.
The list of really poor artifacts of the matchmaking system goes on - you don’t have to play more than I’d say 50 hours before you start feeling them.
There designers have a video on youtube where they talk about the datamining they are doing and how excited they are when their skill system seems to model nature’s own bell curve. Watch it and you will realize the designers haven’t actually started out with a clear goal of what is a good game experience. They just think because they see a recognizable patterns in the data that they have caught onto something good when it is actually a monster they created.
Also Blizzard is not going to fix it for OW2 - it’s not their design - it’s just a “drive-by” solution they got from Activision where they can tune some parameters a bit. People are going to briefly love OW2 because of the brilliant hero design (made by a subcontractor to Blizzard) and hate it for the matchmaking. Then they are going to realize the heroes are more or less the same and dump the game again.
The videos you referring to are from the current GDC or before? If you referring to the before the designers did not went into details just mentioned how you could implementate a ranking/competitive system and did a quick historical briefing of how it came from, what were the initial purpose of the Elo and TrueSkill model.
This is where I think we may have to disagree. I cannot follow the logic of players [winning or losing the same number of games as me] as a key indicator or measurement of co-players’ skill.
This is why the group mechanism completely breaks the reasoning behind having a matchmaker in the first place. If your group is solid, and let’s say you spend a week or so climbing the ladder with this group. Regardless if your skill is adequate for the new skill tier you’ve risen to, the fact that you have “won” as many games as others around you at this new skill tier says nothing to your actual skill. It also shows that, for one reason or another, you did not belong at your previous skill tier because you were able to climb.
You could counter-argue that solo-queuing would fix that, but for a player with a dedicated group/team who never solo-queues for comp immediately invalidates any theories put forth in favor of the matchmaker.
In essence, the player has “matched” themselves with humans they choose to play alongside, and against others the matchmaker thinks can beat them. If such a team proves themselves more effective as a unit at winning games and climbing the ladder than “matchmade” players, then it lends credence to other players who feel trapped by the matchmaker itself.
Not that I would disagree with this either, but if we want to discuss quality, then you have to address the disparity that sometimes arises whenever teams of sufficient skill manage to severely outplay teams of insufficient skill. This is made evident by six-stack teams of similarly skilled players (within close SR proximity) which manage to outplay or win the majority of games at their skill level.
This ties in to how well you’re actually doing as well as being a good team player, and playing with teammates who are able to also do well because of your performance. This is why LFG and creating your own personalized teams is a great workaround. If you are doing something wrong, and your team is capable of letting you know where you misstepped, the quality of their advice is invaluable – as opposed to being flamed or harassed by randoms in solo-queue.
So, no. I don’t think the matchmaker in and of itself is without fault. And while I understand that you’re arguing in the affirmative for player self-reflection and self-improvement, I don’t think absolving the system of its faults is entirely correct either. Which is easily demonstrated by a multi-stack of players winning more games than they lose.
If you remove the matchmaker’s ability to matchmake, it cannot create performant teams consistently. Which is what I believe many people are trying to argue here in good faith.
Not that I prefer one camp or the other. Just pointing out my observations. 
If you need some coaching from a GM, feel free to add me on Discord! I will help you out with answering any questions you have regarding improving in the game, as well as give you Live VOD Reviews to help you improve your gameplay <3 =]
Discord: Abdullahx9000#4294
How have you heard of my feeding? 
who hasnt?? lol. it was not a jibe at you fren.
Don’t worry I know homie! haha <3
Well said my man.
I am glad you came to this conclusion, not because I am arbitrarily defending the game, but because the other side of the argument is ludicrous 
Bravo.
You are arbitrarily defending the game if you don’t have any documented evidence that verifies no rigging is in place. You have no objective, counter-factual evidence to offer in defense of the system.
Until then you’re welcome to read the active-use patents, dev statements, and known workings of SBMM.
The rigging is officially documented whereas your take is just arbitrary.