The MMR is by admission a “thumb on the scale”. NOONE knows how heavy the thumb is but everyone knows matches aren’t made strictly by pairing equal SR ratings. If your having a good session the thumb will probably push you up and if your playing badly it will probably pull you down. I don’t think it’s paranoia that sometimes a player will “feel” the thumb on the scale. But the result is just as likely to force a win streak as force a losing one.
Because there is nothing that contradicts, you can’t point it out either and that’s why you come up with the comment that you won’t be able to convince me.
This says mechanical skill isn’t the only skill in the game.
This says that your mechanical skill can compensate for your other skills.
Be a man and step up or just shut it.
Every skill needs to improve in order to climb, not just one.
A platinum widow can’t keep up with top500, that’s not just a whole other league. That’s a whole other universe.
Getting 2 picks a fight isn’t that big of an impact as widow. Especially if we don’t know when the picks happen.
Can we also acknowledge the fact that Overwatch matchmaking has nothing to do with traditional elo systems or TrueSkill because Bliz has already said they created the matchmaker for this game. They borrowed ideas from existing solutions but implemented something different.
The facts truely seem to be rare here. Let me get back to the facts lists:
- Players can climb
- …
Still missing the second, though.
No, you’re just ignorant. Now, not only do I have to get your own comments for you, but I also have to explain to you what you said. Are you ready?
Now let me focus in on the part that I’m talking about.
You’re stuck because the rest of your skillset is terrible, you can compensate to plat with your aim.
Now here’s your other comment.
So you say:
If you’re really that good, you should be able to compensate for any other player due to your mechanical skills.
But you also say:
You’re stuck because the rest of your skillset is terrible.
So which is it? Should I be able to climb or not? You say I should be able to win because of my aim – but then I’m not able to because of my other skills.
This is what people call “contradicting”, buddy. I know it’s hard to grasp, and I can’t believe I have to explain it to you, but try reading things.
Then why are you saying I can’t climb!? If my mechanical skills are that good, then I would be climbing! You literally said it right here! Wow.
Which is why I’m focusing on aiming first so I’m not juggling aim and positioning at the same time.
EXACTLY. Wow. I don’t even know who you’re arguing with at this point.
Congratulations! You have a functioning brain!
2 Likes
Show me this admission with a link (surround with `` to prevent the forum from blocking the message).
Matches are made by MMR, not SR.
“If you do decay, it only affects your current displayed skill rating. This decay does not affect the internal matchmaking rating we use, so we can still place you in fair matches.” – Scott Mercer (3)
“Skill Rating decays but your internal Matchmaking rating (the thing that determines who is matched against who – not SR) does not decay.” – Jeff Kaplan (21)
“We use MMR for matchmaking, not SR” – Overwatch official twitter (25)
“SR isn’t used to make a match.” – William Warnecke (40)
You may be confused about what MMR is. See How Competitive Skill Rating Works (Season 9) for a more complete explanation, especially the summary.
Unfortunately, there are also three posts that indicate or imply that matchmaking is either based on SR or matchmaking is limited to a given SR range (5, 7, 35). Scott Mercer is the author of two of the yes SR posts, as well as one of the no SR posts, so he contradicts himself. The contradiction must be resolved somehow, and I decide in favor of SR being used in no way during matchmaking for the following reasons:
- Whenever MMR and SR are discussed in the same post (including by Scott), it is to say that SR is not used in matchmaking.
- Master+ players regularly see decayed “diamond” players in their matches. And when someone like Seagull decays down to diamond on stream, he is still placed in grandmaster / top 500 matches. If SR was either used for matching, or the limits on matching were restricted by SR, this should not happen.
- SR and MMR are closely linked (22), except for decayed players (who only exist in diamond+) so saying matching is done on one or the other is a distinction without much of a difference. This makes Scott being sloppy with the terms not as surprising and makes the answer to this question less important.
- There hasn’t been any clear revoking of the old system on this point so the belief that we should only keep the newest non-contradictory statement (35) is implausible.
- Generally the people who are insistent that SR and MMR are both used in matchmaking are using it to infer some broken or rigged system with horrible and implausible outcomes that are contradicted by careful analysis, common sense, and unrelated blue posts.
(3) Overwatch Forums
(5) Overwatch Forums
(7) Overwatch Forums
(14) Overwatch Forums
(21) Overwatch Forums
(22) Overwatch Forums
(25) https://twitter.com/playoverwatch/status/850435344457543680
(35) Overwatch Forums
(40) https://twitter.com/ww/status/867570441182826499
No, the blue posts say both have been used since last November and in the live competitive from the beginning of Season 8.
Systems change. It may have been MMR only before but for many months now it’s been both.
https://us.battle.net/forums/en/overwatch/topic/20759648155
See more info from:
https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/overwatch/t/how-forming-teams-mmr-and-sr-work/65276
See? They say we always have different stories, but they all disagree with how the actual matchmaking system functions. I don’t understand how they don’t get that they don’t have all the information. It’s so obvious.
2 Likes
See this? I’m questioning your statement.
A true top500 mechanical skill widow will never get stuck at plat.
I questioning your statement, not contradicing my own.
I will say it again.
If you really have a top500 aim and the mechanical skill that come with it, you will climb. You will compensate other skills with that kind of skill.
You’re still plat , so obviously something is wrong somewhere. I can tell you what is but you would still not believe and keep saying my words are trash
But I’ve already said that my statement wasn’t that I’m a true T500 widow! It was that I’m improving my mechanical skills. That was it.
The matchmaker. We’ve been through this.
I would be delighted for you to tell me without seeing my gameplay! Use your magical wisdom to somehow know what I’m not doing correctly, oh so intellectual Amaro.
Is this your first and only account OP ?
On PC, yes. Got it a few months ago.
I’ve edited my post for completeness. Say hello to the new copy pasta.
This debate reminds me of how people kept following me around saying that quick play MMR was used in competitive, until Jeff finally got around to saying no. So, eventually it should be resolved by an authority.
I don’t know if you read my post yet, but I’ve edited for completeness. My apologies for throwing a book at you. But now you have all the facts and can have a more informed opinion.
If you flipped a coin 20 times it wouldn’t get heads 10 times in a row and tails 10 times in a row. That’s what matchmaker does and that’s why it’s frustrating. If people belong at a specific rating, that’s fine. The streaks shouldn’t be 10 win and 10 loss every time though.
The dead giveaway is being able to predict losing streaks based on an invisible ceiling. Matchmaker acts much more like a stock market than something that fairly matches players.
Who’s contradicting now?
First you can hold your own against top500, later you say you’re not that good…
Yep the matchmaker sure is hunting for you.
Maybe it also wants you to stop playing the game, since it’s already forcing you to have a bad time
Without your gameplay i can only guess, that’s true.
But based on your statement that your aiming skills are better than others at your rank, the skills that stay behind can be gathered with a calculated guess.
Positition and game awereness. Seeing how you’ve been communicating troughout thispost, communication wlll very likely be one as well.
But hey, i’m done talking to a donkey who thinks the matchmaker is out to get him. Enjoy your forced losing streaks
But wait… Didn’t you say:
Holding my own with someone in a widow lobby is not the same to holding my own in an actual match. Again, you’re putting words into my mouth, I only said that I was improving.
If you’re seriously still saying this, I’m almost 100% you don’t know how to read.
How would my communication be determined by how I’m arguing in a post? That doesn’t even make sense. Again, making assumptions without evidence, just like your entire stance on this topic. The fact that you can not admit that we’re all in the dark shows very clearly that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Mmk.
I’ve added the data to Win/Loss Simulation and Data - Google Sheets. Your data is the fourth row. You will probably need to scroll down to see it.
Unfortunately, the original post is locked, so I can’t edit that. I may repost on the new forums at some point.
Everything is consistent with the model (in the second row). The only odd looking thing is that your 4 streaks are on the low side, and your 5 streaks are on the high side, giving a little hump in the streak frequency plot. However, these effects are within 1 sigma, and as such are not statistically significant.
1 Like
What is the R^2 of the sigmoid, btw?
Here is the fit parameters that matlab is returning for Des’s data:
fitresult =
General model:
fitresult(x) = 1-.5*(1+erf((x-a)/(b*sqrt(2))))
Coefficients (with 95% confidence bounds):
a = 2186 (2179, 2194)
b = 289.6 (243.7, 335.6)
gof =
struct with fields:
sse: 1.2548
rsquare: 0.4251
dfe: 215
adjrsquare: 0.4224
rmse: 0.0764
The R^2 isn’t great, but we’d need massively more data to get it down. Also, we’d need massively more data to distinguish what kind of sigmoid is appropriate (we could use a straight line fit with this amount of data and it would work about as well).
1 Like