No, it doesn’t become any more difficult. It’s still anecdotal. Forced losses are still an imaginary thing, used as a crutch by (usually very angry) people who refuse to work on improving themselves and instead prefer to blame external factors for their own failures.
2 Likes
Wrong. If you have enough multi-lateral anecdotal evidence you can form belief/conclude via consensus.
No evidence of that.
No evidence of that.
No evidence of that.
No evidence of that. We’re bringing to light the probable existence of an external factor in ‘rigged’ matches and ‘forced’ losses which constitute unjust ladder backpressure (we have definitions for what that entails).
I didn’t claim otherwise. People used to do that all the time back in the day when everyone knew that the Earth is flat and the Sun orbited it.
No (non-anecdotal) evidence to the contrary, but plenty of communication from the developers (you know, the people with access to the actual code base) saying otherwise. Are you saying the developers are lying? Gonna need some proof there, if so.
LOL… yeah, nobody on the forums angrily typing about the forced losses myth. Sure.
1 Like
Remember that these “forced loss people” seem to all believe the Matchmaker is a big conspiracy, and getting matched against even opponents is a BAD thing that holds them back and forces them to buy new accounts.
2 Likes
Imagine thinking a fair fight is a forced loss. 
Yes you did. You can not downplay anecdotal evidence solely on the grounds that its anecdotal. That is fallacious. You have to offer something more. You have provided no sound counter evidence, and we have a lot of data points suggesting forced losses are a thing.
We have a lot of posts from people who refuse to take any personal responsibility. Personally, I believe that’s a much more important factor in the equation. I have even more “evidence” of that than you do of your conspiracy theory.
Its more about fair ranking then matchmaking. You shouldn’t ever have to struggle and have to perform like a diamond to get 1 win in 10 at bottom 500 aka bottom 0.1% players ranked by skill.
The idea, obviously, is that they would skyrocket if it was just “any random of the same tier vs them” while the others, the bad ones (who are not them) would fall like rocks, making room for them in Master and above.
1 Like
It’s absolutely mind-blowing thinking about the thousands of Top 500 players stuck in Bronze!
1 Like
Apparently not that obvious. The idea is that a series of matches occurring around e.g. 600sr, the bottom 0.37% or whatever (using the antiquated TrueSkill curves), should be literally the most abysmal, unskilled, unaware, unmechanical Overwatch you could practically put together. The thermodynamic output required to convert a win at those levels should be remarkably easy.
Since it is not, as validated by multiple vod reviews, coaching analysis, countless posts/stories, streams/uploads, etc. Then you have either a matchmaking problem, a ranking problem, and/or both. The basis for these complains is a systemic one. It is a far-reaching issue that transcends individual victims.
Either way it is a ladder integrity problem and it is very much real.
This ought to be unacceptable in esports 2019 and unacceptable for AAA publishers.
2 Likes
It’s very much not real. You’re more than welcome to provide proof otherwise, like you said you would several days ago.
1 Like
Still waiting for your proof otherwise. I posted screenshots btw. You have posted…wait for it…zero.
2 Likes
And yet it always boils down to having to fight a fair fight somehow holds you guys back.
As for the main subject: again, no they are not real, and the reason you lose is because you belong in a lower tier.
1 Like
I’m not the one making the extraordinary claim - the developers have, on more than one occasion - stated that there is no rigging apart from making a fair match. There is no such thing as forced losses, and if you want anyone to take you seriously you’re going to have to provide some hard evidence. As much as you like to throw around the term “data science” I thought this would be more obvious to you. The burden of proof is on you.
Any counter-evidence for why? We have batches of 600sr matches collected. Experts agree the gameplay is not bottom 0.37% of all players ranked by skill.
Something no one seems to be able to explain without invoking a matching/ranking problem.
1 Like
I just showed you a bunch of lost matches at 600sr with not even a single win distributed in as would be the statistical norm. This happens regularly most nights, and the replays are constantly analyzed by vod-reviews, qualified as being way above 600sr calibre.
Looks like you’re the one throwing that term around.
This is more of an existence problem than a quantification one.
I think at this point you should 1. link the relevant dev quote where they explain ‘no rigged matches’. 2. Compute the probability of losing 10 matches in a row at bottom 0.37% asuming they are correctly labelled as such (~600sr). 3. Sit.
1 Like
Ah.
You don’t understand statistics. That explains things.
1 Like
Right lol. Please tell me the odds. Time for some school. I’ll wait.
1 Like
The odds has nothing to do with it. The odds is just the odds. Not an indicator of if something is random or not, or fixed or not.
The human brain thinks that “20% chance” means something is wrong unless you win 1 / 5 times.
In reality, it’s not until you pass several 1000 turns, that you get to see if there is a problem.
In fact, if you on average DID get a win every 5 times already after only 20 attempts or so, the system WOULD be rigged. The fact that you might lose 45 times in a row is actually proving that it is more likely not to be rigged.
But again, the human brain isn’t very good at these things and assumes something is “wrong” if you don’t get a win every 5 tries. “It says 20% chance! That’s 1 / 5! The computer is cheating if I don’t win 1 / 5 times!”
1 Like