Technical papers written by people with no connection to Overwatch. That’s not evidence. And no, I don’t consider a 2015 Activision patent that has never been proven to be used by any game to be evidence either.
My queue times are quite short. I guess you must also be in this experiment group that gets the manipulative matchmaker. I’m not sure what to tell you guys when I’m one of the haves and you’re all have-nots. Sorry, I guess. Incidentally I’m more inclined to spend money than the majority of people on this forum, I plan to buy every battle pass at least.
It might be worth trying the ‘zero tolerance’ approach to bad games; disengage if you get three bad losses (by this I mean at least 2 bad stomps) and play again at your next scheduled session. The EOMM algorithm will soon realise that you don’t like bad losing streaks and they affect your engagement and will adjust your games to suit.
I play solely for the ‘seat of the pants’ games where you have to sweat for every inch, and these games I don’t actually care if I win or lose.
When there is entire industry, that is built on learning about customers and extracting profit from that information, it’s strange to believe, that companies follow some ethics in it.
I never said or implied it’s targeting me personally, though there’s obviously something going on behind the scenes where it impacts some people and not others. Is your experience in comp or qp? What role/s? And the only goal wouldn’t be to only make purchases; it would be to keep people on the treadmill so they can say they have x amount of player hours in game, x amount of mau, keep people in game so that the cosmetics are displayed to those that don’t have them, give wins to players who might otherwise quit. I didn’t grow up with the expectation/possibility of buying in game cosmetics (or battle passes), so all of the skins I earned from OW1 will be all I ever have.
A technical paper that proves that SBMM does not generate the engagement that EOMM does, thus challenging your assertion that a SBMM will improve player engagement by having more balanced games.
I would if I were overly concerned with my rank, but this is the only game I really play, and when I do play it’s 2-3 nights a week and I binge for 4-5 hours, regardless of how the games are going.
This technical paper is affiliated with EA, not Activision. It’s literally just a handful of people proposing a theory. That’s not proof of anything that is being done by the Overwatch team. It’s also not proof that their theory is correct. This is the fundamental problem here - you guys have low standards of proof. This is like saying that because Al Capone made a lot of money, all businesses should be assumed to be working with the mob.
OK, it is clear that, to you, this is a belief system. I also understand the psychology behind it; if you are high in the ranks, it would be quite a downer to accept that you only got there because you exhibited certain behaviours that made the matchmaker put you in easier or more balanced games. The games that I am in are mostly stomp or be stomped with the occasional heartstopper, and mostly losses - like I said, the matchmaker has accepted that I tolerate losses well and still keep coming back; hence it uses me as a punching bag.
The sad thing is, is that skill doesn’t really matter in an EOMM system. You can influence the game a bit, but if you are the good guy on your team with 4 turkeys and the other team has 3 good guys and 2 turkeys, you are going to lose. Another observation in some of my games is that I become the prime target. I’m not easy to kill, but the opposing team go out of their way to kill me since when I die, the team collapses like a sack of crap. This indicates to me that I am a threat to the smart people of the enemy team, and they want me out of the way so they can carry out the turkey shoot unmolested.
Anyway, we have shown you what you can look for. Don’t take my word for it; use your own eyes. Look for the evidence of EOMM when you play and you will see it. You won’t see it if you don’t look.
Like I said, your naivete affects only you. I am now actively carrying out an experiment to see how I can force the EOMM system to give me better games and less stomps.
Since you made that example - Al Capone was caught on tax evasion, as it was literally only mistake he made. He did a lot of illegal things, yet despite that, no one could collect evidence to pin him down for them. No doubt, many believed him to be a good guy, as he was quite popular with average folk.
And yes - every time business makes a lot of money, there are almost always come up connections with the mob. As mob needs money laundry to legalise their money, and who will check every single transaction made by business to be sure, that it comes from legal source? Well, until one very curious(and incorruptable) inspector finally does it, and then everyone are shocked.
As much as I would want to believe, that all people saying, that matchmaking is clean and has no secondary functions, besides making fair games, are completely honest and sincere, their statements made from the face of certain corporation do not sound honest and sincere at all.
I expect similar reaction, if game will manipulate hitboxes. There are complaints on this forum about game not registering their shots, but for now I would hope, that patent on that kind of adjusting gameplay experience wasn’t put into action. Which, by some strange coincidence, is also owned by Activision.
I’m not particularly high in rank, gold/plat in all roles so pretty much the image of an average player. In a sense it is a belief system because there is no way to definitively prove anything when the words of the devs are being ignored. You choose to ignore them because of your belief system. What theory you choose to believe instead is also determined by your belief system. If the idea that you are the matchmaker’s punching bag is what you choose to believe, I can’t say anything to change that.
This is a pretty wild assertion that adds another wrinkle to the theory. Now other players are complicit in keeping your rank down? If you are obviously popping off then yes it’s possible other players may recognize you as the top threat. But this is normal and not part of any rigging. It also doesn’t stop others form climbing ranks.
For the people they put in the benevolent queue, like me, skill absolutely determines whether you climb. You have a lot of influence in a 5v5 game. I’ve not observed any particular pattern of my teammates being dumber than the enemy team, on average.
Holy f… if that is true, this matchmaking is a mess.
noone doubts blizz/activ got way to greedy and left behind their greatness in games but THIS would kinda make it obsolete to play at all since this is a team- and skillbased competitive game even for casuals who are not able to carry but can do good on decent teams.
do you assume this counts for ranked only or even non-ranked?
This same matchmaker system almost certainly exists in quickplay as well; one person in this thread even went so far as to claim it only exists in quickplay. If it is present in quickplay, the most significant difference between quickplay and ranked would likely be the removal of max 1000 SR difference between players that is present only in ranked matches.
Matchmaking is certainly a mess, at least for the players. It is likely that it is functioning exactly as intended relative to the objectives of Blizzard/Activision.
That’s how it goes, unfortunately. If they’re getting push back, then it had to be true. No one would bother arguing if it were false!
Once they fall in there’s no getting out, either. And then they can start to justify everything by referring to times where things were legitimately fishy.
“[bad thing] happened there, so why wouldn’t it happen here?”
Sometimes it goes further;
“[bad thing] is potentially possible, therefore it must be happening”
Then you have people who actually have a background in maths or game dev say “it would take X more effort and money to rig the system instead of just making a basic system that provides the same outcome” and the other side just ignores it.
I don’t doubt some dude has done a paper on “are gamers more likely to keep spending money if I play the words ‘buy more skins’ backwards on repeat in the menu”. And I don’t doubt some exec would buy that up like a fat kid and cake. You still have to prove they’re playing ‘sniks erom yub’ in the menu and not just trot out the usual “well, they’re a for profit company and my financial analysis says this would be a huge success, so if Blizzard is smart like me they would also come to this conclusion!”
Zek is literally on every one of these posts denying 50-50 exists don’t even respond to him he’s just a troll.
It tries and it fails hard that’s why there are so many one sided stomps . You need to stop being in denial the game and match making is god awful and what’s worse is really your logic / critical thinking skills
This . When you go on a win streak you also start going on a lose streak with leavers / feeders etc. It’s guaranteed. This is the denier’s definition of “fair matchmaking”
Wrong . Overwatch has a longer runway for getting to your “true rank” compared to other games like starcraft counterstrrike etc. For those games you will play 20 games, in overwatch you will play 100 games to get to your true rank.
ALSO THIS IS WHY BLIZZARD STOPPED SHOWING RANK / PROFILES / PLAY HISTORY LOL please stop drinknig the koolaid