The point of this thread is to once again display that the matchmakers are telling us things work one way, but the actual evidence tells us something completely different. The key quotes are below. Activision denying skill based matchmaking yet content creators tested it and say they’ve proven otherwise. Basically players have tested to see that when they start to play poorly they are given better lobbies that are easier to win in, better teammates, and worse opponents. When you practice and play better you are “punished” by having your skill offset by either better enemies on the other team, or bad teammates.
Did you practice your aim a bunch so you can be the best in the match? Too bad, you’ll be expected to work overtime and carry games and even then you might barely win. Did you take a break and lose a lot of your skill? Great news, your games will be carried by better players (the ones who practiced their aim a bunch in the first scenario). Sound like Overwatch to you?
Ever won a bunch of games and then gone on a loss streak that blew your mind? That’s not bad luck and it’s not normal, I can only guess that’s the matchmaker overestimating your skill and placing you in the wrong lobbies.
The takeaway? Skill based matchmaking can have bad results and the matchmaker folks are not being transparent about it. Things need to improve.
The SBMM algorithm takes into account a player’s prior five games , which will affect the average K/D in each lobby. One can test the theory by getting zero kills in five straight matches. The player’s sixth match will be far easier, and the system encourages players to reverse boost for a better match.
For players with above-average K/Ds, the current state of SBMM in Warzone can be frustrating. Players that have one or two decent games are punished with much better [more difficult] lobbies.
I’m like 90% sure Jeff has explicitly talked about this, no? I could have sworn there was a dev update from 2017-18 where he talks about it.
The easier games after a loss streak aren’t entirely there to throw the player a bone for player retention and morale, (that’s just a nice side effect), it’s the Matchmaker going “Damn this guy sucks, lets see how badly he messes this up”. And if you lose that easy match, the match maker is gonna weight it more heavily than the previous losses
…all that articles shows is that if you play better, you will be in games with other players that also play better.
And that is because they claim that there is no skill based matchmaking. But the evidence presented shows that there is in fact skill based matchmaking. Basically, it’s the equivalency of saying that if you play consistently like a GM, you will be placed in games with other GM’s.
“However, Warzone’s SBMM has several brackets in place for below average, average, and above-average players. The average kill death ratio of players in Warzone is somewhere around a .8 K/D. Players that have a 1.5 K/D or higher will almost always be placed in an above-average lobby. Above-average lobbies will usually have an average K/D of 1.1 and higher.”
There is nothing in that article to even suggest handicapped MMR. Unless by handicapped MMR, you mean to say “matchmaking.”
And before you quote this :
" Skill-based matchmaking will take into account the average K/D of each team in Warzone . This means that players with the lowest K/D on a team will have to play against better opponents and players with higher K/Ds will be playing against less skilled opponents."
Of course someone in the game is going to have the highest K/D, and someone in the game will have the lowest K/D. That’s kind of stating the obvious.
To put it simply, all it says is that if you play really well, you’ll be put into lobbies where everyone plays really well.
I mean, the article directly says that the system in warzone uses EOMM. That means the matchmaker will consider the player’s risk of ending their session and use that information to build lobbies that will keep them interested.
Whether you believe the article or not is up to you, but what you’re responding to there is what the article actually says.
Most competative games have SR/MMR resets either every season or every 3 months.
Overwatch SR hasn’t changed for anyone in 5+ years… that’s not healthy for any game.
Placements go either +150sr or -150sr… doesn’t matter your performance.
It’s a really shi@ty MM system and hopefully Blizzard learns from its mistakes in OW2. If its the same… nobody will care about ranked much like people do now.
It will PUT them in a lobby that will keep them interested. Not BUILD lobbies specifically for them, lol. And all that means is that if they’ve been playing really badly, it will put them in an easier lobby. Or in a stronger lobby, if they’ve been playing really well.
But nowhere in the article does it say anything even remotely close to this.
Ok here’s what I said, “When you practice and play better you are “punished” by having your skill offset by either better enemies on the other team, or bad teammates.”
Here’s what the article said:
Players that have one or two decent games are punished with much better lobbies.
and
JGOD, Xclusive Ace, and Drift0r have tested the skill of lobbies based on the kill death ratio of a player. The results of their testing are incontrovertible, and players that improve their K/D will have tougher opponents.
So what I said is paraphrasing almost exactly what the article said. The takeaway is this: If someone puts in time and practices to become better than the average person, then when they play they should always be better than the average person. Instead, what’s happening is people who are better get quarantined so they only play against people of equal or greater skill. So what the hell is the point of getting better if your matches are immediately handicapped so you never get to use your skill to beat people??
We all may as well never practice and get better if we’ll always be the average person in whatever lobby the matchmaker creates. Does anyone see the problem here? This is basically socialism/communism in a matchmaker rofl
Yeah, the arguments in BRs are backwards. Those players hate SBMM because they want a bunch of people to squash and then only good players at the end of the game.
If your SR/MMR goes down, the average skill level of all players in your games will drop.
That has absolutely nothing to do with matchmaking trying to force a win for one or the other side.
It is truly amazing how many people are struggling with this simple concept
What you just described is the definition of any elo system. You play better, get a higher elo (mmr and sr), you verse players of higher elo and then the games get more difficult.
im currently grinding credits and can confirm always play your worse. the worse you play the better your teammates, the better you play the worse your team mates. the outcome is a complete coinflip so always put in minimum effort if you just want to chill and farm credits. weird that the game actually incentives you to soft throw.
I guess you just don’t like playing in fair matches? And that’s fine. I didn’t realize that was your point though, lol. Being that, it’s not what you originally said.
I guess not?
The only problem I see is that it sounds like you prefer to stomp on newbs, rather than playing against opponents of equal skill. Which is fine, I guess. There’s a term for that in overwatch. It’s called “smurfing.”
It’s just that most people like to play with people of equal skill. Whether that person is above or below average. So, call that socialism/communism if you want (even though that makes no sense), but what it’s called is simply, a matchmaker.
