No offense but you are probably one of those people the rigged MM is created for.
You have ZERO understanding for competitive aspects.
At the moment a HIDDEN SYSTEM choose mathematically teammates and enemies to create a match it is RIGGED.
Unrigged, natural and COMPETITIVE means that the MM throws 12 RANDOM players in one lobby around the same SR.
Its like your Dad plays chess with you and because he is way better than you he isnt allowed to use his queen. Then you win. But was it a FAIR win? Lol. No it was rigged because you are low mmr and your Daddy needed to be handicapped.
Its like your class in school gets a test but YOU are the only one getting an easy test and the rest gets a very hard one because YOU are the worst in the class and teachers know that.
Then you had the best outcome out of all tests. But was it fair? lol no it was rigged because you are the worst student and your test was handicapped.
I can give you 1000 more examples of real life or sports things if you want to explain COMPETITIVE ASPECTS for you.
Exactly! And why? Because of casuals. I play video games since over 20 years. Im 29 now and when I started with competitive games those games had just true gamers. Now its full of hardcore casuals that have to be „protected“ from the evil evil hardcore gamers with way more experience.
My first CoD was MW1 back in 2007. i started this game almost 1 years after release and my first matches I got DESTROYED by better more experience players. but did I just rage quit and cry? NO i wanted to be as good as them or even better! they showed me how good you can be. and then I watched guides, trained my aim etc and became better then them. And today? everyone protected by SBMM and forced 50% winrate. They just get babysitted. disgusting.
My first serious game was CoD4 and MW2. Hardcore mode only. Knives and tomahawks only.
After Black Ops 1 came out, things started to change. The aim mechanics weren’t as snappy, but no problem. Then the melee kills took noticeably longer. Okay, not a huge problem but that throws a huge wrench into my game. Then MW3 and BO2 came out. The gameplay felt worse, slower. Then BO3 introduced jet packs. Now we have people running on walls and ceilings, and jumping 100 feet into the air. Alright, I’ll give up knives I guess. Can’t hurt to click on heads.
The entire time I didn’t realize games were becoming more normative and casual. It didn’t require much skill to play as good as the top players in a lobby, because it was harder to mechanically play better than what was allowed.
It’s the same thing for SSBM and SSBB, and to an extent SSB4. Melee was, and in some regards still is, the best mechanical competitive brawler. Until Brawl, where everything crawled to a standstill and everything felt slow. Then SSB4 came out and was a bit snappier, but still reminiscent of the old Brawl speed.
Good old console days with a bunch of nerds around a TV. Even the bring-your-own-controller tourneys. Good stuff.
Blizzard hasn’t given an exact conversion between SR and MMR. Zero MMR is approximately 2350 SR (which is where new players start out, Initial Competitive Skill Rating, Decrypted)
We can approximate that 1 MMR is about 833 SR (5000/6), but we don’t know exactly.
There is also tweaking at the edges to prevent people from getting maximum or minimum SR. SR just isn’t displayed below 500. And as you get close to 5000, there is an SR debuff, that is unlikely to effect MMR:
OK, thank you for the well wishes. I’ve had success in using the information in this Guide to climb from around 700 SR to 2100 SR. The guide has correct information in it. It has been correct for years, but people continue to spread conspiracy theories and dishonesty about the supposed nefarious intentions of “the matchmaker”.
I am playing since day 1 on at least 20 different accounts. Im 4508 peak on console and low gm peak on pc. I have SIX THOUSAND hours in this game. And you are trying to tell me about your amazing bronze to gold climb? Lost.
But rankshaming aside:
What I like the most about this missinformation post is the headline.
„How the matchmaking works“
Matchmaking is based on HIDDEN mmr. Intransparent. Hidden. A hidden „rank“ besides your SR.
Its really cool if someone is trying to explain it and follow up with „oh the system is actually a secret“
Sure we have a normal ladder based SR system… but but… we have to use hidden mmr for the teambuildings as well.
Yeah. And santa claus is my dad.
Im new to this braindead forum but my experience with this game is another dimension than yours my friend.
Btw: if you dont believe me about the matchmaking. You could ask a ex pro player? Maybe you believe Surefour. Just go on twitch and ask him HOW THE MM WORKS.
Your answer will maybe shock you
SPOILER: he said many times the MM is rigged and ALL players are mathematically chosen to force 50% winrates.
ohh hell I wonder why ive seen in my 6 K hours THOUSANDS of career profiles and ALL of them had about 50% winrate. The bad AND the good players I played with.
Have fun with your dumpster climb.
Thanks for posting this, unlike others, I’ve been wanting this exact information. For those of us down in low bronze, now I have a way to describe just how few of us there must be. When I was <500 and I’d get a match with teammates worse than me, I’d think, how can they even find players even further out in STD than me?
Anyone that understand statistical models realizes that at the extreme ends of the skill spectrum that the matchmaker has a much harder job for a variety of reasons, all covered in the guide.
It’s fortunate that you don’t have to believe me, or base your understanding on my experience, because the words of the devs have been conveniently cataloged here in this very high quality guide for you to read and enjoy.
For the top 500 players, a more formal structure that intentionally sets up matches would be feasible and much higher quality than the random queueing that is enabled by the matchmaker. That better system would be manual and very laborious. In fact, the ideal basically looks like Overwatch League, right? When you get to the absolute highest levels of competition, there already exists alternatives to the matchmaker. Basically, the rankings in the top 500 should not be seen as more accurate than the other official top end competitive systems.
The matchmaker handles the situation correctly for basically 95% + of the player base, and is pretty good for the other 4%.
A 50% winrate means the matchmaker is doing its job… It’s finding games for you that are just the right level of challenge, such that you might win or lose any one of the matches.
Sports and competition isn’t controversial, it’s the way matches are made. How would you like it if the NBA created games where it moved players between teams to create a ‘fair’ game? In that case, ‘team’ loses it’s meaning, especially when you rank the players individually and they have no say in which teams they get placed on.
You absolutely ignored everything I said about the SR system and why MMR system is NOT needed to have a „fair“ match based on Ladder SR system.
Yes. The MM „works“ for Blizzards intention. Not for the playerbase.
How is this hard to understand???
At this moment when the MM is trying to choose MATHEMATICALLY teammates and enemies to create a match with 50:50 outcome it is RIGGED.
It would NOT be rigged if it just would put 12 random players together JUST BASED on their current SR.
IF the MM tries to create a 50:50 outcome that means that there will be a mix of higher mmr players and lower MMr players (BUT THEY ARE ON THE SAME RANK??? Lol system failed)
In that case ALL higher mmr players are get a horrible experience because they are the babysitters for the low mmr players which are added to the match to create the „fair“ 50:50 outcome. Dude even a Gold player has to understand this.
Even I lost rounds with 45% of teamdmg and 80% kill participation in diamond and masters. 500-1000 sr UNDER my elo.
But you will probably ignore that logic.
I wont reply any longer I lose braincells.
Edit: if I am allowed to post my yt channel here you can check my rank, stats etc. if you think im a gold lucio 1trick.
It makes a huge difference. When you use SR and just have the numerical ranges for each rank, it seems linear, but when you use MMR and know what the standard deviation points are, you now can show the distributions of ranks as a bell curve. 68% of a normal distribution should be found between -1 and +1 standard deviation of the mean, so you can tell how far from average you are, and it’s not a linear relationship, the further from the mean you are, the population gets smaller even quicker. So, those folks in <500 have to be the lowest 0.5% of players, as in there are only 50 in a thousand players that are lower than them.
For sufficiently active players, and in cases where there is not decay, matchmaking based on SR would create the exact same outcome as matchmaking based on MMR. The reasons, as stated in the lovely guide for using MMR is because it allows them to make adjustments that are unpleasant for players to see that more accurately reflect the information gathered about that players’ skill.
MMR is hidden to handle people with new accounts and to adjust them quickly to the right matches without people screaming about the exact details.
Finding fair matches results in a 50% win rate. It is this fact that you cannot accept.
Surely at your level of skill, you could look at that match replay and find the actual reasons for the loss, possibly even things that you personally did. But individual matches aren’t an argument against the matchmaker working. The matchmaker works because at the end of the day, people end up with a 50% win rate.
I do, but you do not. The TEAMS are constructed evenly from the pool of available players queued at the same time. If SR was used it would have the same outcome as using MMR. The higher your rank above gold / plat, the larger the variation of MMR / SR in a match due to the restricted number of players queued at a given time.
The 50% win chance is evaluated at the team level comparing the composition of team A to team B using the MMR of all the players. The players have as an outcome over time of approaching a 50% win rate because all their matches are balanced as well as possible.
What I’m interpreting here is that you’re an elitist. You think that the fact you have a very high level of skill at this game means you should be put in games where you get to flex on people and demonstrate how awesome you are. The matchmaker puts you in games where each team is balanced against each other, and every game is a struggle. I’m sorry that you need to make others feel bad in order to feel good about yourself.
At this point I claim you are a bot and not a real person.
You still did not understand what competitive means.
Next step is that you will try to defend skillbased MM in public casual play modes.
If you are a real person I understand why you are defending a system like this because its made for players like you. You want to believe that your amazing bronze to gold climb was your success and that the game you like is a fair competitive experience. But sorry its not and if you dont understand why those systems are problematic you are absolutely lost.
I am not an elitist. I am not even „proud“ of my peak. I know that my mechanical skill is higher than probably 98% of the playerbase but I play fps games since 20 years.
But SR peak in a system like that? You dont even know if you deserve the win or deserve the lose and thats the problem.
But I do believe that there is a huge difference between bronze hardstuck players, plats and someone climbing on a fresh account in 15 levels on level 40 to 4k sr.
But in fair designed matches? Nope not even close.
5 in 1000 by that math. 50/1000 = 5/100 = 5%, not 0.5%.
I don’t know where you get that number from though. The last we know, Bronze as a rank is 8% of the 2018 player base but I’ve never seen population data more specific than whole-rank percentages. (We don’t and won’t have newer data unless Blizzard releases it, since the advent of private profiles means whole-playerbase data cannot be scraped).
I may have the specific values wrong, but what I’m getting at is that because we know that MMR is based on statistics and -3 means 3 standard deviations away from the mean, we can infer that being below -3 should mean you are in a really small minority of the population. From -1 to +1 contains 68%; from -2 to +2 contains 93%; from -3 to +3 contains 97%. Since those ranges are centered at the mean, it means we should divide by two when we are considering only one edge, so someone with an MMR below -3, they have MMRs lower than 98.5% of the population.
That is all math and it’s ok if you don’t want to get into the statistics; the problem here is the statistics let us make some well supported claims. For example, if I’m at <500 SR and my games consist of teammates who all seem to be worse than me, there are so many more players of higher skill that could have been selected to be on my team, you start to wonder if your own MMR is so much higher than your SR that maybe the Blizzard MatchMaker™ is expected you to carry your potato teammates. Closer to the mean (think Gold / Plat) this makes more sense as there are a larger number of players that could have a wide range of skills who happened to queue when you did. At the lower extreme, it’s harder to support that idea. As a <500, I realized I am probably always the potato and am dragging down my team, just from the simple math behind MMR / SR. I wasn’t suspicious until my teammates started playing so much worse than me that it couldn’t be a coincidence. I figured that something I had done had convinced the matchmaker that I’m so much better that I should be the one carrying my <500 team or it was placing me with players who were throwing.
This led me to the forums and these types of discussions. The uncomfortable truth is, if the matches are made specifically to make them ‘fair’ (as in both teams have a 50/50 chance of winning) then me winning or losing comes down to chance and becomes a form of gambling.
I’m not certain you’ve claimed what you want other than “random based on SR” which would basically be exactly what it is, unless you think that it’s “unfair” to try to balance the SR between the two teams in the match.
Maybe you could specify exactly what you think is broken about a system that actually achieves fair matches for everyone to the extent that people have a 50% win rate.
Why is a 50% win rate evidence of badness? Who should have greater than 50% win rates, and at whose expense should those be?
Isn’t this evidence that the MMR system is working? It’s defining the skill of a player and trying to give them matches based on their MMR instead of SR? Then, if they keep winning it keeps sending them higher?
You haven’t made your position clear.
My position is that the way the system works is well documented by the guide, and that it really does work like the guide says, and it achieves the stated aims of the developers.
