To properly tuned engagement based matchmaking.
If one isn’t properly tuned, it just makes awful games.
Yes. Just because someone walks out of casino without spending their life savings, doesn’t mean their model isn’t working.
3 Likes
And yet, when I ask people what they wanted the change to be, they all want the levers pulled in different directions citing different problems.
I think the problem is in the game itself, where even if you have closely matched teams it doesn’t feel closely matched.
Right, but you can’t point at one person there and say “that shows they are doing X”
besides we KNOW what engagement based matchmaking looks like, and it isn’t this.
2 Likes
While it is, it’s not something you can fix, as humans are inconsistent.
god damn man how much do they pay you? i see you in every post related to the topics like this shilling like there’s no tomorrow
10 Likes
It can be fixed. You can make it less like a drinking game, and make it more stable.
Winning fights means you are up on ult charge, and you get to position better, and sometimes you can get more than one fight in before they can make advancement.
That means a won fight is MUCH more likely to let you win the next fight.
I am not a shill, but a person who has ACTUALLY written matchmakers in the past so I know the tradeoffs which go on there.
If you look at me talking about Blizzards god awful communication, you will see that my feelings towards them are not all good 
I left because I had three games in a row with literal GOLDS on my team that I had to carry when I’m in mid Masters and play at that level consistently. The fact that Act-Blizz higher ups are morally bankrupt really drove in the point to leave. If the system was fair, working as it should and not engagement based it would have just been a whole Masters lobby. BUT it needed me to have a lose streak so I could play again to try to win.
Unfortunately for Act-Blizz, I don’t have a gambling problem.
3 Likes
What’s great about this version of the conspiracy theory is that the evidence people cite in order to support it completely contradicts the conspiracy theory. That is:
In an engagement optimized system the worst possible outcome is a loss streak. Loss streaks result in higher numbers of player churn than any other outcome. The best outcome for engagement is incredibly close matches with more wins than losses.
So, if Blizzard were implementing engagement based matchmaking, what we would see is few if any stomps and more wins than losses with few if any loss streaks. Which makes it incredibly bizarre that people use the boogeyman of engagement optimized matchmaking in order to support their pet theories that Blizzard is causing streaks (and loss streaks, in particular) in their games.
Except engagement based it would have made it a masters lobby.
I know right?
This right here.
Well, not more wins than loses (because without bots you can’t give a better than 50% average in a PvP game with same number of people on both sides), but they would be broken up into smaller runs.
Right! And you suppose that most players would make the opposite choice of the one you made, but what was discovered when engagement optimized matchmaking was tested is precisely that most players behave as you do:
Loss streaks result in players quitting the game.
Which is why no company that cares about their profits would implement the matchmaker that players imagine- the idea of forced loss streaks is, in fact, anathema to player engagement.
1 Like
Blizzard also investigated itself about a lawsuit against them and they found no wrong doing…I guess you’d believe everything they say huh…freakin mental.
4 Likes
I get what you are saying, but I do think the data they reported was interesting nevertheless, and while I don’t see any way they could get those outcomes long term over the entire sample without having some interesting tradeoffs, they did in fact report that over the short term the best possible outcome for engagement was skewed towards draws and wins (so close matches with more wins than losses).
1 Like
No it wouldn’t. Engagement based matchmaking is based in how the human psyche experiences gambling. Gambling, and the psychology behind it, doesn’t work like that. That’s why SOOOO many people CONTINUE to gamble despite “losing” countless amount of times. Losing doesn’t detour gambling at all, it’s a part of human nature to seek serotonin boosts and adrenaline rushes.
2 Likes
I get the point there, but the thing is people saying “I had a loss streak therefore there is a loses queue” is stupid as hell.
The point is a “fair” matchmaker do the things which people are pointing at saying it is unfair.
more so, you are getting mess of people saying it is unfair in different NONE compatible ways.
Except we DO know what that looks like, and the matchmaker isn’t doing that.
Which close matches give more of.
Many things make sense in this game if you can accept the fact that Blizzard doesn’t hire the most talented, or honest people.
2 Likes
I think the biggest mistake people make with this analogy is that they forget that gamblers have money on the line. How many gamblers do you suppose would continue to play games where they lose if there were no money/material goods on the line?
And which of the following scenarios do you suppose would result in more people gambling (again, assuming money was not on the line):
-
A game that gave players long losing streaks.
-
A game where the match outcome was always really close and the player won about half the time.
what do you call it when someone forces you into a line to play a game where it’s loss after loss? What do you call it when they force you into a line where it’s win after win? A que like a loser or winners que means that the system is pinged to play against or for you hard. So if this guy has seen and been through something that is astronimically improbable much less impossible then it means there is something going on behind the curtain. Only way that can happen is for …wait for it…a loser and winner que. Because the game says ok this person needs to lose so it sets you in a que that is designed to force losses on you until you’ve lost enough that it then puts you in a winners que to force wins on you so that it all balances out to 50/50. It’s seriously not that hard to figure out.
7 Likes
The most logical response yet.
4 Likes
But why would Blizzard implement a system that is the opposite of what the data suggests would keep players playing their game?
Does Blizzard just hate making money?
If only they had the endurance you do when it comes to shilling for Blizzard.
Yeah…
- people tilt
- people play after they are tried
- people fall out of their rank, and the game changes in and they don’t adjust their play for the difference there.
- people lie about how long their streaks are.
- people ABSOLUTELY underestimate expected streak length in random games.
- people have good and bad days.
I made EXTREMELY similar and straight forward matchmakers which had people gave all the same complaints about.
There wasn’t a winners or loses queue, but people complained all the same. They always do.
The problem here is, you have a bunch of people saying “it is forcing the 50/50 games, and after I win one, it forces me to lose one”
And then, we get people saying “It is forcing streaks, I keep winning 5 and then losing 5”
And others saying, “I had a loss of 13 games, there has to be a loses queue”
NOTE: all of these people are complaining about stuff which is ABSOLUTELY not the same thing as each other.
1 Like