What in the world are you talking about?
Do you mean their server hosting? Because that has literally nothing to do with matchmaking.
1 Like
there is no MM without hosting. so, yes. it does.
I think youâre very confused about how matchmaking and server hosting work. The goal of a matchmaker is to logically group players together. Once that is done it merely spins up a server at one of those locations. Amazon and Google did not write any part of the matchmaker.
A product can be composed of multiple intendent pieces. Your statement is like saying âOW runs on Windows therefore Blizzard outsourced the development of OW to Microsoftâ
1 Like
never stated such. ow outsourced the hosting of MM to companies with 0 multiplayer network experience. rather than contracting with quality server providers with multiplayer network familiarity.
which should result in better multiplayer experience. MM is only as good as its hosting.
Matchmaking has quite literally nothing to do with server hosting. The only dependency between the MM and the server hosting is that the matchmaker depends on servers being available so that it can host the match that it found people for. The only factor about server hosting even remotely relevant to the matchmaking process is server location, which has nothing to do with WHO is hosting the servers. The quality of the hosting service only has an impact on reliability.
Neither Amazon nor Google have anything to do with the matchmaking.
1 Like
ah yeah. what else did you think we were talking about? maybe the word, âoutsourcedâ, threw you off.
fiction. all servers arenât equal. well known common knowledge amongst those who know.
as in? define such.
if only. but fiction. there is no MM without hosting. simple math.
Do you know what outsources means? When you say âow outsourced MM to 2 companiesâ youâre saying that Google and Amazon wrote the matchmaker.
I didnât say all servers are equal. I said nothing aside from server location has an impact on the matchmaker.
A matchmaker is a piece of software that logicall groups people together. It has literally nothing to do with server hositng. Like I donât think I can make that any more clear. If you think otherwise then you have absolutely no idea what a matchmaker is or how they work. The matchmakerâs algorithm is completely independent on who the server provider is. Blizzard could switch server hositng providers at any time and the matchmaker can still run independently on that new provider. They are not intrinsically tied together in any way, and the server host has no knowledge, understanding, or influence on it.
Server uptime, bandwidth, latency, security, etc. None of which have anything to do with matchmaking.
Please my man, go look up what a matchmaker is.
Iâm not having this kind of conversation again today. If you want to just make stuff up then have at it, but please donât bother replying to me anymore.
1 Like
outsource means: contracted out. as in contracted out the hosting of the MM. donât over think it.
invalid and fiction. the above would only be true if all servers were equal.
i knew you would say such. which is why i wanted it to be established. although what you articulated above are valid factors, the most important factor is missing. iâll let you guess what that might be. to which WITHOUT it, no server is reliable. thus, my entire view on matter to being with. in which ow outsourced their hosting of MM, to unreliables who donât specialize in multiplayer networking. as owâs current hosting providers are better suited for general data hosting. you canât treat multiplayer networking like general data hosting due to the complex nuances of such application.
never in question. not even topic at hand. already stated ow outsourced MM hosting, to unreliabe provider. i never said that host providers collaborated or created MM itself. activate your IQ.
considering that you replied to me 1st, no one asked you to chime in to begin with. everything i said was valid. there is no MM without a host. smarten up.
Maybe what Iâm gonna say isnât true for your case, but this kind of thing is usually due much more to hero picks than matchmaking.
Enemy has Doom, Tracer and Sombra? Youâll have no problem healing through much of their damage, especially with heroes like Kiri, Moira, Ana or Bap. Even if they have a strong poke comp, you can mitigate lots of damage with a barrier, then only worry about healing the amount that gets past it.
But when the enemy has things like Junk, Echo, Zen, Sig and Moiraâs balls floating around, and youâve got a discorded Doom on your side spending his life on crit, itâs a total nightmare. 
1 Like
Iâve always found it amusing how one game my team mates report me and blame me for their loss and the next game Iâm endorsed 4 times and praised for being a great tank even though my skill game to game is fairly consistent. Stupid people always looking to blame someone else and canât identify the actual problems in a match.
1 Like
Further to what youâre saying, is there a chance that the MM is looking at more than MMR and is also looking at likeliness of the hero someone will pick to stack the deck for or against a player?
If it looks at the DPS characters I play (non hitscan), it could conceivably put me at a major disadvantage by matching me against players likely to pick my hard counters like a Pharmercy combo, against which Iâll struggle.
It could also skew things if it matches me with two supports who are more likely to both play off-heals vs a more well balanced team. Just because the hidden MMR ratings of both teams may be similar, could it also be looking at likely team comps to skew the outcomes?
Sorry⌠I donât understand a lot of how the MM works⌠just asking some questions.
1 Like
Seriously, I think you have some terms and ideas of how it functions mixed up.
A matchmaker takes a pool of available clients, compares variables about these clients, and creates lobbies of clients whoâs variables meet whatever specification is given. Itâll run either on a timed tick rate, or when a new player joins the pool. A matchmaker is just a coded function, with variables set by the devs. Itâs probably just one instance of it running somewhere.
The hosting is the running of physical servers, when a lobby is created by the matchmaker, itâll be handed off to a server instance to run the game. Likely there will be a pool of existing server instances, and if more need spun up to meet demand, they will be. Even then, the server instances and all the code relating to that will involve the devs in anything game related; the host would only get involved with the integration into their own framework.
The server hosts have absolutely nothing to do with matchmaking, zero, completely nil.
Iâm not aware of the actual inner workings of Blizzards systems, but gives you an idea of how it could work. It doesnât matter what you imagine the inner workings are, thereâs no scenario where Google randomly gets involved with who gets put in what match.
That was unexpected. 
like the other guy, youâre infatuated with delineating how MM works. which was never in question nor of topic. ow outsourced the hosting of its gameâs MM, which by default includes the entire game, to: those stated herein above. blizzard isnât a hosting company so of course they outsourced multiplayer network responsibilities to server data centers. so, the issue of the matter, was who they outsourced it to. which is where nighthawk chimed in and misinterpreted direction of travel. i appreciate his insight and yours. however, ask him what is the primary factor and measurement of reliability, in terms multiplayer networking. which ow current match host providers, seem to lack, over half the time, possibly due to poor server configuration OR varying server configuration, resulting in inconsistent match performance.
in theory yes. and how it should be. the assignment âshould beâ random after receiving MM criteria. however this isnât even what i was getting at to begin with. the quality of match is contingent upon the quality of the server. i never deviated from this very point. regardless of nighthawks, misinterpretation.
I used to swear this is how it worked back in OW1, because when I played ball it seemed like there was an exponentially higher chance of there being an enemy Sombra right at the start of the match.
Really have no idea though. We now know that MMR is based only on winrate, but I donât think we know all the factors that the matchmaker itself considers when forming a match.
If I had to guess, Iâd say that the MM probably does not consider these things though. Our anecdotal experience suggesting otherwise is probably just because weâre more apt to remember frustrating patterns and events rather than neutral or beneficial ones.
1 Like
yep had this right now lole.
1st game we couldnât cap/defend first point on havana was 8/16/8 it was hell
next game however⌠https: //imgur. com/a/sfCu31I it was the best game ever
I hate this mm so much
Iâve had many games go from stomp to be stomped during the same match. I still think the primary reason OW2 feels stompier is because the 5v5 format is inherently stompy, as are the tank changes. S4 seems like the end of the road for matchmaker fixes, and if people are still unhappy with it I think theyâre going to need to revisit some core systems. Or bring back 6v6.
1 Like