No. A random system gives everyone a coin that may have entirely different probabilities. That results in more asymmetric and unfair matches.
You need to demonstrate why being matched against similarly skilled opponents is synonymous with “rigging.”
If the system is adaptively working against the player, you need to show that higher elo players cannot climb to their appropriate rank.
It’s not “forced” 50-50 odds. It’s giving you 6 fair coins against another 6 fair coins.
Can you demonstrate that the trajectory is statistically different from the system you’re proposing?
Yeah–just like defining the parameters of a fair chess board.
Given a number of optimization algos over an unbounded search space with near identical solutions…
None of that applies here.
Meaning, the optimization is tested empirically and through simulation i.e.–it makes accurate predictions.
Fair competitions pit equally or near equally skilled opponents against each other. Fair competitions don’t randomly assign players to matches.
Why doesn’t a league/bracket qualify as forced match on match? It’s analogous to the MM. You don’t have a predefined team unless you 6-stack, but you’re always playing matches against equal or near equal opponents within your bracket.
57,289 accounts at 3000 SR are required to move the mean from 2266 to 2500. That’s 46% of the total accounts sampled initially. You then have to make the assumption that every single one of those accounts is played during each season. That is, you need a massive number of alt accounts playing at the same elo during the same season for negligible mean shift.
Can you demonstrate that these requirements are met?
Answered multiple times. Matching and ranking against your peers results in a normal distribution, by design.
[Current] MMR rigging system that “arrests mobility”: 23 games in 5 hours and 50 minutes. Awkward’s unranked to GM on Ana. Starts in Gold ends in GM with a 96% winrate.
[Proposed] Random SR only system: No real-world examples from Overwatch. Assuming an average SR of 25 per win, starting at 2250 and ending at 4000, you need 1750 SR. At a minimum that’s 70 games, but with a 96% winrate, you need 73 games total. That takes roughly 18 hours and 30 minutes using Awkward’s rate.
Your system should be about 3x slower than the current system.
Sorry, I forgot basic statistics doesn’t qualify as math. Again, let me know if you’re actually going to present anything other than personal anecdotes.
There’s a post on Medium entitled, “Attempting to Collect Unbiased Data About the Player Base of Overwatch (PC)” by Mörkenbörken. Unfortunately the forums won’t allow me to post the direct link, but it should be easy to find. The author pulled Overwatch open profiles at the end of season 9 and compiled the ranking data from 122414 profiles.
Kaplan’s post which coincides nicely with the mined data:
What are you talking about? It is a statistical hypothesis test. The rank is top 1% at 4000 SR. What is your contention here? Are you complaining about “rigged” outcomes or how grindy the ladder is?
Imagine being all bark and no bite. Walk the talk.
Yep, just seeing complaining and anecdotes. No proofs. No methods. No data. No math. Just erroneous assertions based on normalized distributions (IQ), no evidence of entropy, and lots of complaining.