Rigged competitive system is the reason for toxicity

[Outside-11127]

@Violence-11154

MMR is a performance metric against all other players. It necessarily follows a normal distribution by design.

Right, but you said:

@Violence-11154

MMR = points you scored on an exam. SR = how you rank against your classmates

Which is why there is confusion. You don’t score points on an exam based on an a prior pdf from 5 years ago, or any pdf (normally). So no, your analogy doesn’t even work. Stop trying to force it.

@Violence-11154

Giving both teams 6 fair coins each isn’t rigged and it never will be.

Still wrong. If you’re giving them 6 fair coins you’re shipping a random match. And that’s what we’re advocating for in SR-only system. But with hidden MMR, you’re perversely rigging the odds. By adaptively holding player data against them, by analyzing every player or “coin” to decide if it’s “due” to show H or T (even with fair coins you can predict if it’s due to H or T based on streaks and assumption of 50-50 bias). So load-balancing around that, you’re rigging the match.

There is no way deny it’s hard rigged, every. single. match.

Do you not agree forcing 50-50 odds is a kind of rigging? Or are you still caught up on basic terminology?

@Violence-11154

Are the outcomes rigged or not?

With mmr 50-50, they are stochastically rigged. The outcome (in many measures like expectation and variance) is rigged in advance - towards 50-50. The devs have said this and the patents seem to support this. That’s rigging as per definition, word for word.

If every game is parametrically rigged, there really isn’t anything else to say.

@Violence-11154

1. It’s a bounded search space
2. Not all players perform equally within the search space

Further, the match makers are tested with real data and simulated players.

That has little to do with NFL in this context. NFL says you can’t constrain match odds (by forcing outcomes) and have a natural ladder progression. You can’t force micro results and expect macro to fall in place, and vice versa. But in random SR only system, the micro and macro are equal, (mmr, the micro manipulation - doesn’t exist and goes away). So you avoid NFL because everyone is on same criteria: where matches, ranks, and payouts are using the same transparent metric.

@Violence-11154

Further, the match makers are tested with real data and simulated players.

Eh? What does that have to do with rigged matches? Either they force outcomes or not. No fair competition forces the outcome ahead of time. They might force your overall bracket or league or team, but never match on match. Their are fairplay orgs and sports governing bodies that validate this mantra. You don’t rig matches and call your contest fair lmao.

@Violence-11154

Feel free to solve the problem I posed earlier: 122414 accounts with a mean of 2266 SR. How many alt accounts at 3000 SR do you need to shift the mean 234 SR to 2500?

A fool’s errand. Where is that data posted? Are the alt accounts winning and losing at 50% winrate or is there some negative bias because they’re alts and games are disposable? Still no evidence they force a normal pdf, articially sending you to places to preserve the shape of their curve from 2015. And you haven’t answered my question: how many games does it take a GM to go from gold to GM in a random SR only system vs. system with mmr rigging that arrests mobility? Assume no duplicate accounts per player and matches formed randomly for an SR range of +/- 250sr.

@Violence-11154

Are you serious right now? You proposed a hypothesis, refused to support it,

But you haven’t done an ounce of real math. And you haven’t shown a single source of data. Most of the debate is structural and algebraic, not data-based. We’re aruing about a model, so it needs to validate for all inputs with maybe some a priori knowledge of those inputs.

[Outside-11127]

@Violence-11154

Imagine failing to reject the null at p < 0.00001 with an alpha of 0.05 on the basis of emotions rather than data. Pretty wild.

But it’s not statistics, it’s sorting. What is a rank? How many operational steps does it take to get you to your proper rank? Does the sorting alg take more or less steps when you rig every comparison for 50-50 outcomes, instead of naturally (randomly) binning the sort/selection? Laddering is about sorting players to their proper rank on the curve.

Imagine thinking that stats, a 1st order uncertainty metric, is not outclassed by structural methods like sigma algebras and algorithmic complexity.

And that’s just the ranking and classification issue. Still have all the alts corruption issue. See the thread Receipts posted for more info on that subject. Feel free to refute with better (data-free) math btw.

Forum Mod Edit: This post has been edited by a moderator due to language. Forum Code of Conduct - Blizzard Support

[MegaDove-1507]

Has anyone pointed out yet that the lopsided population distribution of the ranks where gold, silver and bronze hold the majority of the player base is the reason why a dps only has a 7-10 min que…but at higher elos you can wait upwards of 30 mins?

Wouldn’t this A) incentivize higher ranked players to create smurf accounts to play dps role in ranks with lower wait times, and B) disincentivize dps player from wanting to climb into higher ranks where they will experience longer que times?

They nerfed tank shields, and tank dmg (zarya beam dmg ramp being the most recent…yet syms remains unaffected…or wrecking balls pile driver dmg radius ). They nerfed support healing output and dmg output (bap and anna most recently).

If the idea is to reduce que times for dps…why would you strip power from supports and tanks…especially tanks…when increasing those populations would naturally lower que times for dps? Tanking and supporting in lower elos would certainly be less frustrating if you weren’t so reliant on dps.

Do i need a research paper to make that obvious?

[Outside-11127]

@MegaDove-1507

Do i need a research paper to make that obvious?

No you don’t. You only need people to accept the premise. The conclusion follows:

1. Higher ranked players are incentivized to create smurf accounts for lower queues.
2. Higher ranked players exist, they number several, and play several more matches per day or month than casuals.
3. That 1 and 2, leads to additional disruption in lower ranks, increasing entropy, lowering signal/noise, and taxing someone’s trajectory through the ladder.

Most of this was clarified in the thread on alts:

@ȐĔƆƐĨPŦŜ-1693

I’m not even talking about what ranks the alts are at. I’m treating them as clones. The impact is by count alone, not rank dist. I’m talking about the collisions an alt imparts on it’s neighbourhood, and how those perturbations are attenuated and absorbed by the ladder population.

Every alt disrupts the ladder by sheer counting and existence. It’s more basic than a stats argument. Receipts treated alts as clones of their mains, i.e. zero smurfing ratio for all of them (which we know is false), and showed that even a 0 delta discrepancy was enough to wash away the meaning of ranks. You can still climb the ladder, but are heavily taxed (he even quantified the amount of extra effort, approximately).

Alts ruin ranked integrity. So does rigged matchmaking. And so does never resetting things 5+ years into the same season. Then you have all the human elements like toxic psych and disposable gameplay, as a byproduct of the above.

[Violence-11154]

@Outside-11127

If you’re giving them 6 fair coins you’re shipping a random match.

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.

@Outside-11127

Do you not agree forcing 50-50 odds is a kind of rigging?

It’s not “forced” 50-50 odds. It’s giving you 6 fair coins against another 6 fair coins.

@Outside-11127

The outcome (in many measures like expectation and variance) is rigged in advance - towards 50-50.

Can you demonstrate that the trajectory is statistically different from the system you’re proposing?

@Outside-11127

If every game is parametrically rigged, there really isn’t anything else to say.

Yeah–just like defining the parameters of a fair chess board.

@Outside-11127

NFL says you can’t constrain match odds (by forcing outcomes) and have a natural ladder progression.

Given a number of optimization algos over an unbounded search space with near identical solutions…

None of that applies here.

@Outside-11127

Eh? What does that have to do with rigged matches?

Meaning, the optimization is tested empirically and through simulation i.e.–it makes accurate predictions.

@Outside-11127

No fair competition forces the outcome ahead of time.

Fair competitions pit equally or near equally skilled opponents against each other. Fair competitions don’t randomly assign players to matches.

@Outside-11127

They might force your overall bracket or league or team, but never match on match.

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.

@Outside-11127

A fool’s errand.

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?

@Outside-11127

articially sending you to places to preserve the shape of their curve from 2015

Answered multiple times. Matching and ranking against your peers results in a normal distribution, by design.

@Outside-11127

how many games does it take a GM to go from gold to GM in a random SR only system vs. system with mmr rigging that arrests mobility?

[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.

@Outside-11127

But you haven’t done an ounce of real math.

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.

@Outside-11127

And you haven’t shown a single source of data.

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:

Competitive Mode Tier Distribution

Hi, Competitive Forum! We know how much you like stats. To welcome you to the new forums, here is a breakdown of where everyone is in Competitive Play: [image] Looking forward to your discussions in this forum!

@Outside-11127

But it’s not statistics, it’s sorting.

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?

@Outside-11127

Imagine thinking that stats, a 1st order uncertainty metric, is not outclassed by structural methods like sigma algebras and algorithmic complexity.

Imagine being all bark and no bite. Walk the talk.

@Outside-11127

See the thread Receipts posted for more info on that subject. Feel free to refute with better (data-free) math btw.

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.

[Outside-11127]

@Violence-11154

You need to demonstrate why being matched against similarly skilled opponents is synonymous with “rigging.”

Because it’s forcing the odds, as per definition of rigging.

@Violence-11154

If the system is adaptively working against the player, you need to show that higher elo players cannot climb to their appropriate rank.

No. You just need to show it takes fewer matches in a rigged system vs. a random one to claim everything is fine. It needs to be shown that rigging gets people to where they belong more efficiently than random SR only system. But the Virial theorem says for large populations (distributed normally by skill), random is best possible. So current laddering is handicapped and not fair.

@Violence-11154

It’s not “forced” 50-50 odds.

It is as per dev statements and patents. See for example:

@Kaawumba-1133

The game uses MMR to determine whether a match is fair, and attempts to match teams such that the game is fair (each team has a 50% chance of winning).

That’s forcing the odds “for match fairness”, therefore it’s rigging as per definition.

@Kaawumba-1133

If the matchmaking algorithm determined before the game that it was not fair, the higher ranked team will receive less SR/MMR on a win, and lose more SR/MMR on a loss.

Trying to determine the outcome of the game, and rigging for it, before it’s even played - is nothing like any other ranked environment. You can assign pbsr and sr bonuses for deltas incurred by randomly shipping two teams around an SR margin. No place for MMR except to rig “for fairness” - which makes the overall laddering process anti-competitive and unfair.

@Violence-11154

It’s giving you 6 fair coins against another 6 fair coins.

That would be random SR naive matchmaking. With MMR rigging, it’s cherry picking coins that are biased to fall one way or the other, and shipping 6 of them together to balance the other 6. It’s rigging the match outcome to be 50-50 by picking biased coins.

@Violence-11154

Yeah–just like defining the parameters of a fair chess board.

Chess is a two player zero sum sequential combinatorial game. It’s state space doesn’t change with balance patches, and it will soon be weakly solved (for example, a proof by induction on base games that white can always force a win, which is greatly suspected).
Chess is in a simpler complexity class than Overwatch. OW is an N-player stochastic differntial game you can transform to a fixed base game with perturbations and adapt epsilon Nash strategies for via e.g. pointer networks or quantum gans, like alpha.star.

@Violence-11154

Fair competitions pit equally or near equally skilled opponents against each other. Fair competitions don’t randomly assign players to matches.

They randomly seed or have you qualify for a bracket, then let you (and/or your team) progress naturally through the ladder, brackets, tournaments, etc. Even for single player ranking systems (like Chess), they use only 1 metric (elo), rank you accordingly, pay you out accordingly, and matchmake you naively around your current elo projection. If Hou Yifan is climbing a new account in Chess, the matchmaker doesn’t analyze her performance and cherry pick her subsequent opponents. Who she faces on her climb is entirely random around her elo and winrate. And there is no adaptation to how she is doing or what her gameplay was recently like.

@Violence-11154

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.

I did a rough calc and also got 57k accounts to move the population mean 250 sr. Where are those numbers from? Who cares…because that’s not the issue. If you are attempting to climb through a bracket of 7% of the population (by player % skill), but it actually contains 11% of the accounts, you’re playing a lot more matches to sieve through. You want to play against diamond players and outrank them, not diamond accounts, which could be over-represented by master players parking alts over and over, each one having a constant-sum amount of SR to distribute, imparting geometric amounts of additional effort for anyone attempting to ladder through.

@Violence-11154

Again, let me know if you’re actually going to present anything other than personal anecdotes.

Have you shown math to dispute the following?:

@ȐĔƆƐĨPŦŜ-1693

Every alt is initialized with ~7200sr to dispose of. That has to be absorbed by the ladder population. That’s a lot of constant-sum inflation. It’s potential energy that gets converted into kinetic (zero-sum) events as you win/loss. So it has to dissipate into the bath.

The issue is the scaling. Every alt can basically tax ~O(k(k-1)/2) neighbours with extra work, who in turn adjust their neighbours, with O(ln(k)) less but still extra work. It doesn’t equalize, it amortizes. It raises the temperature of the bath - which is small, sparse, and lowpop during offhours.

As well as:

@ȐĔƆƐĨPŦŜ-1693

The new players distribute normally. The alts almost surely don’t.
And both enter near the median, imparting disruption until their final destination.

As well as:

@ȐĔƆƐĨPŦŜ-1693

number of accounts > unique players

If you bloat the distribution with repeat accounts but label things by % players, you are imparting a false SR mapping. No person should be allowed to gain, lose, bank, trade, earn, dispose of duplicate amounts of SR without some zero-sum recalibration to the % players.

And he goes on to give example using race car drivers and race times:

@ȐĔƆƐĨPŦŜ-1693

He would be top 1% of racers but his races wouldn’t account for this. This top 1% race time would be disproportionally represented, i.e. showing up more than 1% of the time.

If you plotted the race times you wouldn’t get your 1% anymore, because this “alt” registered 1% data more than once.

So you really can’t have alts + rigging + 0 resets and call it “fair” laddering.
I have to side with Receipts because the logic holds. His examples are extremely conservative (they argue around a data-free base case). Which is the best you’re going to get unless you can show actual data.

[Abdullah9000-2126]

@anon15888515

It’s kind of changed my perspective on the game a bit. When people think they should be in GM and they’re stuck in gold. There’s a bigger skill difference between the two than they probably think.

That’s a great wake up call, I am happy to hear that!

@anon15888515

But having seen the skill of a high level player I don’t think I’m ever going to be at that level no matter how many hours I put into the game

Believe me, if I can do it, you can do it too! I used to be Low Gold and absolutely terrible: https:/ /streamable.com/nx36sp

VOD Reviews and Aim Training has helped me climb ALL the way to GM

[ƕlĸ-2818]

@Abdullah9000-2126

VOD Reviews and Aim Training has helped me climb ALL the way to GM

You are Master, not GM. =]

[Violence-11154]

@Outside-11127

Because it’s forcing the odds, as per definition of rigging.

You’re considering fair game pieces to be rigged.

I reject that worldview. Fair coins, cards, dice, and chess boards will never be classified as “rigged.”

@Outside-11127

It needs to be shown that rigging gets people to where they belong more efficiently than random SR only system.

You and others are complaining that “limited mobility” is a form of “rigging” and holds players back. Quickly converging on the player’s skill level demonstrates the opposite of “limited mobility.” If anything, it’s hyper mobile by comparison to the system you’re proposing.

The system quickly converges on the player’s skill relative to their peers. That isn’t “rigged.” That’s an efficient system.

@Outside-11127

It is as per dev statements and patents. See for example:

Ensuring everyone has a fair coin to play the game with isn’t forcing odds.

@Outside-11127

Trying to determine the outcome of the game, and rigging for it, before it’s even played

That’s how you match players by skill. Can you think of a way to match players by skill without considering the player’s skill?

@Outside-11127

That would be random SR naive matchmaking.

No and I already explained why it isn’t. Substantively respond if you want.

The likelihood of both teams having equal coin flips (same number of heads/tails) is cumulatively 22.5% under your system. Meaning, the remaining 77.5% of games will not have equal coin flips and be unfair.

Frankly, forcing 77% of games to be asymmetric seems “rigged” to me.

@Outside-11127

It’s state space doesn’t change with balance patches, and it will soon be weakly solved

Engage with the point: giving both players a fair set of pieces doesn’t constitute “rigging” an outcome

If you want to talk analogous elo systems in chess, you need to account for differences in players autonomously seeking out tournaments versus the match maker’s need to automatically match players to a “tournament.” High elo FIDE tournaments are categorized by only 25 elo differences. Limiting the SR window like that would greatly exasperate queue times–if a match could even be made.

Additionally, team chess elo systems and pairing are also more applicable here.

@Outside-11127

Who cares…because that’s not the issue.

That is exactly the issue. You’re suggesting that alt accounts are endangering the fidelity of the ladder. You need a 47% increase in alt accounts at the same elo being played in the same season for minor SR changes to the ladder. Not only is that extremely unlikely, the consequences are negligible for the integrity of the ladder. It also hasn’t been demonstrated using real data.

You’re not playing more matches as you don’t play every person in your bracket. You still require the same amount of SR to rank up or down–you’d still be playing with and against players of your skill level. Only 1 alt account can be played at a time.

@Outside-11127

each one having a constant-sum amount of SR to distribute, imparting geometric amounts of additional effort for anyone attempting to ladder through.

You’re assuming a) each alt actually distributes SR and b) that the amount of SR distributed causes SR requirements to change.

Example: You need $100 to purchase a phone. 1000 people walk into the store with $100. The average amount of money in the store doesn’t move and there are an unlimited number of phones that be purchased. The requirement for purchasing the phone remains the same.

@Outside-11127

Have you shown math to dispute the following?:

That’s not how the burden of proof works. If you’re claiming the ladder has deteriorated due to an influx of alt accounts at the same elo being played every season, you need to demonstrate–not speculate–that’s the case.

It’s not even clear where the ~7200 SR is coming from. Every player starts in Gold around 2250 and may “distribute” SR from there. The distribution of that SR is still measured relative to all players.

SR ranks are hard coded brackets. They don’t change. You always require the same amount of activation energy regardless of the potential energy in the system.

@ȐĔƆƐĨPŦŜ-1693

The alts almost surely don’t.

There’s exactly zero reason to believe that. Players at all ranks have alt accounts. You need to demonstrate a massive influx of alt accounts at the same elo being played during the same season.

@Outside-11127

And he goes on to give example using race car drivers and race times:

You need a massive influx of accounts to shift the average player performance. Demonstrate that’s happening.

[Augustus-22918]

1. People have been saying the system is rigged since it cam out, spoiler alert: ITS NOT. Why would a company rig a system so the players have no fun and stop playing? Answer: they wouldn’t.

Actually I don’t agree with you. The system in casino is rigged. Why? They don’t want to loose money but also is a way to trap people who refuse to accept their looses. Is simple human psychology. Some people get addicted to the looses and it’s a way to ensure they will have a fan base. So yeah, the system can easily be rigged to hook those type of players.

They are a business, they don’t care that you have fun. They care you are hooked and they can suck your money dry.

So yeah, they system is beyond rigged.

[Drekavac-21484]

Toxicity is in nature of competitive games and it will always be a part of those games, things like saying ‘just don’t be toxic’ and trying to erdicate is in just people being naive.

The system is not rigged, Its just bad, outdated and not working properly. But hey appearently its the best blizzard can offer, maybe still not much but best they can.

[FittishMike-1158]

The game creates an addictive nature in people therefore toxicity is there. OW’s matchmaker is designed to make you addicted like a drug so that you keep on playing. The matchmaker is the reason for toxicity because it wasn’t designed for fair matches, just to make you play more. Blizz/Activ don’t make games for fun anymore they make games for replayability and money.
If you continue playing something that was designed to keep you playing, but the matchmaker part of it is crap and you are losing then what happens, you get mad.

@Drekavac-21484

The system is not rigged, Its just bad, outdated and not working properly. But hey appearently its the best blizzard can offer, maybe still not much but best they can.

No, they could do better. They just gave it to someone they thought could do it.

[Violence-11154]

@FittishMike-1158

OW’s matchmaker is designed to make you addicted like a drug so that you keep on playing. The matchmaker is the reason for toxicity because it wasn’t designed for fair matches, just to make you play more.

Yes, it is almost certainly designed to retain players and increase their screen time. That is unethical if you don’t inform the user. There’s a developing body of research and legislation on the topic.

Despite the aim of player retention, it is also designed to fairly match players by equal or nearly equal skill level.

[MegaDove-1507]

LOL the logic at silver…they nerfed shields right…so dps decide not to shoot shields…what was the point of nerfing them then?

edit…oh no they have a bastion…lets avoid breaking double barriers at all cost…

[CALCULUS-11403]

@MegaDove-1507

LOL the logic at silver…they nerfed shields right…so dps decide not to shoot shields…

Don’t you love Overwatch players…?

@MegaDove-1507

oh no they have a bastion…lets avoid breaking double barriers at all cost…

Technically with Bastion and double shield, you want to get around the barriers so you can spend your cooldowns on bastion. But breaking them can work too, just… Not as well.

[Outside-11127]

@Violence-11154

That’s not how the burden of proof works. If you’re claiming the ladder has deteriorated due to an influx of alt accounts at the same elo being played every season, you need to demonstrate–not speculate–that’s the case.

Receipts showed it. Do you dispute the math there? It’s extremely conservative and the arguments are data free. They require basically no assumptions only that alts exist.

The burden of proof would be on you to show why his calculations are off.

@Violence-11154

That’s how you match players by skill. Can you think of a way to match players by skill without considering the player’s skill?

SR is supposed to be your skill. Just like elo is supposed to be ur skill in chess. If I’m 3300, match me around 3300 randomly. And assign me offsets for matchmaking gaps. Don’t force the odds to 50-50 i.e. fixing the outcome i.e. rigging the match as per every definition every1 accepts except u.

@Violence-11154

If you want to talk analogous elo systems in chess, you need to account for differences in players autonomously seeking out tournaments versus the match maker’s need to automatically match players to a “tournament.” High elo FIDE tournaments are categorized by only 25 elo differences. Limiting the SR window like that would greatly exasperate queue times–if a match could even be made.

A +/- 250sr window is all you need to ship fair matches around an SR range, relaxing that to +/- 500sr for extremely lowpop conditions. This assumes SR is not redundant, a fair measure of rank, paytout, and skill. Which it has to be, for valid discussion on fairness.

@Violence-11154

The system quickly converges on the player’s skill relative to their peers. That isn’t “rigged.” That’s an efficient system.

SR-only is more efficient in terms of trajectory times. Rigging for 50-50 matches is a forced, anti-competitive tax for people trying to climb or who deserve to rank down.

@Violence-11154

If anything, it’s hyper mobile by comparison to the system you’re proposing.

Mobility can be achieved with pbsr and sr gains/offsets for underdogs etc. You don’t need MMR. The mmr system you’re defending exists only to rig every single match player, which is a repulsive idea for fairplay ladder ranked systems. Fairplay means hands off, letting the labeled classification, ranks, and payouts appropriately do the work. Again, as per definition of rigging.

Have you agreed to the defintion of rigging yet? or are u still stuck on level1 bcuz u dont like the wording ? Also ur dice analogy is just way off. If anything it proves point for SR only matchmaking lmao

[nfect-21345]

@Spartem-1725

1. Toxicity is a player problem. Yes the devs can do things to help stop it, but ultimately its up to the players to not be toxic in the first place.
2. People have been saying the system is rigged since it cam out, spoiler alert: ITS NOT. Why would a company rig a system so the players have no fun and stop playing? Answer: they wouldn’t.

The concept of a rigged system usually comes from people that start playing this game because they expect to be able to do whatever they want in games and win on their own mechanical skill alone. This just isn’t the case with a team based game like Overwatch.

There’s so many things wrong in what you’re stating, its almost crazy how oblivious you are to reality. There’s so many books on how to make a game (or a gambling game) addictive you should read. Blizzard didn’t miss a single page, and even wrote some pages of their own. Toxicity is indirectly intended the same way someone will turn mad if you steal all his money, your goal was to steal his money, not to make the victim mad, right? It’s the result of unfairness which is a target to render a game addictive, because the harder you lose, the higher the reward if you win and your brain just loves those chemicals (a.k.a. retention). They’re deeply looking for ways to transpose all the gambling “rules of addiction” to their game, hey, they’re trying to make money, not to please you!

The system’s not rigged? You have no idea how well their match maker is constructed, it’s almost perfect. People hate it, it’s a proof that it’s working as intended. I’ve seen healers stuck in silver popping off in diamonds tournaments, same for tanks, silver windows/mcrees hitting every headshot accused of deranking when in fact, they just can’t climb out of their elo (early match ending when they pop off too early, leavers, too many smurfs…).

It’s all over the place, You may not play enough to notice those things, but all you need to do is read people’s experiences. It’s okay if 1 out of a million says the game is rigged, but how many are they now feeling it’s wrong, are you just willing to dismiss everybody’s experience because you want to keep it all rainbow-y ? Because your experience is different? Now if you’re that good of a player, you got to know that the more skilled you get, the less you’re affected by those rigging mechanics, and if you don’t care, it’s another thing. But you shouldn’t just reject everything because you’re experience is different.

[Sue-11360]

@Outside-11127

The burden of proof would be on you to show why his calculations are off.

Ok so I’ve stayed out of these conversations for some time now, since they are pointless.

I will say this now, the reason his calculations are off and/or wrong, is because he doesn’t have the actual numbers, coming to the conclusion he did, without the actual numbers is just making it up, unless, and this is highly unlikely, Blizzard released the numbers to him, and him alone.

[Violence-11154]

@Outside-11127

Receipts showed it.

Receipts didn’t perform any calculations. The post is equivalent to proposing conditional Shannon entropy, writing H(X|Y), and then asserting H has a specific value given unknown variables. That’s a completely worthless “data free” a priori and only convinces people that have no idea what they’re looking at. Show the data or GTFO.

@Outside-11127

A +/- 250sr window is all you need to ship fair matches around an SR range, relaxing that to +/- 500sr for extremely lowpop conditions.

How did you numerically determine +/- 250 SR is a fair match? How are you numerically defining “fair?”

@Outside-11127

SR-only is more efficient in terms of trajectory times.

How did you determine that? The data I posted earlier suggests the exact opposite of this claim. SR-only trajectories are slower and converge after nearly 3X the number of games. In no world is that “more efficient.”

Are you retracting the claim that this system “limits mobility” and holds players back?

@Outside-11127

You don’t need MMR.

How do you want to calculate PBSR in the absence of a comparator performance rating?

@Outside-11127

Have you agreed to the defintion of rigging yet?

Demonstrably matching equally skilled opponents in a competitive environment will never qualify as “rigged.”

This is not a hard concept. How do you equally share a pie amongst 4 people?

Your answer: Everyone gets a random piece of the pie.
My answer: Everyone gets 25% of the pie.

[Vulpes-21163]

Are you aware that punctually inserting laughing emoticons to accompany your text (as you have done regularly in your posts these days on various topics) does not attribute any value to it, nor to you, nor in reality it diminishes your interlocutor but only highlights how you feel the need to belittle your interlocutor?

This makes me think that the foundations of your thesis are not very solid.