Rigged competitive system is the reason for toxicity

[ƕlĸ-2818]

@Violence-11154

Are you asking if hand-picking professional players for a team following OWL regulations is fair? Sure.

I thought we were discussing the point of “fair competition”.

@Violence-11154

The point of fair competition is to play against people at your skill level.

So would you say that OWL is exempt from the above despite being the highest form of competition in this game?

Or do you concede that your statement is untrue?

[Abdullah9000-2126]

@Leksa-21613

Hulk trashtalked Temporal for not having an open profile? Lmao.

Yup! Imagine. Hulk was mad because we all think that his gameplay is Gold/Low Plat, but when Temporal confirmed it, Hulk went Bananas

[Abdullah9000-2126]

@Outside-11127

If you’re rigging the contest odds in advace, there is nothing to compete on. It’sa rigged contest. Competition is about qualifying into a particular pool, and trying your luck against random samples from that pool. If you rise against a particular average representation of that pool, you move to a new pool. There is no need for state or memory or adaptation. Real sport doesn’t work like that

If the system is “rigged” tell me how good players are in the high ranks, while bad players are in the low ranks

[ƕlĸ-2818]

@Abdullah9000-2126

Yup! Imagine. Hulk was mad because we all think that his gameplay is Gold/Low Plat,

So I don’t belong in diamond? That confirms that there isn’t any ladder integrity.

(The same way you don’t belong in master as shown by your 38% winrate on ball.)

[Shadowsan-11715]

@ƕlĸ-2818

So I don’t belong in diamond? That confirms that there isn’t any ladder integrity.

There’s always exceptions to the law of averages. But look on the bright side, being a statistical anomaly is pretty cool!

[Leksa-21613]

Lol, can I still see this somewhere? Preferably from Temporal’s view.

[Shadowsan-11715]

You can find it on Temporals page.

The one comment I will make though is, in fairness to Hulkster, his team kinda started mucking around the second half because they gave up.

But the first round was 100% legit gameplay.

[Leksa-21613]

Thanks.

20characters

[KomodoDragon-11826]

@CALCULUS-11403

If you find it offensive

I AM SO OFFENDED THAT I AM LITERALLY SHAKING RIGHT NOW!!! I CANT EVEN!!!

[Violence-11154]

@ƕlĸ-2818

I thought we were discussing the point of “fair competition”.

A self-selecting process with qualifications is a fair competition in exactly the same way a chess GM will sign up and attend tournaments at their elo.

@ƕlĸ-2818

Or do you concede that your statement is untrue?

In what way is a professional team not “at the skill level” of another professional team in the same league?

[ƕlĸ-2818]

@Violence-11154

In what way is a professional team not “at the skill level” of another professional team in the same league?

Are the London Spitfire at the skill level of the Shanghai Dragons in your opinion?

[Violence-11154]

@ƕlĸ-2818

Are the London Spitfire at the skill level of the Shanghai Dragons in your opinion?

They are professional teams competing in professional tournaments at equal or near equal skill levels. Some teams are better.

Can you explain why two professional teams would not be a suitably fair match?

Equal or near equal does not mean “rigged” outcomes.

[ƕlĸ-2818]

@Violence-11154

equal or near equal skill levels.

The two teams are neither equal nor near equal skill level.

The London Spitfire are a literal Contenders roster still playing at Contenders level.

Haven’t you been watching the OWL?

[Violence-11154]

Okay…so there are still two professional teams and professional teams are the closest in skill even if one team is better.

Explain why pairing in this manner is “rigged.”

[Shadowsan-11715]

@Violence-11154

Explain why pairing in this manner is “rigged.”

Because rigged game is rigged, he plays like a god, remember?

[Leksa-21613]

How do I find it on the page? The latest Diamond Rein?

Found it!

[Outside-11127]

@Violence-11154

Explain why pairing in this manner is “rigged.”

Explain how it is NOT rigged, since you’re violating the definition:

Definition: rigging; to rig;
1. : to manipulate or control usually by deceptive or dishonest means - e.g. rig an ow match
2. : to fix in advance for a desired result - e.g. rig the the ow match

If you can’t see how prefixing the match outcome odds is rigging, there is no hope. It’s the definition. Are you actually going to disagree with dictionary terminology to damage control this company? They can’t figure out a fair workplace environment do u really expect them to code fairness lmao.

@Violence-11154

Equal or near equal does not mean “rigged” outcomes.

The difference is with mmr they are adaptively fixing. People expect to be tested randomly against others of their labelled (i.e. viewable) skill metric. This metric is their rank and their payout.

If you’re not testing them randomly against others holding that same metric, you’re being deceptive, and forcing outcomes (in expectation) rather than in random contest. And it is 100% deceptive because people aren’t being made aware of this algorithmic handicapping.

So current system is provable rigging as per definitions. Just because you want rigged 50-50 to be “fair” doesn’t change that it’s a literal subset (or special case) of rigging.

Real competition doesn’t rig at this level. It would be completely unfair to someone putting in the work to rank up to be held back by teammates not putting in the work (what mmr rigging does). Vice-versa, the payout of someone not putting in the work shouldn’t be smoothed out by this handicapping. That’s not fair. It’s not fair to anyone, and it’s not fair laddering.

You want skill to determine if someone is better than a random sr sample around where they currently stand. That’s how you ladder people fairly. This implies random select and test.

You don’t rig or force the odds for every single person in every single match towards 50-50.

Start by challenging Merriam-Webster on their definition of rigging before you get back to me. If it changes you might have a case.

[CALCULUS-11403]

@Outside-11127

Definition: rigging; to rig;
1. : to manipulate or control usually by deceptive or dishonest means - e.g. rig an ow match
2. : to fix in advance for a desired result - e.g. rig the the ow match

Can you provide the website link for this please? I’d really like to see this.

@Outside-11127

The difference is with mmr they are adaptively fixing. People expect to be tested randomly against others of their labelled (i.e. viewable) skill metric. This metric is their rank and their payout.

But they’ve actively informed everyone that they’re utilizing an MMR/SR based system. And they’ve given high level explanations, for casual users, as to what this means and how it’s implemented.

So no deception has taken place.

[Violence-11154]

@Outside-11127

Explain how it is NOT rigged, since you’re violating the definition:

@Outside-11127

If you can’t see how prefixing the match outcome odds is rigging, there is no hope.

Matching opposing players as closely as possible given a tolerance interval for their expected win odds is fair. You’ll have to explain how this is “deceptive,” “dishonest,” or “fixed” in advance.

Pairing teams by the closest available Elo isn’t a “fixed outcome.” Nor is it dishonest. Nor is it deceptive. It’s a fair matchup given the available player pool.

It’s no different than limiting the Elo of chess tournaments.

@Outside-11127

The difference is with mmr they are adaptively fixing.

How is a limited Elo range “adaptively fixed?” Their rank and payout–in all Elo systems–is based on their expected win odds versus their actual win odds.

By your logic, if the Elo range is limited, the outcomes are “rigged.” That’s a nonsensical position to hold. Bracketed competition is a mode of fairness, not deceit.

@Outside-11127

It would be completely unfair to someone putting in the work to rank up to be held back by teammates not putting in the work (what mmr rigging does).

Welcome to the world of PBSR and team games. If you suck, you get “held back.” If you don’t suck, you get “pushed forward.”

@Outside-11127

You want skill to determine if someone is better than a random sr sample around where they currently stand.

If we narrow the SR window to a maximum tolerance of 40:60 and then randomly assign players, is that also “rigged?”

Or are we just grouping players by “skill” under this scenario?

Here’s some R code for random assignment within a narrow SR window where min:max odds are 40:60 -

#Some R code

#Seed to reproduce
set.seed(9001)

#1000 player pool with a narrow SR window
player_pool <- runif(1000, 0.4, 0.6)

#Visual check for random distribution
hist(player_pool)

team_means <- data.frame(matrix(ncol = 2, nrow = 10))
colnames(team_means) <- c("Team 1", "Team 2")

#Randomly sample 6 players from the pool to each team 10 times
for (i in 1:10){

#Random sample of 6 players from pool, assign to team
team_1 <- sample(player_pool, 6)
team_2 <- sample(player_pool, 6)

#Calculate mean of team
team_means[i,1] <- mean(team_1) 
team_means[i,2] <- mean(team_2)
}

#Print
print(team_means)

Results:

     Team 1    Team 2
1  0.5309775 0.5023684
2  0.5112302 0.5167133
3  0.5563858 0.4876232
4  0.5038375 0.5215329
5  0.5023452 0.5022785
6  0.5449180 0.4964700
7  0.4871450 0.4932924
8  0.5240470 0.5329452
9  0.4981706 0.5173812
10 0.4738968 0.5163311

tl;dr - random assignment of players within a bracket gets you the same result; guess it’s rigged too

[SgtSlaughter-1710]

Didn’t read the whole thing, from what I see people talking about how the match maker uses random people within the skills… but match maker uses MORE than sr.

For example if you continually play at high ping perhaps match maker pairs with high SR partners over you opposing team. Otherwise it considers high ping people a liability.

We don’t know what they use, we don’t know their weights, we don’t know how the weights adjust as queue time increases.

I wish it uses just SR and I wish we knew the formula- but because they don’t tell us makes it sus that it can be abused or stolen. (And if it uses known systems how can it be stolen???)