Realized there’s really no point in arguing the logic of invasive matchmaking (50% win rate matchmaking) vs. non. You either have a preference for one or the other, and the choice resolves itself by what you value most in terms of the competitive sorting process. If you want a 50% win rate system, you like that system, and if you don’t, you don’t.
Clear to me there’s really no point in arguing this.
So you dont mind to play agaisnt smurfs who stomp you or with a lot worse players in same team? If you dont mind, can I ask if you are casual player or very competitive player who want to climb?
There are fewer smurfs than there are average players at your rank. Smurfs will have a smaller effect than will non-smurfs. A person near the top of their rank will benefit from a system where the matchmaker is not actively trying to even out their advantage.
This happens either way. You could flip the question too.
Do you want to be carried by smurfs every time you lose too many games in a row?
Do you want to be cancelled by throwers when you win too many games in a row?
In a less biased system, your personal impact is greater and time to climb or fall is shorter and less dependant on PBSR. Anyone who is confident in their own skill should prefer the less biased system.
50% winchance is just a meme. we all know that this isn‘t, wasn‘t and won‘t be true at all.
only one smurf or thrower is needed to smash the whole myth of „equal winchances“.
currently we have a tool that is desperately trying to match players with fake stats.
there is one very good reason to handicap players with MMR/SR: it increases the time to climb.
Why do you ask me that? You wont be carried by smurf if you lose many games in row. And btw no, I dont like being carried by anyone.
Again this isnt the things, I dont understand why you ask me something which was never proven to be a real thing.
Except, it is. If the matchmaker is balancing the teams after the lobby is determined, performing above the median gives you a greater chance to be paired with poor players or against good players. Performing below the median gives you a greater chance to be paired with good players or against poor players. It’s basic mathematics, you cannot balance for equality without having this effect.
Except it is not, it was never proven to be viable theory. Nobody ever shwoed evidence for it. And it is actualy easy to show it with replay system now.
No it doesnt, if you perform bad, your MMR will go down and you will play with and against worse players with worse MMR.
The fact you still believe replays are the best evidence is hilarious. Compound it with you crying about being paired with below-average silvers on your smurf in another thread at the same time.
You do not use anecdotal evidence to prove anything to a sufficient standard. That isn’t how the scientific method is applied.
The best evidence is the fact that actual GMs do not play with opponents of higher SR when doing bronze to T500 climbs. This is not anecdotal, there are numerous videos to back it up. If you need the logic chain to follow it up, I have a thread here that breaks it all down:
It is best kind of evidence you can get dude, because you can review all 12 players. There is nowhere to hide. Thats why you and others never show it, because you would fail miserably with your theory.
Sports & leagues work pretty similar to a matchmaking system in the regard that you have different divisions in which most teams are of the same skill level.
In most sports and leagues you also have tv-rights and so on paid out through the league to secure all teams within the league to be able to pay their players and so on, often its distributed quite equally.
Many sports also have rules nowdays in the regard of how money can be spent and how money can be invested and so on.
You also have drafting in some sports, mainly those who lack divison systems where you can go up/down depending on placement to secure the weakest teams from previous seasons to get first draft picks and that way make sure no team dominate the same league year after year.
Just a few of all the things that could be said but all in all, in a league you usually have a handful or less teams that are slightly to noticable better/favored. You also have a handful or less teams that are weaker than the rest of the teams. And the vast majority being kind of equal to each other.
However in almost any league even the worst team can if playing to the best of their ability and having a great game beat the best team if they don’t deliever on the highest level as well.
Got banned yesterday so i’m just seeing it now.
For qp they have to use MMR because SR is a competitive rank and not everyone does comp. Same goes for people that are doing placements for the first time ever. But in comp they do use SR tho i’ll admit it’ll give me weird games sometimes. Once i got put into a game that was 200 average lower than me while solo queuing then the next game was 200 above me.
I’ve called it the same grind mechanic other games have implemented into their games. If you think about it, matchmaking is literally the only way to implement a grind mechanic in this type of game.
This is just a fact, Thorny, and really little else need be said. If people don’t want to accept this plainness of this, that’s on them. Consider the value of wasting your time explaining to these folks how water is wet.
Yes continue to explain to us how making fair teams is unfair.
Except the mmr system doesn’t make fair teams it try’s too and fails at it.
If one of the gold players in a gold elo match is actually a diamond-smurf with fake stats, it’s not a fair matchup. It’s cheating and exploiting the algorithm.
Every game I’ve played in the last week has <lvl 100 accounts in it. Clearly alt accounts (re-rankers, smurfs, boosters etc.).
It is mathematically impossible to “fairly” match teams up with these numbers.
Not every <100 is smurf, maybe not even half of them are actualy smurfs. In bronze to plat btw.
Then call them alts or something like that.
I honestly believe that at least 80% of these accounts are not from new players.
They might not be exactly completely new players. I play a lot on my alt lately and I can tell you that majority of low level accounts I meet actualy are not any better than actual rank we are in. Usualy they are slightly better or even worse. Based on communication I had with some of them, they are often players who switched from console but struggle on pc account or gold players playing on alt different heroes.
I am talking about bronze-low plat. Any low level acc in high platd+ is usualy obviously smurf or alt acc someone who is already diamond+ on main.