SR, MMR, and Role Queue

It’s this one.

What I meant is that MMR is not used to rig matches. The MMR/SR differential is used to affect SR gains and losses, yes.

What is this, 2016? They got rid of that ages ago.

Certainly things could be better documented. But Blizzard’s statements are usually clear and fit with the matchmaking theory I’ve seen from independent (non-Blizzard) sources. Most of the “interpretations” I’ve seen are people trying to find some excuse for why they have poor teammates other than the obvious: that they themselves are a poor teammate, and they are matched fairly, on average.

1 Like

Everyone intelligent is aware you believe it to be that one. You obviously are one of the smartest posters here, can you objectively provide any sort of proof beyond saying it is so?

Seems a bit contradictory, but ok.

That is true of many posts, and it’s easy to see from the tone. However, their ulterior motive and general lack of awareness does not indicate that it is or is not the case. Suggesting so is a pretty severe fault in your logic. As I said in my first post, were this truly the case, anyone who belongs higher than they are would still be climbing due to PBSR. It still matters because it severely impacts match quality if that is how matchmaking is done.

1 Like

Here’s the actual quote: Seagull & Jeff Kaplan: NEW Hero Confirmed! - YouTube. You can interpret however you want. However, with sufficient math background, only one explanation is reasonable.

I was referring to your “particularly at the start of a new season”.

I have demonstrated that the problematic behavior can be understood by simulating a conventional, well-designed system. https://www.reddit.com/r/OverwatchUniversity/comments/aatezy/why_match_quality_is_frequently_poor/. By Occam’s Razor, I reject more obscure explanations.

1 Like

I’m not sure the ‘sufficient math background’ has any relevance here besides an attempt to invalidate my opinions via a self-proclaimed superiority. The question is not a mathematical one, but one of linguistics and trust.

Fair enough.

Occam’s Razor is a way of thinking, not empirical evidence. It might mean that it’s likely to be correct, but we both know it does nothing to actually back up that assertion.

My counterpoint: How do you measure standard deviations from the norm in the context of matches against varying opponents? We know MMR is measured in standard deviations. We know MMR is weighted based on wins, losses, and performance. By trying to measure these things against all players when different ranks will have drastically different performance in a non-linear fashion due to playstyles, you introduce mountains of factors that could destroy your data.

For example, more damage is almost always better. However, doing 2000 damage/min in a bush league game is much more likely than doing the same number in a grand master game where you attempt to limit ultimate feed and targets out of position are quickly killed. Likewise, achieving high healing numbers is much more difficult when your tanks aren’t constantly taking non-lethal chip damage and instead are being focus fired when they are killed. Given a player in gold, and a player in GM, many of their stats are liable to be comparable, but obviously the GM players’ mean more given they are against a GM opponent.

Wins, losses, and performance are all irrelevant until placed in the context of the opponents they were against. Measuring MMR as standard deviations within your range of skill(perhaps done by rank: bronze/silver/gold/etc) allows you to assess whatever variables you determine to be most relevant in the context of the level of gameplay you’re playing at. Thus, as a gamer and software developer myself(likely with less mathematical background than you), I would be inclined to measure in the context of a rank. This allows you to easily compare all performance between peers, whilst removing the bias due to the major game differences at varying levels of play.

If I were tasked with creating a system that achieved as close of games as possible, I would want to identify overperformers and underperformers and ensure that they were evenly distributed as much as possible within the provided constraints. Keep in mind that at it’s core, Blizzard is a company interested in making money, and similar tactics have been employed by many game companies in many ways.

All I’m getting from your recent posts is that you are unable to substantiate anything beyond that single line from Jeff. It’s a bit disappointing, since the response to all of these topics is ‘You’re crazy, go listen to Kaawumba!’.

So, allow me to ask you straight out. I acknowledge that any evidence in favor of weighted matchmaking is largely anecdotal and unsubstantiated. I acknowledge that Jeff has claimed they do not look at SR for matchmaking. Do you have anything else to offer me besides subjective viewpoints and ad-hominem? A shred of real evidence that the matchmaking is how you say it is? From what I can see, there is no objective proof that they DO or DO NOT ‘handicap’ matches, simply evidence to the possibility of either.

2 Likes

Why do I shoot up 500 SR after playing with the people I was supposed to be just as bad as? Why was I even in a match with them to begin with? Thoughts?

This is a broken procedure, and is not what they do. It would make ranking up harder than necessary, which would make match quality lower for everybody. What is done is described in How Competitive Skill Rating Works - Season 17 → Summary → Summarize matchmaking, rating, and progression for me. Note the references as well. That post is out of date because it doesn’t include role queue, but the basic ideas haven’t changed.

How Competitive Skill Rating Works - Season 17 has 65 references. Perhaps, though, you should start with http://www.moserware.com/2010/03/computing-your-skill.html. It’s about Microsoft’s TrueSkill rather than Blizzard’s matchmaker, but they aren’t really that different and that post does a good job of explaining the philosophy and math behind these kinds of systems.

You seem to believe that it is up to me to prove to you how things work, and unless I can do that, your beliefs are equally valid. That isn’t how knowledge works. You have to understand it for yourself. I can’t make you understand anything.

And we can’t both be right. Reality doesn’t care about validating your opinions.

You’re not really giving any context here, but the system is unstable because of the introduction of role queue. You need to play ~150 games for your new rating to believable. But if you maintain the higher rating after ~150 games then either you’ve gotten better as a player, or your skills are more suited to the new role-queue meta. There is nothing strange about either of these possibilities.

Its definetely not a single digit number, your MMR is not 1 for example, its more like 1.02357098000264 or something like that.

They use a number between -3 and 3 because of programmimg reasons, it is better to use small numbers with many digits after the decimal point (in programming this is known as a floating point) because it is just as precise as using really large numbers, while using much less memory space.

So your MMR would look more like 1.0000263588151425277, rather than just 1.

Probably they don’t have the same MMR, but remenber that you can’t see groups anymore so they probably were grouped with one of the gold players and that’s why they got into your game, not because the MMR system randomply put them there

The system in WoW worked damn fine for the most part at least during WotLK and Cata. At some point during one of those expansions, you were allowed to see your MMR. It didn’t ruin the game.

As to the case of Overwatch, the MMR can be translated. This number will correspond to approximate SR, that the system estimates you being capable of reaching. So, regardless of the actual number being 1.02357098000264 for programming reasons, they give you a visual representation of 4 digit number as to what SR the system believes you being capable of reaching at the time if you keep up what you’re doing. They could if they wanted to.

However, there are reasons they are not going to do that, and I believe it’s not, because “players would game the system”. Players are already gaming the system, wittingly or not.

The reasons they are not gonna show you are:

There will be those matches in which you’ve clearly outdone yourself, and yet your MMR will dip.
There will be those matches, which will clearly be what people refer to as “rigged” and it would be apparent, if you’re able to look at each of the 12 participants in a match.
Blizzard are not going to want you to see what happens to your MMR during streaks.

I never claimed to be right, and you keep jumping to personal insults and assuming I haven’t read your material. I asked you a simple question and you responded with more evasion. If you are to claim, as you have been, that it is a fair and unbiased matchmaking system… surely you would be able to support it with more than theories and insults.

The response to anyone suggesting an alternative system such as I’ve described has been to say they are crazy and to read your material. The truth is, your material does not adequately support or debunk anything with blizzard source material or hard evidence. It’s a very well written and thorough explanation, but much of it has been filled in with assumption. Your reddit post is a cute software exercise, but it is still just a demonstration of how you could get bad matches in a fair system. It is in no way proof of a fair system.

My issue is that while you believe the system to be fair, and you don’t seem to have encountered any educated opposition, you don’t have any actual evidence to support it besides one quote from Jeff. Your posts are long and intended to be intimidating, but when you sift through the distraction they lack actual evidence and instead fall back on trueskill’s behavior and a simulation that has some questionable mostly arbitrary parameters and a whole lot of assumption.

Sure, you can fairly call any idea to the contrary a conspiracy theory or unlikely. However, the attitude toward it has been far from that. People continually act like your summaries ‘prove’ something, when the truth is they’re just a whole lot of smoke and mirrors to conceal a lack of actual evidence.

2 Likes

You keep linking things, but have you actually read them?
Call me dumb if you like… maybe I am, or I am confused or something, but I already see an issue with this supposed explanation of how the system is supposed to play out when it comes to personal performance.

So let’s say I one-trick. Say I’m at 2000 current rating (which is SR, why current rating is called Skill Rating is beyond me).

Say the system already estimates me capable of reaching ~2250SR (that estimation is the MMR), because of how I performed in recent matches (and yes, this is possible, the way it was possible in WoW. I don’t care what actual numbers they use for programming purposes, they can correspond to a certain rating and can be translated and shown in a 4 digit number).

To reach 2250 SR, I need to keep winning. Win at least half my games if they take place on 2250MMR, win more than half my games if they take place lower. That’s all good and well.

But as to my performance, shouldn’t my performance be measured compared to people at my current rating (SR) and not my MMR? Because MMR is already an estimation of where I belong.
The way this is phrased, in order for me to get to where I’m supposed to be according to the system, I have to perform not better than where I am currently, but I have to perform even better than where I am estimated of capable of being.

If that’s the case, this would be truly ridiculous.

Uh… He wrote them. I just merely hosted last season’s guide because he was doing things outside of Overwatch last season.

1 Like

Oh. Sorry about that.

Well, do you have a take on the specific paragraph quoted?
Specifically the part about your performance compared to others on the same MMR, not SR.

To make a probably stupid or simplistic analogy, you already have a 4th grade degree. In order for you to get your 8th grade degree, you have to demonstrate knowledge worthy of 12 grade degree. Seems unreasonable.

You are matched by MMR, not SR. MMR is the real number.

MMR doesn’t get 250 above SR in current Overwatch. If for some reason it did, the symptom would be gaining about 50 SR on a win, and losing 15 on a defeat, so your rank would go up while maintaining a 50% win rate. 3000+ Skill Rating Data and Analysis (now including DCs) → Decay.

I never said, that you get matched based on SR.

I’m talking about the personal performance factor (which in turn affects your MMR and points exchange at the end of a match).
The way I see it, it should compare your performance to those on your current rating (SR) and not to those at your MMR (where you’re capable of reaching).
Because the idea of you having to perform better than those at your MMR in order to be able to reach that SR is ridiculous.

The specific numbers I used were completely arbitrary and irrelevant. And yes, gaining 50 SR on a win would be indicative, than you’re waaaay lower than where you’re supposed to be. I don’t argue against that.

However, it’s the overall point, that matters, which is that while you’re matched based on MMR (and again, I never said you’re matched based on SR, please don’t put words in my mouth), your performance should be compared to those at your current SR, so that you can get quicker to where you’re supposed to be.
If your performance is compared to those at your MMR and you have to outperform those at your MMR in order to get the bonus points (as minor as they may be), this would be unreasonable and it would make climbing a nightmare. How can you not see this?

MMR isn’t a “potential” value. MMR is straight-up your current rank and that’s why you’re matched by MMR and SR isn’t used at all.

1 Like

Okay. But you keep saying that SR matters somehow. It doesn’t. It’s just a human-readable version of MMR. SR can diverge slightly from MMR, but only for small numbers of games, for things like DC penalties.

Yeah, you have to outperform people at your rank to rank up. Welcome to Overwatch. Note, however, than winning is more important that statistical performance.

After this display of complete and utter stupidity, I’m not sure if there’s even a point in talking to you guys and why someone even bothers reading, let alone discussing what you guys have to say.

Unless you’re legitimately trolling me, you are completely unable to understand my issue with the particular paragraph. I guess compiling bits and pieces of information is not the same as understanding it.

MMR is Not “straight-up your current rank”.

Your current rank is your current rating (SR). In other words, however many points you have at the moment.

The system has it’s own idea as to where you belong (based on wins, losses, performance and so on). It might be higher than your current rating, it might be lower, and it could also be the same. The game is matching you based on that number. This is your matchmaking rating (MMR).
In this game you can’t see it, which I guess why it’s so hard for you guys to wrap your head around the idea, that IT"S NOT ALWAYS THE SAME AS YOUR CURRENT RATING.

In a game like WoW, you every season you used to start at 0 points. You can have an MMR of 2.4K (based on your previous season) and if you were to win consistently, you would either maintain said MMR or it would go even higher. When your current rating is 0 with MMR of 2.4K, is your rank the same as your MMR? No, it isn’t.

Generally the points exchange was between 1 and 22. Howerver, for certain amount of games you would get bonus points, so you could get even 100 points for the first 20 or so wins, so that your current rating can more quickly catch up to your MMR. If you were to lose a lot of games, especially to people with lower MMR, it would cause your MMR to drop.
You can reach 2.2K current rating while at the same time maintaining 2.4K+ MMR.
Now, is your current rating the same as your MMR? It still isn’t!
You keep on playing and you reach 2.3K current rating, while at the same time still maintaining 2.4K MMR. Was the system wrong to assume you belonged higher than you were at 2.2K? No, it wasn’t.
Is the system correct in assuming you can reach 2.4K? It could be.
And for whatever reason, you can stop playing and you’ll still have this difference of you being 2.3k current rating and your MMR remaining 2.4K. Are they the same? No, they are not!

Now, in the case of Overwatch they don’t start you at 0 points. They place you much closer to where they the system thinks you belong. Does that mean those two numbers are now one and the same? NO! IT FREAKING DOESN"T!

And in Overwatch, the system for Plat and below is not pure Elo. There’s a personal performance factor. Based on your performance compared to that of other players with the same hero, possibly even on the same map (maps also affect points exchange, but that’s irrelevant to this discussion), the points gained or lost at the end of a match will be affected.

In your compilation of information, you claim, that your performance is measured against other players with the same hero of similar MMR to that of yours.

My thesis, which you clearly misunderstood when you said “Okay. But you keep saying that SR matters somehow. It doesn’t.” was,
that the comparison should be made (if it’s not already the case) to players with the same hero of similar SR, not MMR. I’m not saying, that SR matters. I’m saying it should.
To make it even more exaggerated (even though my initial numbers were probably already exaggerated), It is unreasonable that a Gold player must perform like Diamond to reach Plat. For SR to catch up to MMR, performance must be made compared to those of current SR, not MMR.
This is what allowed people to climb with less than 50% wins, because they maintained performance higher than that of their current SR.
If you’re supposed to outperform people at where you’re estimated to be, how can you possibly reach said estimation when you would gain less points for a win and lose more for a loss? Win every single game? Then the performance factor would truly be irrelevant, so why have it in the first place? Might as well revert back to pure Elo for all ranks and be done with it.

Either you got it wrong and this can’t possibly be the case,
or this nonsense would be able to perfectly explain uneven matches and streaks.

1 Like

This was not clear to me. My apologies.

As I said before, there is already a mechanism for SR to catch up to MMR. If a player’s MMR is above their SR, they will gain more SR on a win than they lose on a defeat. This means that they will climb SR at a 50% win rate. This will continue until their SR matches their MMR.

This is also why SR cannot get too far from MMR, or stay that way for long.

Your entire thesis is 100% based on this theory that MMR is some kind of value of “where the system thinks you should be” and I’m trying to tell you that the Overwatch system does not do this, that it doesn’t keep some kind of value of “where you should be”, and that MMR is simply where you are ranked in relation to the rest of the playerbase, and that your MMR is translated into an easy-to-read value UNLESS decay is involved.

If you really want to continue on this path of a value that represents the “potential of where you really should be”, you’re going to cite where, or if you can’t cite anything, at least tell us why you think such a value exists.

1 Like