SR, MMR, and Role Queue

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.


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

In his defense, in the early days of the system did push SR towards MMR, which was often different.

"So we are looking at their MMR, and skill rating is very closely attached to MMR. MMR means matchmaking rating. It is a hidden number. It looks weird and mathematical, and only Tim can see it in the metrics; but when we have miscalibrated on skill rating, there is more of a chase that needs to happen with your MMR to your skill rating, and that means that a player might have placed too high. We know by their MMR they are actually a lower skilled player.

So if they win a lot, we can’t give them a lot, because we know that they don’t actually belong there, but for you the individual it just feels terrible. So for season 3, our biggest hope is to recalibrate, and then also redistribute players across that curve in a better way; and if it is wrong, we will work on it, fixing it more. It is going to be perfect this time. The 4th time is the charm." – Jeff Kaplan (from 2016 Blizzcon).

Then for a while, each season people would start 200 SR below where they belonged, so they had to play 50 games to get to their real rating.

This unfortunate design hasn’t been in the system though for a long time, however. Based on Eloba’s comments, perhaps it was inspired by Warcraft. I only did PvE warcraft, so I don’t have first hand experience.

Dude. For the last time. SR is not translation or a visual representation of your MMR (unless they happen to be exactly the same). How can you claim something so freaking stupid?!

“MMR is simply where you are ranked in relation to the rest of the player base”
MMR is not your rank. It’s a number used for matchmaking purposes. It affects SR gains, but it’s not SR. They are not synonyms.

I do remember that post. It seemed like it may have been there to prevent boosting. But then again, there was the entire MallSanta boosting fiasco on the old forums.

I can’t actually remember if it was Season 2 or later. That being said, Season 2 was the season of Bronze-to-GM streams.

As opposed to the entire idea of a value that represents “where the system thinks you should be”?

Yes, MMR does represent more or less where the game thinks you belong based on wins/losses/performance and so on. For the bajillionth time, it’s not your rank. Your rank is your current rating, the SR.

And that very MMR is where you currently are, not projected to be after later games.

if you tie against a worse team, your MMR is reduced (most likely)but your SR stays the same. SR means nothing.

If you leave a game, and your team goes onto win, you will still gain MMR (most likely) but you will loose SR. SR means nothing.

if they revealed the MMR formula, we’d be able to show you exactly how it works

No. SR is where you are currently. MMR is an estimation. It’s not a guaranteed, that you’ll reach it, as it may drop before you get there based on multiple factors, but it is what I said it is.

Just a random screenshot from the internet:

It’s literally called Matchmaking Value. It’s an estimation of where you’ll end up being. It’s not constant. It’s not a guarantee. It can change.

The rating changes are basically how many points of current rating you got. Current rating is not displayed on this screenshot. You can have rating of say 1K and a Matchmaking Value of 2K+. If you play enough, they’ll get closer.

Just by looking at the specific picture, I can imagine the team having rating of ~1500. They get a lot of points from the enemies, because the enemies have very high MMR. The difference however is not enough, so they win 23 instead of ~100.

In Overwatch, I’m sure they are much closer. Just like Kaawumba said, I doubt the difference exceeds 250 (if you were to translate whatever number Blizzard are using for matchmaking purposes into a 4 digit estimation of where you belong in terms of SR), unless someone deliberately threw placements on a new account and then started to play for real.

But for the bajilionth time, SR is not MMR. MMR is not “visual representation” or “translation” of SR. MMR can grant you bonus SR points if it’s much higher than your current SR. Personal performance factor also grants you more SR if you did well, but MMR is not SR.

1 Like