how does one get more good teammates then bad? I seem to have the opposite problem, no matter my attitude or how well I play I get the “less than optimal” experience.
They are. Back when I smurfed we had like 3 >500 accounts.
Game will match you into 900-1100 games because theres just not enough people that bad to make a >500 lobby.
When we found people we didn’t played with before it was a shock. That’s how few people are down there.
It’s like playing mid diamond+, If you play at the same hours you know at least 1 person in your games.
A finite sum of finite quantities in finite.
Assume K is the number of people in the world. K is finite. Let SR(t) be the total SR in the system at time t. Then SR(t)<5000K+1<Infinity.
SR is indeed finite.
However! As far as whether or not SR is an economy, I’ll give you that one since I only included it to motivate the discussion – the analytical results are based on modeling SR as a random walk, not an economy. So, rather than argue over the definition of an economy, which I never gave, I’ll simply let that part go since it is not necessary for my results. The modeling of SR as a random walk is necessary, which, by the way, need not be defined on a finite space anyway. It can be defined on a finite space, but does not need to be.
1 Like
That’s really interesting! I searched up the scholarly article you referenced.
I don’t have much knowledge of math, so it’s hard for me to follow. But I’m glad we agree, and I’m glad this has become a subject of academic study, because it’s really important
The funny thing is that Blizzard has already disclosed that they use handicapping (MMR) to “balance” Competitive Overwatch. But the community outrage you would expect is simply not there. Most players are not aware that the handicapping system exists, because Blizzard does not mention it in Overwatch’s user-interface or terms of service. Players are further blinkered by the lack of scoreboards to give them objective measure of their performance against other players. These are the subtle design choices that game developers can make to keep us oblivious to their unethical practices.
At the end of the day, it is the role of government to protect consumers from predatory corporate behaviour like this. We cannot rely on the masses to educate themselves and then organize protest against every abusive gaming product. We need consumer protection laws. Video gaming needs to be regulated just as gambling does. (I don’t mean to suggest that current regulations on the gambling industry are adequate.)
I recently read a great book on the subject of technology addiction called “Irresistible,” by Adam Alter. The book touches on World of Warcraft, another Blizzard title that thrives on the wasted time of its players. I contacted Alter to ask for his thoughts on Match Making Rating. He wrote back that it does indeed sound harmful, so he’s going to try and learn more about it.
2 Likes
Fine. What do you think Match Making Rating is for?
I’ll summarize the math for you. The assumption needed for fair matches to be least optimal is this:
Draws must be assumed to be more likely to cause players to stop playing.
The objective to be optimized must also be defined as player engagement: time played.
Then it becomes trivially true that fair matches are least optimal since you’re seeking to construct the very thing that, by assumption, causes players to disengage, which is defined, by the objective, to be a bad thing.
The question for Overwatch then becomes: do we satisfy the assumption? Do draws, on average, cause players to stop playing. In my experience, yes.
Also, does Blizzard define optimal to be that which maximizes player engagement, i.e. playtime. We don’t know this.
But, the paper even goes on to conclude that without these assumptions, fair matches are at best equivalent in terms of engagement to the proposed EOMM match making scheme. So, why would Blizzard use something that is at best the same, and at worst least optimal? I postulate that they wouldn’t.
1 Like
At 3k+ MMR negates decay.
It doesn’t matter if I end the season 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 or I decay to 3k.
After placements I always get (wins-losses)*24(ish, adjusted by team srs) applied at whatever rank I had before decaying.
Also if you decay to 3k then queue you get paired with and against people at your non decayed Sr (and you get tons of bonus SR to get back there).
Below 3k you shouldn’t pay attention to MMR.
you have PBSR that literally tells you how good/bad you are playing.
Win and get less than 24 / Lose and it takes more than 24? You are doing worse than your rank.
If you get more than 24 on wins and less than. 24 on loses you are below where you should.
If you win and lose about the same you are correctly ranked.
Of course this varies game to game, but you should have an average (don’t even need to write it down).
What I do is… Just play the game.
If the game stops being fun I just stop playing.
Eventually I get to my true ranking if it’s a new / low Sr account, and that’s it.
I don’t give a rats tail if I’m playing in bronze, gold or master. All I do is have fun at the game.
DeadDuck, every once in a while on this forum, I bump into someone who gets it. Thank you for being one of those people ![:slight_smile:](https://d74zh8edaijub.cloudfront.net/en/overwatch/images/emoji/twitter/slight_smile.png?v=6" ":slight_smile:")
I think we have to recognize that players interests are directly at odds with Blizzard’s interests here. Blizzard wants us to spend as much time as possible engaged with their product, and players should want the very opposite. We play Competitive Overwatch to prove ourselves and achieve a rank that we belong in, where we are with peers of equal skill. But Match Making Rating makes this impossible by design. Instead of having our fun with Competitive Overwatch and getting out when we have fulfilled our ranking potential, we get stuck on a hamster wheel.
Match Making Rating exists to bring matches as close to a draw as possible, i.e., to give both teams a ‘near win.’ Research into addiction shows that near wins are a crucial part of addiction formation.
Life is short. Our time has value. It is wrong for corporations like Blizzard to abuse our lives and prey on our time. They have found a way to monetize futility, and we are letting them profit.
MMR has nothing to do with decay.
maybe then but sure as hell not now. I see new people all the time. I have been off work with a medical condition the last few weeks, heart issues that prevent me from strenuous activities, and the number of smurfs, second accounts, possible aim-bots far outweigh those that genuinely want to try.
Then? I smurfed since season 9 up to last season.
I have probably more hours than you in bronze
Ask ANY high rank, everyone will tell you what I just did.
Why would I lie to you haha?
Trust me I don’t play against decayed GM (just against GM smurfs lol)
Actually you’re wrong. At Bronze, you gain more SR than you lose so… it’s impossible to have a positive winrate in Bronze without ranking up
What are you talking about?
Let’s see. I’m 3.4.
Then I stop playing and now I’m 3.0 due to decay.
When I queue in go against 3.4s, not 3.0s.
1 Like
You’re not blowing my mind here.
In my time on the forum, I’ve seen a lot of posters who try to make sense of these subjects by referring to their personal experience with the game. It is a mistake to do this, because your personal experience is subject to the very things we are discussing. Try to focus on the facts.
Cuthbert, I see you are still interpreting things that say the exact opposite of you as support.
The whole point of DeadDuck’s article was that balanced matches AREN’T the most “engaging” type of match necessarily. If the oompany is evil and trying to increase engagement at the expense of players, it suggests balanced matches might not be the best way to do so.
Your entire conspiracy theory is based on the fact that Blizzard balances matches which is somehow unfair to players and holds them down (???), but does so to increase engagement.
These are opposites. Which is it. Is Blizzard using balanced matches to drive engagement, or unbalanced matches?
As for the OP, Kuth basically hit it, but your analysis rests on an incorrect understanding of how SR/MMR works.
Most critically, you get bonus SR to ensure it always stays close to your MMR. Under normal play they don’t really diverge anyway, but if they do (like for decayed players) you’ll get large differences in how much SR your gain/lose. In a similar way, PBSR can impact how much SR you gain/lose.
What this means is for any match, total SR can be added or substracted from the system. Which unfortunately means your entire argument rests of a flawed premise. Since we can always add/subtract SR, we solve for a long-term SR trend on it’s own. It depends on a bunch of other factors, namely MMR and how it changes.
But again as Kuth said, we already have the empirical results. After years of competitive the SR distributions have been pretty static. Which is by design, because SR is basically a pretty way to dress up skill percentiles. Instead of saying top 10% of competitive players, you’re “diamond/3000-3500SR”. It means the same thing.
1 Like
The original post didn’t even mention Match Making Rating, but these are related subjects.
Yeah I know, I addressed the OP but I also want to address what you and DeadDuck were talking about.
Specifically, I want to address the issue of you completely reversing what DeadDuck’s article said.
It is very clear. The article is discussing intentionally creating unbalanced matches to increase engagement, and DeadDuck said this means it’s likely done by companies, but they could never say so, because if Blizzard says “we create unfair matches on purpose” players would be mad. You responded with:
Which acts like DeadDuck said the opposite. DeadDuck said players would be outraged over intentionally unbalanced matches, you are saying it’s funny that the “outrage” isn’t there for balanced matches. Why would their be outraged over the current system is DeadDuck is right and players would be mad about unbalanced matches?
Again, these are completely opposite ideas that you are conflating. Is it balanced matches that are meant to drive up engagement as the expense of the player, or unbalanced matches? It can’t be both.
Viewing matchmaking balance as a stock trade rather than a “simple” mathematical equation is incredibly intelligent, and interesting. Maybe they should try to inspire more from true stock trade risk formulas.
I mean, pure maths don’t care about balance, stock trade does.
Also it would be a new concept to not view players as data, but rather as investors : they invest time to earn SR. Frustration comes from SR loss, satisfaction from SR gain. The currency is time and mechanical dedication. The resource is playerbase activity. Therefore SR is similar to an economy and could use its formulas.
I am calling BS. I have won 73 games in 27 hours of comp play so far this season. I peaked at a 1316 and back down to 1099 with a 57% win rate. Currently lower then where I placed.
1 Like