No no, dont bring Dunning Kruger effect to the table, then nothing in this world will “feel fair” then. That would be an absurd qualifier to put there mate.
If you are going to do that, then edit this sentence, because that is an ouroboros
You can’t make a problem out of nothing just because you included an unsolvable qualifier on purpose lol. That is not definitely a real problem.
Without Dunning Kruger effect yes, my claim stays.
Nope, different effect. Dunning Kruger is not the same thing.
People who think they are good typically ARE good, but they miss estimate where they are in the population.
Dunning Kruger is where people at the bottom rate themselves near the top, since they don’t understand the problem space.
Different issue.
It is unsolvable, which is the point.
so when I say…
saying
You can’t solve it by throwing queue times at it.
Because it is unsolvable.
More importantly, it means that a chunky part of your population will feel like the games are unfair.
It’s compromising to keep the game balanced by putting a [supposed] lesser skilled player to counterbalance the [supposed] better player. I don’t understand how you could see that as predetermined in this case.
If you have the data that shows that a lower skilled player is constantly being queued with a higher ranked one outside of duos or stacks, then I’d be more than happy to believe you on that one.
I’m sorry to hear that, but that is your personal experience and it does not reflect what the majority of players are experiencing, and there is no pattern behind it either.
And if you do truly want a balanced matchup every single time, then have fun with your insanely long queues.
Forced losses have been debunked since its supposed inception just by looking at good players doing bronze to master+ challenge in a couple of hours.
Yes. Forced losses. That is literally what this entire OP is about. It does not exist.
So the game punishes better skilled players by giving them lesser skilled players? That sounds fair don’t you think?
In my last comp games I went round and round with the same circle of players either on my side or against me. There may of been 1 or 2 changes on the rosters. In one case I faced the same known hacker 3 times in a day then he was on my side the next day.
Well considering the fact that almost every day there is a new post about how a players is getting boned over by the MM I don’t think this is just an isolated incident on my end. And if I knew the game would be fair and balanced with players along my skill level I would gladly wait an extra 10-15 minutes for a fair game instead of waiting 2 minutes for a bad game. Why would you want to do that to your players base?
Quantity of games over quality of games? Ask anyone. For instance, A patron of a restaurant will gladly wait another 20 minutes for their steak to be done correctly instead of rushing the chef along to get a really bad meal.
Well, it tries to put people in games of their own skill. You can make it better by letting it wait longer, but people don’t seem to be keen on 30 minute queue times.
No.
Dunning Kruger effect is basically lacking the ability to properly assess one’s performance. Affects ALL tiers. Literally from google:
“when a person’s lack of knowledge and skills in a certain area cause them to overestimate their own competence* . By contrast, this effect also causes those who excel in a given area to think the task is simple for everyone, and underestimate their relative abilities as well.”
It isnt though. Because player’s perception of balance is not the same as actual balance.
You are making an issue with an empirical and statistical tool and throwing “feelings” to the table to make a problem. That is so wrong on so many levels I dont even know how you unironically did that.
Queue times would be a result of waiting for enough player of the exact same rank (lets say Gold 3) in all roles to create a match. Theres no “throwing queue times” at it 
Since this is a constant, it can be dismissed.
Since using your logic, nothing in this world would feel fair, we can dismiss those “feelings” of unfairness and stick to the facts:
A game where everyone is literally the same rank is 100% fair (unless smurfs are involved).
This is not up for debate.
If you seriously believe that it isn’t fair, then I don’t know what to tell you other than you don’t know what “fair” even means.
OK, but those are not hard statistics.
No, obviously not, but it’s still a very small minority who are complaining about it.
If waiting 30 minutes gave me players on my same skill level then I’ll wait 30 minutes instead of waiting 3 minutes to get gold and below players who throw the game.
What, describing WHY people go all conspiracy theory on the matchmaker, it is because it doesn’t feel fair.
Because it can’t.
Having it no be able to make a game which is fair and feels fair, is why you get the tinfoil hatters.
If you could make it always feel fair, then they would be all good with the matchmaker. But you can’t. So they will always exist.
Ok, so you wait 30 minutes, but, you end up with me in your game. I’m a bottle of wine in, and I don’t normally drink.
The matchmaker CAN’T know this, so you are going to lose. There is a natural fluctuation of players skill compared to their MMR. The MMR isn’t the player.
But I am with you, in that you CAN make a matchmaker which lets people pick how long roughly they are willing to wait for a good match.
People who care can set the value for longer, and get better matches on average.
I think the bigger problem in Overwatch is a winning team has the advantage, so even when the matchmaker gets it right, it can STILL be a stomp.
No dude. Dont pivot.
You said this:
You can’t make a matchmaker which is both fair and FEELS fair. That is the real problem.
This has been refuted.
You are saying its a problem, its not. Why? because people deflecting blame, dunning kruger etc, always exists, therefore is a constant, therefore it can be dismissed, therefore the qualifier of “feelings” is pointless.
We have to only look at the utopia of 100% fair matches, hence my claim:
This ends here 
Has it? if you could make one then you don’t have a problem. Because matches would feel fair.
Is it? The MMR is not the person, and it still wouldn’t feel fair to the players.
How could you not see if this isn’t fair or not? I have to laugh at this. The game shouldn’t punish you for doing well especially a game like Overwatch. I mean should I have to worry about carrying a player who isn’t pulling their weight because I am doing well? Why can’t this player be put with other players who are on the same scope as them?
And I get it If I am not doing well then maybe I’d be placed with a person who is better than me, but I don’t want that and I don’t learn anything from that. How do players get better if they’re just placed with others who are better than them to carry them just because the system says “well if they don’t win then we need to make it so they do win”.
What is so wrong with the system saying "Okay, Drakore is a master player so let’s put him with other master players that are similar to him and see if he can get better and queue time will be roughly 15-20 minutes.
Instead of “Drakore is a master player let’s give him two plat players to see if he can carry them and get a faster queue in 2-5 minutes”
I am literally thinking the same thing to you, my friend. We’ll have to agree to disagree on this one I guess.
It isn’t. It isn’t trying to match you with worse players, since it will be trying to put you in higher MMR games, where you are the average player.
It isn’t trying to match you to your OLD MMR. so saying “it then tries to put me in games with worse players” isn’t true, it doesn’t.
Yes I agree that we all have bad games even when MM looks like it is right and I am no exception and have been garbage in a few games but when it is not my fault 10x in a row? There is an issue here.
Jesus christ, stop bringing “feelings” to the table when we are talking about OBJECTIVE fairness. Mathematical fairness, about a statistical number, representing a RANK:
Ugh.
What the hell? You were the one who started saying you could make one which did both.
I’m sorry but I’d have to disagree with you on this. I am a master player ( or was before I quit) I can tell you with 100% certainty that the game was defiantly not matching me with players around my skill level. I was getting on average games with players who were at least 2 maybe even 3 ranks below me or I am just that unlucky to get master players who were intentionally throwing in most of my games.