Okay, this topic keeps getting brought up. People say they’re on a ‘forced losing streak’ or being kept down. Others say ‘git gud and climb’. The truth is, the latter is more accurate. Regardless of whether or not handicapping is in play, if you get better you will climb. This is not up for debate, if you want someone to support the idea that you’re being held back by an invisible hand that wants you and only you to stay your rank, it won’t happen here.
That said, the ideas are not mutually exclusive, and I strongly believe there is a handicapping system in place to extend the duration of your climb/fall. This would benefit Blizzard by keeping you playing longer; as long as you can tell you are outperforming your teammates and lobbies for the most part you’ll know you can climb and be determined to keep trying. If you’re falling, the occasional games where you get carried hard will make your own impact seem better and help motivate you to continue playing or pretend the fall isn’t deserved. Game makers do not want their games to be unfair for the sake of being unfair, but they do want to create an addictive experience and this would accomplish it.
Now, onto the meat of the topic. The system is obviously not tracking specific players and deciding to keep them down, so we need a clear and succinct outline for what is going on before we can try to support it. I propose the following 2 hypotheses:
-A match is created by selecting 12 players of similar SR, without looking at MMR.
-The players are then divided onto the two teams based on their MMR distribution.
Now, I cannot directly prove this without access to Blizzard’s source or an inordinate amount of data. But, we have some information that can be used to support it. If you’ll pull up youtube and look at bronze to T500 climbs, you can notice one thing:
Even when playing in a rank where these players are absolutely stomping, they are always matched in games with relatively equal SR while in the high population ranks(high silver through low plat).
We need to reconcile this with Jeff’s clear statement that matchmaking is not done with SR, but MMR. This leaves a few possibilities:
-Matchmaking is done with only MMR, and MMR follows SR so closely that the SR distribution remains equal.
We can disprove this by examining these player’s SR gains. They are gaining far more than PBSR allows, indicating the system knows their MMR is much above their SR.
-Matchmaking is done with only SR.
This is easy, Jeff said it’s not true, so let’s rule that out.
-Matchmaking is done by selecting the pool based on SR, then distributing based on MMR.
Interpreting jeff’s statement regarding MMR’s use in matchmaking can fit this. We know that something is keeping the SR ranges tight, and in these cases it can’t just be MMR. But, we also know MMR is ‘the only value used for matchmaking’. If we are to interpret the statement by assuming matchmaking is the process of distributing the pool of 12 players across 2 teams, we are not in contrast to what Blizzard has said.
Now, this is not proof. It is a theory. But, I consider it to be strong evidence. A GM or top 500 player would clearly have MMR far in excess of their rank, which would force the matchmaker to get higher ranked opponents if it were selecting from everything for the pool. This is clearly not the case, you don’t see these climbs getting significantly higher ranked opponents despite winning streaks of 20 or more wins by actual GM players in gold. I believe the most likely explanation is my earlier idea, the lobby is selected by SR and the players are distributed onto teams by MMR.
Why does this matter? Simple, if we can accept the prior 2 hypotheses, which as I will remind you are:
-A match is created by selecting 12 players of similar SR, without looking at MMR.
-The players are then divided onto the two teams based on their MMR distribution.
we can prove the existance of handicapping, and explain why it makes games feel bad and streaky. Given any example game, if the system’s goal is to equalize based on MMR, the average of each team will be as close to equal as possible.
If each team is equal in the end, and all players are at roughly the same SR:
-A player who is performing well will have worse teammates on average than a player who is performing poorly.
For any sample range, if the net result is to be even, the lowest value will have to be offset by higher values. Take a lobby with 12 players of approximately 2100SR, with an equal distribution of MMR from ~1900equiv to ~2300equiv. Each team will be approximately 2100MMR. This means that as a 1900equiv player, your remaining 5 teammates need to average 2140equiv to reach the 2100 average. As a 2300equiv player, your remaining 5 teammates need to average 2060equiv to reach the 2100 average.
What this means, in simple terms, is that a player who is at 2100 and falling is more likely to have easier games while a player who is at 2100 and rising is more likely to have difficult games. This is a simple concept, and all that’s needed to prove it is the earlier 2 hypotheses, both of which have evidence in favor of them.
As far as streaks, the game doesn’t have an innate desire to put you in streaks. Again, assuming the prior 2 hypotheses and following the logic, we can outline why they happen pretty easily. When you are performing much better than normal, you’ll raise your MMR. This eventually gets to the point where your MMR exceeds your SR, resulting in more frequent poor teammates or difficult opponents. In these games, you’ll have a harder time maintaining that performance because you won’t have the teamwork and competence you would in fair games. Your stats drop, and eventually it swings back the other way.
You cannot get in a state where games are unwinnable, as variance between lobbies will ensure that some games are relatively fair(if everyone in the lobby is close to their appropriate SR, the system is harmless and games will be fun regardless). Where it becomes a problem is in the middle ranks, where smurfs and new players abound. By simply overperforming a little, you can drastically increase your odds of being paired with a new player who’s MMR has not yet fallen to the level it belongs, or a second account who’s MMR has not yet risen to the level it belongs. These inaccuracies will result in stomps, as a player who is legitimately climbing or falling cannot be expected to offset the impact of those players.
‘But Thorny, bronze to 500 climbs prove it isn’t rigged! Krunkenstein gained 80 SR on his tank this week! Whatever anecdote!’
This all makes sense in the context of the system described. A player who is performing well based on PBSR will always go up, they just may take many more games to do so. As long as they are able to still contribute and avoid feeding in the games that are stacked against them, they will eventually regress to the norm and have opportunities to grab large amounts of SR in the more fair games.
A player who is top500 or GM is simply so good that most lobbies will not have anything capable of balancing them. It doesn’t matter if it’s them and the 5 worst players against the 2nd-7th best, the match is still leaning in their direction because they are simply that good.
So, git gud, whatever. The idea is here. It’s been here for years. All I’ve done is make an effort to look at it from the perspective of a software developer and outline how and why it could exist. Personally, I follow the evidence and it appears to be true to me. I understand that not everyone has the same standard of proof, I just ask that you read and apply logic when developing a counterargument.
As a closing note, these topics have been going for years, but Blizzard has yet to come out and say it’s false. They own patents for systems that can do this. Most threads oversimplify this to a simple ‘If you are good, you will climb’, which is absolutely true. That does not mean matches are not handicapped, and it is in the interest of everyone who wants fair gameplay to objectively examine the evidence and consider applying pressure to Blizzard for answers.
