The SR system is fair

The SR system is fair in a vacuum but that’s not what we’re playing in. What does the system do when it happens to put 5 support mains on the same team? Oh great, we’re high plat/diamond, but now we have 2 tanks and a dps that play below diamond level. Oops, got rolled, guess we’re not good at the game huh?

Even the pro players specialize in a few characters. You don’t see point guards in the NBA being asked to play center. Given we don’t have visibility into the calculation and its inputs all I will say is that when someone hops on widow in a platinum match and performs at a silver level, it needs to factor that into everyone else. Oh, everyone had more deaths than average this time? Gee, no one wanted to play a barrier tank, go figure. Oh, a dps on the other team, maybe a smurf, just popped off and murdered everyone, putting up ridiculous stats for this elo? Maybe you shouldn’t punish the other team’s SR as much. Leaver? You win a 5v6? Congrats, here’s a full elo jump. (kidding)

5 Likes

Too bad there will always be those whom worry about sr instead of mmr X ) so there will always be a wall of complaints from them in the forums.

raw stats mean nothing, its like old joke about the hanzo main who did nothing but has 3 golds.

youd think having alot of dmg dealt or healed would mean alot but what matters isnt how much, but WHEN and how effective it is.

for this ill use dps as an example,

in a perfect world anyone whos dealing dmg would have a perfect dmg to elim ratio. meaning they would never over do it.

something you see alot in low elo, is a heroes like junkrat, hanzo or pharah will have insanely high dmg numbers at the end 20-30k. but they’ll have done 25-40 elims total.

if we assume that every kill is a solo kill then they did between 750-800 dmg per elim. which is feeding

in a perfect senario that hanzo would of done, 40 elims with 11320 dmg or 283 dmg per elim. this is the average health of a team with a rein (500 hp) zarya (400 hp) and 4 200 health squishies. so this would mean hes effecient, hes killing targets without them having a chance to really get healed at all. which is ofc im possible. but its far better then the shown stats

now why did i just type all of that up ab out dps when your talking about healing?

the reason is because you can have 2 dps in a match, one with all golds and 1 without. and the one with golds is hard feeding and could cost you the game

were as the 1 without, might have the better elim to dmg ratio. meaning there not just throwing dmg out there for the enemy to heal.

the same concept goes towards healers, its very possible for you to have 30,000 healing every single match but still not do your job. because it doesnt matter if you heal 30,000 if most of what your healing is your feeding tanks, you have to keep as many people alive as possible

so for instance healing the widow thats being dove on over and over again is many times more important then healing the rein that charged straight into the enemy team. that riens dead

on the other side, its more important for you to heal the tanks that are in a brawl (and are low health) then to try and heal the over extending genji thats trying to spawn camp people.

who you heal, how you heal and when you heal is more important then how much.

also you dying 15 times in a match shows you have bad positioning and awareness. you dont belong higher

the higher up you go, the TTK (time to kill) drop dramatically (meaning you die faster) while positioning becomes alot better to compenstate. you have people that react instantly to anything you do

not being able to climb is infact a “you” problem, many people have done bronze-diamond-masters-gm climbs as any and all heroes. and notice i said bronze-diamond then masters and gm. because non pros/top500s have done it too with relative ease

ive climbed a mercy account from silver (were it placed) too plat in a matter of days, yet your telling me that because you had such high stats. that what i did was impossible. youd probably tell me it was luck

but that mentallity is why you dont climb

1 Like

Your performance was likely abysmal and you were slated to win significantly.

Thats stuff makes you like… Win more?

how do you define “fair”?
Both Solo Q players and players in groups on the same level? You wont find a single game on console with exclusive solo players right now.
I doubt a reset would solve this, not if the system itself is the problem.
Gold on console is basically everybody, people who know nothing about this game, some with great mechanical skills, some with great map and hero awareness, some who simply picked lucio on their first placement matches and ended up in gold. Inf amount of account per game (as long as you got a PS+ account).
People say the match quality would suffer if they changed the SR/MMR system but imo i can’t get any worse than right now. Console overwatch is a mess

While Cuthbert didn’t understood in the slightest what he was talking about, your statement about “MMR basically translates to your SR” makes no sense and leads to the question whether you know what you’re talking about.

In World of WarCraft MMR was displayed. I make a team and I start from 0 SR. My MMR is 2.2k+. 0=2.2K?
In the process of gaining rating I get to like 2K rating, but my MMR is now 2.4K. 2K=2.4K?

In Overwatch, GM player decays to 3K. His MMR can be 4K. 3K=4K?

You do realize, that WoW uses Elo as a system, and here for Plat and below we have True Skill, which incorporates personal performance factor, that does affect your MMR and points gain/loss as a result, right?
And you do realize, that your performance might suffer due to bad teammates in a team game, right?

The thing is, that if Blizzard displayed MMR, and we had the exact formula they are using, we would be able to spot irregularities. The reason they displayed MMR for WoW, but refuse to do so for Overwatch suggests something is not as it should be.

The tangible things like aim might affect your MMR.
intangible things such as people skills can affect your SR (because they will lead to a win and you will get points), but your MMR is not affected. If the matchmaker decides you are performing poorly with the tangible things despite the fact, that you won and your actions lead to the win, your people skills wont prevent your MMR from dropping and matching you with worse players.

This post understand the system and what the poster describes accurately represents my experience with the game:

Instead of talking about Cuthbert, why don’t you talk about people, that write coherent posts?

If MMR was displayed, none of that would have been brought up.

Because reasons and zero argumentation…

MHz’s theories are even worse than Cuthbert’s. At least Cuthbert took a Blizzard statement, but twisted the hell out of it to fit his narrative. MHz just completely made BS up and claimed he “tested” them.

Everything I know about Overwatch’s matchmaker in particular comes from Kaawumba’s topics, and he’s compiled every single Blizzard statement on matchmaking into his references section:

I decided to use the line that “MMR basically translates to your SR” because of these two Jeff Kaplan posts

In particular, Jeff states that unless your SR decayed due to inactivity (above diamond), your MMR and SR are “closely linked”.

Also stated is that MMR works similarly to SR, and that it going up or down is contingent on winning and losing:

No, they are not. Cuthbert takes the cake.

That makes more sense.

“contingent on winning and losing” is not a direct statement, that you can’t lose MMR during a win on Plat and below.

They say this:
“In Overwatch, whether your MMR goes up or down is contingent on winning or losing. But there are a number of factors that determine how much that rating goes up or down. For example, what map you’re playing on and whether you were attacking or defending is factored in. We know the win rates on attack/defend on all of the maps and we normalize accordingly. Not all wins and losses are equal. We also look at your individual performance on each of the heroes you played during the match. Everyone has better and worse heroes and we have tons of data showing us what performance levels should be like on those heroes. We also look at your opponents and whether or not their matchmaking rating is higher or lower than yours. These are just a few of the things that are considered when determining how your skill should go up or down. At no point in MMR calculations do we look at your win/loss ratio and win/loss ratio is never used to determine who to match you with or against. We are not trying to drive your win/loss percentage toward a certain number (although the fact that so many people are at 50% win rates makes us extremely happy). All the system does when it comes to matching on skill is attempt to match you with people of a similar number.”

Then they say this:
"For better or for worse, we focused the design of the game on winning or losing as a team. OW is not a game where you ignore the map objectives and then look at your K/D ratio to determine how good you are. We want you to focus on winning or losing "

So why have the personal performance factor at all, if they want us focusing on winning?

“Everyone has better and worse heroes and we have tons of data showing us what performance levels should be like on those heroes.”
But surely your performance depends not just on you, but on your team as well. The role of tanks is to make space. If you end up in a match where the tanks don’t do that, how is DPS expected to perform in a manner consistent with the “tons of data”? And then there could be all manner of issues as to why tanks fail to create space. Maybe the healers are not healing…

Your performance does not exist in a void. You can’t possibly perform consistently in a team focused game, completely independant of what your allies are doing.

They should either remove the personal performance factor, or make it work. For example, if you main supports, you should get proportionately good DPSers… but the reality is, that you can do everything right as a support, and people on other roles can be subpar.

Saying “the system works and is fine” with zero actual argumentation does not address any of the above mentioned negative exeriences.

Also, in previous seasons, I used to play with way better DPSers on the same ratings I do nowadays. Please, explain this phenomenon. Drop in MMR could explain it, but I don’t see my MMR. These are all issues, that need to bre addressed and they haven’t been in an adequate manner.

1 Like

There’s a reason why the “personal performance factor” is a minor one. The focus should be on winning and losing. And that’s why I maintain that you cannot lose MMR on a win and gain MMR on a loss, and that MHz is dead wrong about his theory, which he didn’t or can’t cross-reference with any Blizzard statements, because his theory doesn’t make sense.

Stylosa even made fun of it.

That’s a perception issue. No one can agree or disagree with that unless you post video, and even then, that would be a perception issue.

This is nonsense.
You can claim everything I say is subjective. This is no real way to argue.
Also, linking Stylosa shows me plenty about your way of thinking.
He does no real analysis. What he does are motivational speaches and nothing more.

You, like him, assume, that people raising complains are wrong by default. It’s like preeching religion.
“Trust in the system, it works!”

If anything, Blizzard should be suspect for patenting rigged matchmaking.}

You linked MHz, though. We can do the entire pot/kettle thing back and forth, but the entire thing is, why do you think MHz is correct?

Also, I mention others raising complaints, because take a look at the following two topics:

Both players claimed that the matchmaker was systematically forcing both of them to play with “bad” teammates. Turns out both players were wrong, and quick tilters. It’s really hard to have sympathy for so many players that think this way.

let me start by saying, that it is extremely unfair of you to compare MHz’s hypothesis, which at the very least is coherent, to the ramblings of Cuthbert, who fails to understand basic things about the system. I have spoken to him and he gave me headaches. My battle.tag was Noxifer at the time.

  1. I like MHz’s hypothesis because MHz’s hypothesis provides a possible explanation as to why the vast majority of the games are one-sided stomps. From my experience, it accurately describes how the matches feel like.

  2. I like MHz’s hypothesis, because a lot of matches feel, like you’re playing with people, that are not on the same level. MHz’s hypothesis addresses that and explains, that it might be a result of the personal performance factor, and also speculates, that you might get marked for derank, which explains the streaky nature of this game.

  3. I like MHz’s hypothesis, becuase of how devs described the system to work.
    In other games, the matchmaking is defined in a way, that the other players (opponents and/or allies) must be of similar or equal skill. In Overwatch I don’t see these words being mentioned.
    Instead, what you get here in Overwatch is “matches that we think you have 50% chance to win”.

  4. I like MHz’s hypothesis, because of Blizzard’s refusal to display MMR and show the proper formula.
    The MMR is invisible for some reason, unlike in World of WarCraft where you can see your MMR. Imagine the outrage, if a player wins a game, but loses MMR, because the matchmaker decided, that his performance is poor based on stants, even though he might have done a crucial thing for winning said game.

  5. Also, because Activision Blizzard were granted a patent for what essentially is a rigged matchmaking:

This automatically makes them suspect in my book.

MHz might very well be correct… or this simply could be a byproduct of Blizzard allowing you to queue without a 6 stack (full premade) for a heavily team focused game.
I would suggest you look at what Seagull said in his podcast, that the game didn’t initially have solo queue:

All these are issues, that should be addressed, even if not 100% described properly. The original poster of this thread, proclaiming, that the system works fine, is more or less trolling, and doesn’t say anything of value.
I hope this explains my take on the matter.

1 Like

This is the most coherent and possible suggestion I’ve heard lol.

1 Like

Quoted for truth! <3

I don’t care whether or not MHz is coherent. I only care that he actually references Blizzard’s statements on how matchmaking works. He does not do that at all in his post. In fact, he insinuates (but doesn’t flat out say) in bold to disregard what Blizzard says because he’s right and they’re lying.

What I ask of each of you is this, read this entirely. Then go and play competitive and observe with your own mind, free from what you have been told. You will see that this is the truth.

This is already a bad idea because of people’s self-biases. I referenced as such with those two topics above that I posted.

But I can’t rank up reeeeee

And this justifies a slower climb because why?