What is Competition anyway? Let's start there

Competitive Discussion
1

Edit: Thank you Game Master Marrekwethir for resolving the inappropriate flag. You da bomb~

Let’s start with a few definitions, a thesis, and then put it all together.

Definition: Competition is an activity involving multiple parties that are attempting to achieve an exclusive goal, one which cannot be held in common or shared among the parties, and in which there are some set of rules, guidelines, or constraints on the means for participating and achieving the goal.

Thesis: Match Making Rating (MMR) algorithm removes the integrity of competition, thus invalidating it as a real, authentic, genuine competition, because the algorithm fixes the outcome of the match by pre-determining the win rate chances for both teams at/near 50% and, therefore, must be removed from Competitive Play in order to maintain/uphold Competition’s integrity and authenticity for Competition’s sake.

What is Match Fixing?
Match Fixing means the arrangement on an irregular alteration of the course or the result of a sporting competition or any of its particular events (e.g. matches, races etc.) in order to remove all or part of the uncertainty normally associated with a competition.

What is Integrity in Sports and Competition?
The manifestation of the ethics and values which promote community confidence in sports, including fair and honest performances and outcomes, unaffected by illegitimate enhancements or external interests.

Over the past weeks, I have read what feels like countless of counter arguments as to why MMR should/shouldn’t be removed; however, they were not countless arguments as there were really only TWO arguments actually being made (it came in variations, but it is essentially the same arguments) and those are:

  1. “Git Gud”; “Get Good”; “Stop complaining and get better”; “players that are hard stuck are right where they belong”; “only low tier ranks are complaining about MMR, just get better” (which is extremely ironic because it seems to me that the ones using this as their main defense are the high ranking players, lmao); and however else you want to phrase it.

  2. Matchmaking BOTH of the teams to a near/at 50% chance win rate is a “balanced” match, and, therefore, is a “fair” match.

Let me debunk the 2nd point argument first and then share my thoughts on the 1st. Please bear with me.

Debunking the two main arguments:

#2. “Matchmaking BOTH of the teams to a near/at 50% chance win rate is a “balanced” match, and, therefore, is a “fair” match”."

Although this form of matchmaking may sound like a noble thing to do as it uses language like ‘balance’, ‘fair’, ‘50% win rate’, etc.; nevertheless, this is called Match Fixing and we defined this above, which is a universally used principle and definition (slightly worded different, but the principle is the same) in all sports and competition categories.
Match Fixing removes the “uncertainty” of the outcome that is “normally associated with competition”. Matchmaking in a real competition is done by a random selection of competitors through a process of natural selection confined by specific parameters, which does not take into account the outcome of the match, whereby allowing the outcome of the match to define itself purely by the competitors performance(s) themselves.

Imagine the competitive matches of the Olympics for a moment; it doesn’t matter whether they are individual or team sports. According to the logic from this 2nd argument, Olympic competitions are NEVER FAIR and are NEVER BALANCED.
Why is it not ‘balanced’ or ‘fair’? Because the OUTCOME of EVERY OLYMPIC MATCH is not predetermined/rigged to give a near/at 50% chance of winning for both teams.

And this is PRECISELY the point:

Real competition is not meant to make sure all competitors equally have a 50% chance of winning. (Wow…can you imagine if the outcome of Olympic matches were predetermined, rigged and/or tampered with!? This would be complete Nonsense! Ludicrous!)
*The OUTCOME of real competition IS NOT about “balance” or “fairness”.

Balance and Fairness have it’s rightful place within the confines of the RULES of the competition, to which, every Player is subjected to–NOT the outcome/result of the match.*
Real competition is about who is the BEST, who is the VICTOR, who is the CHAMPION with every match that takes place.

The OUTCOME of real competition is to simply reward ONLY the victor(s) and is NOT to be predetermined/rigged/tampered with in any shape or form.

Balance and fairness have NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OUTCOME of the match.
Balance and fairness have EVERYTHING TO DO WITH THE EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES that every single Player has to develop their skills to get better at the game and compete utilizing the same rules that all Players/Competitors are subjected to.

Once you “get good”, go and then test out your skills in real competition and see if they are worthy enough to compete amongst the best of the best. Persevere and be resilient even in the face of losses for only then will you build healthy Performance Psychology that can only come from authentic competition. This is exactly the reason why I care so damn much… It is for the Player’s development of healthy Performance Psychology, which is getting ruined by the implementation of MMR in competitive play.

Think about it.

In the context of balance and fairness, every single player from the old to the new has the EXACT SAME opportunity to play the game and get better because they are under the same exact rules/regulation; under the same nerfs/buffs; under the same Application Programming Interface (API); REGARDLESS OF SR OR RANK. This is balance, this is fairness. This is enough.
Balance and fairness should never have anything to do with the OUTCOME of a competitive match and only to do with HOW the match is played via it’s rules.

This is precisely why MMR needs to be removed from competitive play because it removes the integrity of what makes competition, real and authentic competition, and, thus, because of MMR, it is no longer competition. It is fake and an illegitimate reflection of the Player’s true skill/performance and potential.

Your development as a Player–the development of your Performance Psychology–alone should be more than enough reason why you the Player ought to care about this issue. If anything, high ranking, extremely talented and skilled players should REALLY care the MOST about this. Plus, you spent money on this didn’t you?

#1 “Git Gud”.

We have had 31 SEASONS AND COUNTING with the growing issues of MMR being implemented in predetermining the outcome of the match–by giving each Team a 50% chance of winning–and your only defense is to “git gud”?

We have had threads after threads, replies and responses, posts after posts, data and sources being shared, Player’s testimony after testimony about the inconsistencies, unfairness, smurfing issue problems, etc. etc. (GOD THERE ARE SO MANY ISSUES WITH MMR in Competitive Play) this matchmaking system (MMR) has for 31 SEASONS AND COUNTING since JUNE 28th, 2016 and your only defense is STILL, “Git Gud”?

After 31 seasons (GOD THAT’S SO MANY SEASONS!) and counting, the growing number of Smurf accounts exacerbating the problem, Blizzard not saying anything else about MMR, the forums filled with the unfair practice being seen within Competitive Play, Player count dropping like flies, BOTS filling up these ‘competitive’ matches, matchmaking queue times getting longer and longer, and the Players that are mainly using this defense are predominantly HIGH RANKING players…what is this defense? The DEFENSE predominantly being used for this growing issue and problem that has lasted 5 and half PLUS years and counting and will inevitably destroy this beautiful game…IS STILL “GIT GUD”???

GIVE ME A BREAK! RIDICULOUS!

It’s been 5.5 years and counting! We have WAY MORE DATA for a strong case and all you have is “git gud”… Come on you guys…

To all of you with this lame excuse of a defense/argument:

You are missing the entire point of what real, authentic, genuine competition is, to which, I surmise now that you simply just don’t want it nor do you even care for it.

You’re okay with fake ‘competition’.
You’re okay with the fake reflection of your performance and skills.
You’re okay with an unhealthy development of your performance psychology because it’s based off of a complete lie because this isn’t real competitive play.

You’re okay with having put in COUNTLESS upon COUNTLESS of your precious hours in Competitive Play, YOUR time that you will NEVER get back from this game, for an illegitimate Rank never truly determined and trialed by fire through the arena of real competition.

You’re just simply okay and content with this.

“Git Gud” is no longer a valid excuse and/or defense now. We have had 31 seasons of this and this cannot carry on for the longevity of this amazing game.

I love this game and I know you all do too because you’re still playing.

I want Overwatch 2 to be a HUGE success… Don’t you?

ALL of us from Bronze to Grandmaster have seen the results of MMR after 31 seasons…5 and half years and still counting and guess what…there’s no long lasting fruit and the quality of this game is decaying with the passage of time until it will be no more.

New heroes. New maps. New game-modes. New storylines.
None of this will cause Overwatch 2 to be a success.

To Overwatch 2 Developer and Team:
If you’re relying on this and think that OW2 is going to be a huge success…the fruit of your labor will only be momentary and short lasting. Sure, you’ll have tons of players buy into this in the beginning…until the SMURFS come back; sure it can go on for another few years; sure you’ll have another forum that talks about this…but you know what? All of the current problems will come ROARING back even stronger. The quality of the game is going to deteriorate as it is now and the game-creation-competition will beat this to the ground and I DO NOT WANT THAT as I’m sure you don’t either.

You want this game to stand the test of time?

then start here…

#RemoveMMRfromCompetitive #DefendYourSR

-Bro

Edit: Removed " It can also be referred to as ‘rigging’, which is an illegal practice in any sports competition." Thanks @BrightTitan.

4 Likes
2

But if we would experience balanced matches as you describe it, every match would be super close with both teams absolutely hard-trying.

Most of the time it’s a stomp.

So is the matchmaker working or not?

Isn’t that exactly how it is now? Like the matchmaker doesn’t actually deliver super tight matches and the team diff wins?

2 Likes
3

This is a great post bro. Glad you managed to get it resolved and restored. Do you have discord by any chance?

3 Likes
4

In my opinion, the matchmaker with MMR implementation is flawlessly working. The outcome of the match is rigged/predetermined to give a 50% chance win rate to both sides; however, there are many matches that also can lean the win rate higher on one team than the other. This is also the flaw/blemish/imperfection of MMR being utilized in competitive play, which, to my point, invalidates real, authentic, genuine competition. MMR in competitive is no longer and should not even be considered competition and/or ‘competitive play’ as it pre-determines the outcome of the match, thus, invalidating competition in being competition.

I believe the greatest way to solve this massive issue is to allow a random selection of players to fill up the match utilizing one pure metric: SR/Skill Rating–of course with some adjustments like grouped up players vs solo queuers vs Rank Limbo players etc… Sure there will be matches where you get stomped on, there will also be matches where you win as well–this is called competition where competitors compete to be the best. What is most important is that the outcome of the match in and of itself is not predetermined by an algorithm, rather, it is PURELY and WHOLLY determined by the performance of all 12 players.

The matchmaker should not even touch the outcome of the match. Period. The matchmaker should be confined to it’s own parameters for Player selection based off of SR/Rank and not MMR. Whether there is an imbalance of ‘real skill’/‘hidden skill’ under the Player’s SR/Rank should NEVER be utilized to determine the Team placements. In real competition, there can be a massive difference in Skill Level between Players and Teams. There can also be at times equal amounts of skill level between Players and Teams. This is due to the random distribution in Player/Team selection, which is the ONLY way to maintain the integrity of genuine competition. True and genuine competition must allow natural selection to take it’s rightful place.

The matchmaker must allow the random distribution/selection of Players (confined to it’s own parameters that have nothing to do with the outcome of the match) to define who is playing in the match which will FULLY ALLOW the performance of the Player/Teams to determine the outcome of the match whether it is a STOMP or not. This is true competition. Outcome determined by the performance of the Players/Teams.

2 Likes
5

There is no shot I come back after 3 months and it’s gone this far. Y’all forum people are crazy

3 Likes
6

Thanks bro. I do, but I don’t really use it or am on it.

1 Like
7

I agree that it seems rather contradictory what you are saying or implying.

Most players do not report a fair experience, but rather complain about unevenly weighted matches. That’s completely in line with your claim, isn’t it?

Either there are fair matches, or there aren’t.
Either there are major skill differences or not.

But you say that both conditions are also perfectly normal in regular sports. Why should that be a problem here? What is your demand here?

If the matchmaker decides the outcome of the match, you can’t have a 50% winchance in the beginning. It’s logically and mathematically impossible.

2 Likes
8

With how long it took you to write that you coulda like watched a whole replay and realized how bad you played and why you deserved to lose.

3 Likes
9

Didn’t take long. I type fast and think faster.

I usually know why I lose my matches. 1. because I made way too many mistakes and simply couldn’t carry or 2. MMR. Wait a minute. Those happen to be the only 2 reasons why I lose.

2 Likes
10

So the game randomly picks who it allows to climb and who it doesn’t allow? I was 900sr tank last season and climbed to plat in the same season after getting coaching. I guess Blizzard took me off their bad list

1 Like
11

I disagree. I am strictly and explicitly stating the meaning of what competition is and how MMR removes the essence of what makes competition competition. No contradictions whatsoever.

No that is not my claim. My claim is the simple fact that MMR removes competition from being competition. However, what I am claiming is that real competition can produced “unevenly weighted matches” as much as it can produce evenly weighted matches. I will also add that complaining about ‘unevenly weighted matches’ in the context and arena of REAL competition is moot and irrelevant.

What is a fair match to you? In the context of real competition, wouldn’t ‘fairness’ simply be all of the rules that every single player playing the game is subjected to? To understand ‘fair’, let’s look at what unfairness is real quick.

It would be unfair to have one player/team gain an advantage over another player/team: Like a match that was made to be played 5v6 (unfair) when it’s suppose to be 6v6 (fair); or, to sum up unfairness, handicapping a very skilled player/team for being very skilled when competing against a lesser player/team

and, ironically, this is exactly what MMR does–it is a form of handicapping in order to try and create a 50% chance of win rate on both sides. It actually creates UNFAIR matches all across the board with EVERY match it matchmakes.

Therefore, a FAIR match is a match wherein ALL players are subjected to the same rules/regulation whereby there is no form of handicapping a player and/or team for ANY reason whatsoever for doing so will actually cause it to be an unfair match (MMR).

The only way to produce a FAIR competitive match is to allow a random distribution and selection of players based off their SR/Rank and not their MMR.

Let the outcome define itself purely off the performance of every player. Period.

Skill differences are INEVITABLE in competition because there will always be a VICTOR and a LOSER. Handicapping those skill differences is absolutely unethical.

Remove MMR from Competitive Play. MMR has it’s rightful place elsewhere. The way that it is being utilized in Competitive Play is completely the wrong way to use MMR. Remove it.

Aha! And herein lies the actual CONTRADICTION of what MMR is and what it claims it is doing. You’re beginning to see the complete fallacy that is MMR in competitive play.

#RemoveMMRfromCompetitive #DefendYourSR

2 Likes
12

From what I understand with what the devs have shared with us up to this point, this is exactly the issue. Its impossible to have a 50% win/lose chance, yet the matchmaker “attempts” to do this by digging into deeper stats and moving players onto specific teams. Win streaks, loss streaks, individual stats (accuracy, k/d ratio, etc), number of games played. These are all things taken into account to adjust the teams, which as most can attest to is failing to do properly. Not really the fault of the matchmaker perse as you say, its nearly impossible to set properly.

1 Like
13

If by ‘game’ you mean matchmaker? If so, the matchmaker shouldn’t even be involved in who it allows to climb or not. Climbing the ranks or de-ranking should/must be determined by the Player’s own performance in a competitive match.

Congrats on the climb. TBH, I’m pretty confident you didn’t do this solo-queueing, which leaves me to surmise that you grouped up and climbed, but that is pure conjecture on my part anyhow I also don’t have any reason to believe you anyway and this response is besides the point.

1 Like
14

I was 100% solo que during this climb

1 Like
15

I was solo the entire time. I was also solo when I was stuck at 900sr. I do agree that MMR has no place in a competitive game, but I’m proof if you improve you will climb

2 Likes
16

Then damn. To give you the benefit of the doubt, holy smokes what a climb. Congrats! It’s still besides the point that I’m trying to make. My point is not about whether or not you can climb the ranks or derank. I believe you can climb even with MMR being implemented. That’s just not what I’m talking about. It goes beyond rank. For me, it’s truly the healthy development of the Player’s performance psychology.

2 Likes
17

I agree that MMR is a joke and shouldn’t be a thing period. I’m also anti SBMM

1 Like
18

Me too. SBMM is the antithesis to real competition and removes the natural selection process of outcomes produced purely from the Player’s skills and performance.

2 Likes
19

Did you make this up? This definition seems flawed.

While I agree with you that the matchmaker is bad, anti-competitive, and serves Blizzard more than the players, I don’t agree with this definition. The algorithm doesn’t “fix” the outcome of the match – it heavily influences it. There’s a difference. I’d also argue that it doesn’t hold the best players back from climbing, it just makes the process much MUCH longer and more grueling than it would be in a better system. But I do agree that the matchmaker should be removed/changed.

I don’t like this definition either, and we’re on the same side of this argument, but I think you’re generally just not scrutinizing the words you’re using carefully enough. If this is the system Blizzard has decided to use, it’s not an irregular alteration, it’s simply the norm, and therefore would NOT be match fixing. You’re arguing that Blizzard’s norms are bad, not that the problem derives from intentional/irregular alteration – if the system is equally awful for everyone, it’s a bad system, but it’s not match fixing.

I think this entire argument can and should be simplified to the following: Skill Based Match Making should be removed from the game. Calling it “rigging” while true, only gets people tripped up on definitions and knee-jerk reactions to terminology – even if it’s technically correct.

More issues of semantics. Bad matchmaking can be also be fair so long as its impartial. Everyone being subjected to the same awful treatment can be fair, while still being awful, predatory, self-serving, etc.

No, it doesn’t. Match fixing is an attempt to influence a result, it has nothing to do with certainty or whether the attempt was successful.

Also untrue. It’s only an illegal practice when rigging has been explicitly defined as illegal. It may be unethical, uncool, and grinch-like, etc but it’s not always de facto illegal. And unless Blizzard explicitly said that they would not apply SBMM to Overwatch but did so anyway, it’s not illegal.

These are subjective definitions of balance, fairness, and competition. Also commits the special pleading fallacy.

Again, if players are toiling under the same conditions it IS fair and balanced. You can argue that the system is poor or exploitative, but not that it’s unfair or imbalanced. Again, I agree with the basis of your argument: I think the matchmaker is self-serving, deliberately wasteful of players’ time and energy, not fun, designed for profitability rather than competitive integrity, etc but it’s not unfair, or imbalanced.

No, it isn’t. It’s a tool that allows for behind-the-scenes manipulation and enables a bad and exploitative system, but it’s not fake and not illegitimate. MMR does map to skill, such that every legitimate player in diamond will have a higher relative MMR than those below her, as it is for plats relative to golds, golds to silver, etc.

This is just inaccurate, and you’re doing a disservice to your argument and your point of view by getting your facts wrong.

Also, “Git gud” isn’t a bad response because it’s wrong or bad advice, it’s a bad response because it misses the point. It doesn’t address any of the flaws or valid critiques of the system. Anyone who says “git gud” is likely just memeing at this point. I don’t think anyone worth listening to, or taking the discussion seriously is going to say it, well, not in those words anyway.

An impassioned plea for sure, but a word of advice: get your facts straight, and generally dabble less in the realm of opinion (particularly when it comes to semantics and definitions).

2 Likes
20

I did not make this up. I took it from Sports Ethicist and felt that it was an appropriate use to define competition–there are many ways to define it, but I chose this for all intent and purposes. And it is slightly flawed because eSports–OW context–is different from where the context–non-eSports–that definition came from. It is still sufficient enough to be used as it has the necessary applicable universal principles for what competition is.

You’re right and I agree; however, whether it ‘fixes’ or ‘influences’ is still pointing to the fact that MMR is touching/tampering with the outcome of the match, wherein, it shouldn’t.

I agree as well. This is precisely how the SMURF issue has been exacerbated. MMR is for profit, not for Players nor ‘fairness’ and/or ‘balance’.

This is the definition used by lawyers for match fixing.

I agree with you here as well. This is the norm that Blizzard has decided to use; however, to stress my point of what competition makes competition, this ‘norm’ negates and invalidates real competition and the word “competitive play” is misleading and needs to be called something else. My idea: Competitive BootCamp.

I somewhat disagree with why you think that it would not be considered “match fixing” because the ‘norm’ is in fact removing "all or part of the uncertainty [of the outcome] normally associated with a competition". If ‘match fixing’ is the ‘norm’ and therefore is not considered match fixing…this is quite self-refuting and puzzling to me.

Agreed.

MMR influences the result to be at a 50% win rate. In real competition, the win rate should be = unknown %, TBD by performance of player(s). With regard to the outcome of the match, there should only be 1 thing that is certain and that is it is uncertain who will win. Influencing, rigging, fixing, whatever word you want to use, to pre-determine a 50% win rate for both teams removes that uncertainty. Uncertainty of the outcome upholds and allows the outcome to be purely determined by the performance of the players not by the matchmaker.

Point taken. I will edit and remove.

I disagree. Within it’s rightful context of what competition is, the definitions are not subjective, they are objective. Special pleading fallacy is irrelevant and inapplicable. The context alone warrants my use of what balance and fairness is.

You’re right, however, these conditions are the cause and evidence of competitive play not being real competition.

I’m not against MMR as a whole, only with it’s use within Competitive Play. MMR is an amazing tool that does and has, in fact, made me a better player.

However, I use the words illegitimate and fake because a Player’s SR/Rank is not truly tested and determined by real competition.

What exactly is inaccurate? We have had 31 seasons and counting. Fact. There are growing issues with MMR in competitive play. Fact. So far, a lot of the counter arguments to this have been to ‘get good’, ‘git gud’, or whatever variation you want to use. Fact. Therefore, I am servicing my argument. I don’t understand what was inaccurate.

I won’t argue with you there; I’m extremely passionate about what is going on. My facts are as straight as Hanzo’s arrow.

Advice received, but no guarantees it’ll be applied.

3 Likes