True, unless you’re a smurf or an alt account, and I’m not sure which is worse: if that’s intentional or an oversight. If the system was fair, alts and smurf accounts would make the grind up to GM as lengthy and as grueling as it is for everyone else. Smurfs are really only a problem when only one team gets one, or if the matchmaker treats the smurf or alt account as though it’s a “normal” account that belongs with the rest of the lobby. There’s no reason to assume this is a technical limitation when on the other side of the equation you’ve got the fact that alt accounts and smurf accounts generate revenue for Blizzard. There’s a real incentive to encourage people to buy more than one account, in exchange for a better experience or a quicker ascent up the ladder.
And this is why I say, nearly every aspect of this game that truly sucks reveals a near sighted profit motive behind it. Brig and Sombra and Moira were all responses to high skilled Tracer/Genji players and the effectiveness of dive. Instead of fixing those heroes, they put low-skill (hard) counters in the hands of less skilled opponents. To me, this was a cynical way to make an entire class of players feel more powerful and skilled than they were, keeping those players around, and boosting profits. Again, a cynical numbers game: sacrificing the hard work and effort and commitment of dedicated Tracer/Genji players on the alter of profits, and ruining competitive balance. This would be like allowing lower skilled batters to use corked bats to compete with stronger players. This is antithetical to the true spirit of competition.
Here I think you’re confusing symptoms with causes. I’m not saying that SBMM doesn’t do a lot to manage various experiences – but that’s the problem. What you’ve stated above sounds very benevolent until you factor in that players who ARE more consistent are punished in this kind of system, and again, for the cynical reason that worse players outnumber better ones (as is the case in any bell curve) and so better players become sacrificial lambs because losers are less happy losing and less happy means less profit. Cuthbert’s point is that, yeah, ok, you want to handicap people according to their skill, but stop pretending and preaching that this is a fair, competitive environment – it’s not.
There was a time when SBMM didn’t exist and the hands of players weren’t held by developers. There was also a time when we as a society didn’t give out participation trophies. In either case, I don’t think this was done as a benefit to competitors. In the former case, this new approach has developed out of profit-motive, and in the latter case, to shut up angry parents who couldn’t bear that little Johnny wasn’t number one. I get it. Blizzard is a corporation whose only true loyalty is to shareholders, but again, that doesn’t mean that critics have to like it.
Moreover, there are SO many countless modes in Overwatch — can’t we have a competitive mode that’s actually, you know, competitive?
Not to nitpick but ‘balanced games’ matter only inasmuch as they foster ‘profits’ and ‘player retention.’ In a bizzaro world, if it were most profitable for both teams to lose, I think the entire lot of us would be bronze players with a 0% winrate.
I get your point here, but I don’t think all companies are driven to the same degree by monetary considerations. Some companies see revenues as a zero sum game: what they concede to the customer, they themselves lose. As customers, we consider better companies those that focus more on values, many of which come at the cost of profits; these companies answer to a higher calling, or at least more of a dual purpose. And we’re within reasonable expectation to judge them accordingly.
I don’t think anyone arguing that Blizzard is in the wrong here would have the justification to do so if they’d operate much the same. And for me personally, I’ve always hated the idea of companies draining the literal life out of consumers by manipulating them. Take McDonald’s, for instance; there’s something sinister about making cheap hamburgers as delicious and as addictive as possible, all the while knowing it’s destroying people’s health and shortening their lives.
I don’t think the SBMM math works out well for anyone except smurfs and alt accounts. The 50% winrate thing isn’t ultimately fairer to players – as it robs them of time and energy in the form of a MUCH MUCH longer march to their true skill level. What it does is create fewer swings on the way there, while again, GREATLY increasing the total time. That doesn’t sound like a benefit to players so much as it is a great advantage for Blizzard.
Since we are now firmly in a post-SBMM world, and likely will be forever, we don’t know what modern day gaming looks like without it. And I don’t know that I actually believe that most players in competitive are happier with it. Consider an alternate reality where better players win more, and go on long win streaks to get to where they belong, play with better players/teams, and ACTUALLY get to their true tank more efficiently – if at all(!). Might that inspire a lot more people to improve and actually see the fruits of their labor, knowing that it IS actually a skill-based endeavor? I think so! I don’t think kids or people are any happier with participation trophies than they are with losses. And considering the mass exodus from the game, I’m not so sure that it’s the best system possible. I’d like to find out though. I honestly don’t talk to or play with anyone that loves Overwatch anymore or doesn’t feel like they’re being manipulated by the matchmaker.
To Cuthbert’s point, I think the march to one’s true rank is so burdensome and frustrating and eventually flat out exhausting, that many players DO stop before they get to their “true” rank. I’m openminded about a lot of things regarding this whole discussion, but one issue I won’t budge on is forced loss streaks. This has been such a fundamental part of my Overwatch experience that I simply won’t entertain evidence that says it doesn’t exist under particular conditions. Now, I fully realize that many bronze to GM players don’t experience loss streaks, or a diamond player won’t run into any loss streaks until they get to a given SR. But my theory on loss streaks isn’t contradicted by this, but is rather supported by it.
I think SBMM has a “gravity” to it (again, controlled by the “dials” concept we’ve discussed), and if you’ve got a high enough skill delta relative to the other players in the lobby, the value you bring at any given moment is great enough that you almost always strategically and quickly tilt team fights in your team’s favors, essentially nullifying the pull of the SBMM and allowing you to climb. My theory is that the skill required to do this reflects an unusually large and deliberate skill difference between you and the lobby you’re in. For instance a player who’s mechanically better than most in his lobby, but plays in such a way that he needs constant heals, basically nullifies some of that mechanical skill advantage, and may die to an opposing dps who has less skill, but a more resourceful healer; but that healer may have an awful tank who nullifies THEIR skill (through countless linked interactions like this the SBMM matchmaking here is really sinking its teeth into players, and this sort of endless tarpit is what helps cement players in place, and I don’t think that’s an accident; is there really any debate to be had over whether or not developers of countless games consider “grind” a hugely useful and profitable strategy?). A higher ranked player, playing in a lower lobby, can successfully navigate ALL of the various problems associated with that rank and deliver value no matter what.
But back to my main point, SBMM TOTALLY explains why loss streaks occur – that is literally the STATED GOAL OF SBMM!
I have never been a math guy, but I swear these conversations on the Blizzard forums makes me want to do a deep dive into statistics. You raise an interesting point here, and my thinking is: if you’re winning, and winning, and winning, we are looking at two different statistical scenarios here: the odds of someone who’s “throwy” being placed on your team by raw, random chance, vs. Blizzard pairing you with such a player BECAUSE they’re doing badly (throwing, horrible picks, one tricking, etc). Logic tells me that the latter scenario has to be higher (if not – substantially!!) higher than random chance, since this outcome isn’t random, but is being actively sought out.
We also don’t know how outcomes vary when a team average is reached by pairing high and low players together to meet SR-wise in the middle, vs. an opposing team whose players are ALL closer to the “statistical mode.”
Stop making these players lose more than they should, and stop killing their win streaks with loss streaks. At least if people lose, they’ll know it was due to pure skill, which is an incentive to improve. But if I’m representative of any percentage of people, then me and those like me refuse to dump time and energy into a process that exists as it does to make more money for Blizzard. It’s why I stopped playing the game. It’s why every try hard I know has either stopped playing or has themselves become a zombie player.
Pardon if there are any typos here or bad explanations (and I’m sure there are). This is just too long to carefully proofread, and I’m pressed for time now. I gave it a good effort the first time around. I will not feel offended if you don’t reply for one reason or another. I myself usually cap these super long response threads at 2-3 replies max (realistically they could go on indefinitely as more and more nuance, perspectives, arguments/sub-arguments are introduced to expand on previous arguments, etc).
A favorite would be appreciated though, so I know you at least read it! 