Not going to lie, it’s not incorrect overall… but what’s missing is context. We aren’t mad because we’re going up against better opponents. We’re going up against similar opponents with worse teammates. AND if you do well (for your rank) in those games, you seemingly get worse players on your team. IF you do trash for a game, you get teammates that will help raise you.
Close but not 100% right here. What’s happening is the difficulty is artificially going up. Again the matchmaker is pushing for a 50% winrate here. So when the matchmaker sees a huge winstreak, they throw a big wall in your face. Its placing players according to how it feels will get the match to 50/50. Now whether or not that’s what players want is really the discussion here.
1 Like
Not true. It’s not about me or the teams that I’m matched up with. I don’t care who I’m teamed up with so long as it’s based off a random selection of players confined to specific parameters as opposed to a pre-determined match making system such as MMR.
All I want is genuine competition where the matchmaking of teams DOES NOT factor in the outcome of the match; rather, the matchmaking of teams is selected by specific parameters completely divorced from the outcome of the match.
Let the outcome of the match be purely defined and determined by the performance of all Players.
Yes. The randomness of matchmaking gets less arbitrary by being confined within it’s own boundaries (i.e. SR/RANK with adjustments to Rank Limbo players) of match making.
Correct. And losing a game should be determined purely by the performance of all the Players and not by an algorithm.
Natural selection. The outcome of a match should never be used as a variable to match make a team in real competition. Period. That is the difference.
There’s a massive difference. It’s either real competition or it is not and the ramifications of this are so subconscious and subtle that it hinders the healthy development of a Player’s performance psychology.
There shouldn’t even be an attempt to begin with. Just balance the heroes and the rules. Let’s the Players decide the outcome of the match. Matchmaking needs to stay away from that variable.
Personally, I believe that the heroes are MUCH more balanced than ever before. The devs really know what they’re doing when it comes to this. It’s just unfortunate that they’re messing with the outcome of the match. They need to stay away from that.
I don’t disagree with you. It’s never been about ranking up or de ranking for me. You can still climb with MMR (it’ll just take a very long time, which is why most players will opt to just buy another account and essentially start over, which is also why MMR is not about balancing as they claim, but for profit).
I believe with MMR gone, it’ll be rough in the beginning–my estimation would be maybe half a season or even a whole season.
I also believe with MMR gone, the game will be even MORE fun to play because it brings back true and meaningful competition, which is the true reason why Players play.
The impact will be very challenging in the beginning because everyone’s SR/Rank will undergo a natural placement process; meaning, the rank will become a true reflection of their true skill and performance in the face of real competition.
The impact will be a MASSIVE RUDE awakening to all Players because, now, there’s no more reliance on an MMR system where the outcome is attempted to be pre-determined, rather, they will now FULLY rely on themselves, their own skills/performance, in the face of uncertainty, in the face of real competition.
In the beginning, there will be complaints and there will also be praises. Players will want MMR back, Players will want MMR to stay away.
This is precisely why my argument defines what competition is and how we, as Players/Competitors, MUST ALL strive to uphold the integrity of real competition, which is to remove MMR from competitive play matchmaking.
and yes. The game will be significantly better because now (with MMR removed from competitive) the game will be for the Player(s) as priority and not for profit.
Up to this point, I agree with everything you said. Here I am wondering though why you go so far as to propose removing MMR completely.
We have established that the grindy-ness is one of the negatives that MMR in Overwatch contributes. Nonetheless, the matchmaker also has positives and by completely removing it, you would also get rid of those things in favor for all the MMR-less negatives. Remember, MMR is the industry standard. We have to assume that the positives outweigh the negatives AND that the outcome also outweigh that of an MMR-less system.
You like to illustrate the different matchmaking parameters with dials then why not dial down the grindy-ness to a certain degree?
3 Likes
Because unless I’m missing something, it’s all or nothing. MMR facilitates SBMM, so MMR is unnecessary if there’s no SBMM. As a community we probably need to stop talking about MMR and start talking SBMM (skill based match-making). MMR is just one of the cogs in the broader machinery of SBMM.
MMR/SBMM has several (egregiously) negative effects for players (particularly when you’re talking about a competitive gaming environment), and pretty much all upsides for devs, which is why it’s such an incredibly popular business model. It’s why it’s so absurd to me when people argue over whether Blizzard uses the same types of pernicious patents other companies use. This would be akin to something like a manufacturing plant being aware of how other companies boost revenue and benefit from assembly lines, but opting not to use them.
There are pros to using SBMM too, but those are for people who A) don’t care much if at all about competitive integrity and treat the game more casually, and B) those profiting from such a system. SBMM is about protecting people from the realities of their true skill and generating profits. That’s it.
Cons of SBMM
-
It makes the experience less competitive since one of its main goals is to influence wins and losses in a way equaling maximum player retention/profit, not competitive integrity. I’m conflicted on this one, because let’s be real, large corporations don’t care about their customers, they care about profits, and they’re going to siphon as much value from their customer base as possible. Fine. It’s their mission, but it doesn’t mean I have to like it.
-
Better players have a doppleganger on the other team artificially and unfairly blunting their skill/ improvement. “You got 10% better over the last few weeks? Here, now play against player X who’s also at your level.” A player in the 90th percentile of their particular rank should enjoy the advantages of being better than most players via higher win rates; that is, up until the point that the player naturally reaches a surrounding tier of players so good that their percentage gradually settles nearer to 50ish percent. “So how do GM’s climb through plat then smarty pants?!” Because SBMM is a dial, not an on/off switch. They COULD in fact adapt SBMM so that GM’s couldn’t get out of plat or retained a middling win rate there (via stronger opponents and weaker teammates), but it’s currently not set strong enough to stop ALL passage through lower ranks. And to be sure, if Blizzard discovered to their delight that players stick around and try and try and try to climb despite being algorithmically modulated, they’d set that dial at the spot that created the most money, no matter how badly it corrupted competitive integrity.
-
Constant sweaty tryhardness (relates to previous point) due to handpicked opposition, which is always seeking to find your level and manipulate your winrate. This is why players complain about matches in gold and silver being so difficult. Such practices make ranks essentially meaningless in too many cases.
-
the better you are as a player, the worse/newer/“throwier” players you can expect to be matched with. This means you should expect to see more absurd comps on your team, and more people who don’t care about winning. And no, comps aren’t as important as they are in higher ranks, but of course they do matter.
-
a much longer and grindier path up the ladder for most players who aren’t playing above the gravitational pull of the SBMM.
-
Zombie players, which makes everything worse. Because of the points listed above, zombies are apathetic players who have high levels of skill, but lack the desire to continue grinding. These players drop into lower ranks and artificially inflate the skill floor there. Because of this, these players start making it increasingly difficult for players at that rank to climb, and they begin to stop caring too. And you have this vicious cycle of apathetic players infecting others (hence the name “zombie”) and this repeats ad nauseam.
Absolutely not! We only have to assume that SBMM/MMR is more profitable than the alternative. I like to use the example of tobacco companies back in the 40’s and 50s trying to convince the public that their product was safe “why would we sell something to our customers that kills them, they’re our profit center!” Companies don’t need happy customers to turn a profit, only devoted ones, and dopamine is a helluva drug.
Because people, largely, are not critical thinkers. The vast majority aren’t making careful costs-benefit analyses when it comes to the opportunity costs of gaming, their time, their energy, and they’re not making future predictions based on the recent past (“This was not fulfilling today, but it probably will be tomorrow! Yay!”). Most have more in common with hamsters on wheels than behavioral economists.
And so they keep struggling uphill against “the system” until they just burnout, a process which for most, I’d guess, doesn’t span months, but years. It’s not moving the goal posts, per se, it’s dumping more similarly desperate opponents on the field.
2 Likes
The removal of MMR would not change anything. It does not turn bronze players into diamonds. On the contrary, it would make their games even more unbalanced, because players from lower elos dramatically overestimate their ability to distinguish real skill from some lucky hits. It’s Dunning-Kruger in Reinform.
Every time they lose, they blame it on their teammates. That can definitely happen, but not 10, 20, 30 times in a row.
When it comes to recognizing “patterns”, there are two possibilities here:
a) The matchmaker is out to get me personally
b) I am about as good as my SR ranking
Since people consider their self-esteem and value to be the highest good, most will probably consider option a).
2 Likes
MMR does facilitate SBMM, but I still think you are missing something. Let me back-paddle slightly to make this more coherent and you’ll see that this also boils down to a question that I have raised before.
We agree on the fact that the matchmaker looks at the performance of your past few games and searches for 11 other people to put you in a lobby with a predicted outcome of roughly 50%.
From this follows that when you have had a few really good games, the matchmaker may put you on a team with a player who has been underperforming in their past few games to compensate. This results in the frustration we are talking about because you really have to grind out a ton of games to rank up.
Now a possible suggestion is that Blizzard eases up on their matchmaking parameters a little so that climbing for the player that has been overperforming in their past few games is rewarded more. However, this will also mean that a player who has been underperforming in his last few games will be more harshly punished for their performance.
In the case of any players, the philosophical assumption is that skill doesn’t drastically change over night, whereas daily performance may swing in either direction. To account for this, the SBMM system (among other reasons) was put in place so that players don’t massively go up or down the ladder just because of daily performance inconsistencies. This may feel unfair when you are having a good day, but aids you when you are having a bad day.
Conclusively, I do think it’s possible to ease up the SBMM parameters since you can just have the SBMM ignore some of the past performance stats that it looks at in order to create a match, but the underlying question is then how much impact daily performance swings should have on your SR. Would more volatility lead to more or less frustration of the players than currently?
Let’s suppose we are a gaming studio and we had to ponder the question whether to utilize a SBMM system for our game. It appears to me that there are three relevant parameters for this consideration: ‘profits’, ‘player retention’, and ‘balanced games’. I am gonna gloss over the minor negatives that come with the introduction of SBMM for the players and just include them under the umbrella term ‘player retention’.
Would you agree with me that ‘profits’ strictly follow from ‘player retention’, and that high amount of ‘balanced games’ will lead to the highest player retention? Your brain releases dopamine the most in what I would describe as close games. You will crave more of that and continue playing. Therefore, the higher the amount of balanced games we can achieve for our players, the higher the profits for our company will be.
From this logic follows that the industry standard of SBMM is more profitable because it is achieving the goal of providing more balanced games over a SBMM-less system.
I see your point but to me the way in which gaming companies are trying to retain their players to maximize profits is by providing balanced games in which you don’t feel cheated. Granted, currently the matchmaking system is horrible and I feel pretty much cheated in every match, but I think that is because of the lack of players these days which is why the SBMM can’t really do its job properly.
This is exactly the point I was making with my first point in this comment. So maybe the solution is to ease up the parameters a little more after all to make the ladder a little more mobile. This however would lead to less balanced games and therefore less player retention and profits.
Agreed.
I am not sure this holds. Maybe the chance is slightly higher, but there are 4 scenarios how matches are made.
- If you overperform, the SBMM will put you against someone who also overperformed
- If you overperform, the SBMM will put you with someone who underperformed
- If you underperform, the SBMM will put you against someone who also underperformed
- If you underperform, the SBMM will put you with someone who overperformed
So it shouldn’t strictly be the case that you tend to have team mates that are underperforming, but rather that it’s one of 2 scenarios which of course isn’t fantastic either.
Agreed.
Also agreed. Though, I am not sure what you could do about this set of players in any version of the matchmaking system.
Apologies, maybe this is where I should have inserted my explanation for why I think that SBMM provides a better outcome than a SBMM-less system. Like I said above though: it is my impression that it is more profitable because the outcome leads to a higher amount of balanced games and therefore player retention.
Fair enough.
2 Likes
I’m enjoying the healthy discourse that is being produced here. It is fundamentally important to bounce off one another’s logical thought-flow and see what solutions can be found–regardless of whether we disagree or not–which can only be achieved once there is common ground, to which, I believe we have found (with a few minor discrepancies).
MMR has made me a better player, no doubt, because when it gives me extremely difficult matches (I welcome the challenge), it exponentially causes me to grow in skill; I am a firm believer that exponential growth comes from facing challenges that are beyond your own skill level that forces you to excel whether you win or lose (I’m not talking about performance psychology here, just pure skill).
There is an optimal place/utilization for MMR.
Coupling a few thoughts gathered together such as: MMR is a game-industry standard; corporations are for profit; MMR removes integrity of competition; just to name a few and, as a few people have mentioned, I can also deduce that MMR probably isn’t going anywhere.
IF that is the case, then MMR MUST be utilized and adjusted differently.
Here’s my thought/idea:
Because MMR utilizes past historical data to determine what kinds of matches you get placed in, this is what I suggest and, before I do, it is important to note that I do not know how they calculate/utilize MMR in it’s entirety and for this suggestion, I will surmise that they utilize a TOTAL aggregate amount of ALL past historical data for every player through and through every season, to which, I believe a total aggregate amount is way too inappropriate and should be a rolling calculation instead.
My suggestion is that MMR should be used for each season’s PLACEMENT matches, wherein, the actual MMR of each player utilized should be a rolling 2, maybe 3 seasons.
Let me explain utilizing a rolling 3 seasons example:
Season A begins: MMR is used for placement matches ONLY and then removed from the rest of the season for each player that is done with their placements (MMR is still being calculated, just not used as a variable for the actual matchmaking in competitive play). Season A ends. On to Season B.
Season B: MMR is then calculated from SEASON A, utilized for Season B’s placements and then removed for the rest of the season for each player that is done with their placements (MMR is still being calculated throughout Season B as well, just not used as a variable for matchmaking). Season ends. Onto Season C.
Season C: MMR is then calculated from both Season A and B to find it’s aggregate amount and then utilized for Season C’s placements then removed from the rest of the season for each player that is done with their placements while MMR is still being calculated behind the seasons of Season C and not being used as a variable for matchmaking.
Three seasons have ended.
Season D: MMR is ONLY calculated from Season C’s historical data (should not utilize or take into account data of season A and B). And so forth and so on and you get the point.
A rolling-seasonal calculation of MMR’s utilization would be, so far in my mind, a fair use for match placements as it allows the progression of each player to not be too tied down by the total amount of it’s historical results. What do I mean? I’ll use myself as an example.
When I first started out, my competitive stats WERE ABSOLUTELY TERRIBLE because I was learning the game. They were SO TERRIBLE that I had an SR of <500 where even my wins would not move the SR, let alone my losses, and for the next few seasons, even though I did well on placements, I would start off again at <500 SR and see the same thing happening over and over. Obviously, after (I believe) like 2-3 seasons of that, which is a long time, I began to notice my SR finally beginning to move (I also naturally got better, of course). This led me to believe that the MMR takes into account the aggregate of ALL historical data, which I believe, is inappropriate for it’s optimal use.
Players that keep playing this game naturally (ideally) progress and it’s the past historical data that is pulling them down to unfair, unproportionate levels where when I am playing, I’m accused of hacking, cheating, smurfing, when, in fact, I am not, thus ruining the gaming experience for other new players.
A rolling calculation of MMR for only placement matches can solve a few major problems:
- Players can actually climb rank in a progressive way and would actually be a more accurate reflection of that. This reflection will also maintain Player retention.
- Players can compete within the realms of real competition (no outcome tampering) and MMR can be calculated in the background for future seasonal placements. This is critical as the MMR will actually calculate REAL skills in the face of REAL competition, which would then be, in my opinion, a far more accurate number/reflection of a Player’s skill and performance. This, too, will also maintain Player retention.
- This will promote a healthy development of a Player’s Performance Psychology. This will bring in MORE Players and profits for the company. This will also maintain Player retention.
- This will alleviate extremely skilled players ‘hard stuck’ and, if they’re actually good enough, rank out of the ranks their skills say they ought not to be in; therefore, alleviating more of the smurfs-who-do-not-buy-alt-accounts.
The solution for actual SMURFing, in my opinion, has to come from the level of consequence severity for throwing a match – this could be a separate discussion as talking about this is an inevitable issue.
I can think of a few more, but this shall suffice.
The better the Player retention, the better the matchmaking and it’s queue time. The healthier the development of the Player, the more enjoyment this game will produce, and, as a causal effect, more Players will want to play this game naturally/organically, thus, increasing healthy and sustainable profits.
Of course there’s more I can say…but as you all know…I talk too much with too many words… I’ll just leave it here.
@ŘïĝĜèĐ @Basil @BrightTitan @Cuthbert @HULK @Nocturne @NaokiB4U @AmenPhoenix @lightning5o @CornNooblet
2 Likes
Of course this isn’t true, if it wouldn’t change anything it has no purpose, and if it has no purpose it wouldn’t exist.
Strawman.
This is not the reason it would make games more imbalanced. And either approach (SBMM vs non-SBMM) has pros and cons, as with anything else. I like the benefits offered by the non-SBMM approach. Not everyone will, not everyone has to. But with random chance, at least I know that I’m playing a game of pure-skill free of adulterants like self-interest and greed.
I’ve never seen anyone say that “every” loss was the fault of their teammates, or that it happens “10, 20, or 30” times in a row. And even if there are some people saying that, it’s not really relevant to this conversation since obviously false statements can be ignored.
I’m not sure what you mean by “recognizing ‘patterns,’” but a) is hyperbole and b) is question begging: you’re asserting what you’re trying to prove.
A combination of strawman, red herring, and false dichotomy fallacies, and probably a few others.
1 Like
it really feels like talking to flatearthers.
1 Like
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! 
2 Likes
Not even close. When someone has a legitimate dispute over the facts, that’s one thing. Frustration over someone not sharing your opinions is a different story.
1 Like
Bravo. Legit post. You and I are exactly on the same page. I’m sure there could be a few differences of opinion, but I’m confident that that would simply be a matter of preference.
You’ve said it way better, more eloquently, more comprehensible, less wordy, less ‘ranty’ (like me), than I ever could.
Thank you.
Something’s got to change and it will be for the better.
To all Players: let us unite as one and make this collectively a better game and experience and I am sure that it won’t be something Blizzard as a corporation will ever regret. If anything, it’ll boost them up like never before.
Blizzard…we are FOR you and not against you.
2 Likes
Thanks for the kind words, nice of you to say. And I’m not so sure about that, you’ve had some great posts here as well. I appreciate how passionate you are for the game, and that your goal is to improve the landscape rather than to argue. Lead by example.
I hope so. Blizzard has plenty of lessons to learn from OW1, we’ll know soon enough whether or not anyone was paying attention.
2 Likes
My addition to this is all metrics for measuring rank have to be equally applied accross the ladder. IF MMR is to stay (likely) then get rid of SR, say the rank (Bronze, Gold, GM) and move on. IF MMR is to go, use SR as the balancing, and just put silvers with silvers or golds with golds… and you should only see another rank if you’re with 50-100 of promotion, or demotion. and PBSR should apply across the ladder, or not (either one, I prefer it only counts wins and losses, but I do see the merit of keeping PBSR) We have one half of the ladder playing for stats, while the other half plays for wins.
As my anecdotal evidence- I consistently see golds on the other team, while I’ll have unranked, bronze ranked, and silver ranked on my teams. Why? I don’t know where I belong now. Someone on my team has a “gold” MMR, but a silver SR… and I guess it’s me, but who knows, maybe I consistently get put on a team with someone with a gold MMR.
If I’m silver, let me be silver and not play against better players with worse teammates. I can almost… almost determine a loss before the game starts just by the badges on the team. If I’m a gold, then put me with golds so I can get back up to my rank where I should be… don’t make it harder for me to climb back up with people supposedly one level underneath my current ranking against someone above my current ranking. I don’t think I’m the best. There are players here who can whoop me in game, I know this. before the “do you think you should be top 500?” crowd responds, no I don’t… but I don’t want to be handicapped on every match because I used to one trick a lot… and using my open profile… you can see that even though I have barely touched my one trick in the last bunch of seasons… I have many more hours on that one trick. And I think it affects me personally.
TLDR: The measurement should all be the same in competitive, i prefer MMR gone, PBSR can stay if it’s applied across the board, if not… gotta go. and I love this game, Lucio is still my favorite character, but I don’t play him anymore specifically because I believe it is hurting me now on this account.
What strikes me is the attitude that is displayed here in the forum.
Both the “good” players (from Diamond upwards) and the “average” players report frustrating matches.
The difference is that most good players optimize their own performance and really rarely criticize their teams and the matchmaker, even if there is often reason to do so.
The bad to mediocre players, however, see the problems almost exclusively in external factors. This makes sense, since they basically feel helpless, but what’s the reason for that? They don’t (yet) have the skills to react confidently or reliably to different situations. Therefore, it seems to them as if only external circumstances are responsible for their failure. Which is kinda… true, as there is a lack of awareness and willingness to improve.
Honestly, that counts as a metaphor even outside of Overwatch.
And even when bad players improve for a period of time, they expect immediate and lasting validation of their success. When this does not happen, they see it as evidence of a conspiracy and GIVE UP. In this phase, the players throw consciously or unconsciously (tilting) and drop back to their old SR range and feel confirmed that there is an evil force pushing them back. I KNOW how that feels, because I once was like that, too.
What has really happened here is that the games have become harder because the higher-ranking players have better mechanics and are more likely to punish mistakes. In return, they use tricks and gimmicks that you have to get used to. Therefore, it is absolutely normal to experience greater fluctuations until you have adapted to this way of playing. This is called training.
Climbing more than 300 SR makes games significantly more difficult, when you play at your current skillcap, so you shouldn’t be surprised that the games become more sweatier for you.
I think this is what separates successful and self-satisfied people from unhappy and less successful people: personal responsibility and an ambitious, stable and optimistic attitude. Professionals don’t get rattled that easily.
1 Like
That’s simply not true
Have you never seen any of the ow twitch streamers??
They criticize their teammates
all
the
time
1 Like
Totally. The amount of rage you see in upper ranks is insane. You’re talking about people who take the game more seriously than anyone. How could there possibly be LESS salt, stress, and frustration there?
1 Like
that is a forum problem. I rarely blame my teammates for losses. Unless they start destroying morale, or are throwers. I blame the matchmaker for giving me higher ranked players on the enemy team, and lower ranked ones on mine. consistently.
Also a blanket statement. I want this account to equal my others. This is MY ACCOUNT. the other is a practice one with hero’s I was (relatively) trash at (DPS SPECIFIC) so I could learn them and place where I should … how shocked was I when i placed, and held multiple seasons in a higher rank than I am on this one… one switch account to play on the train, and one PC account to play with my cousin. (imagine my shock when I placed HIGHER ON PC on my main then I ever had on this account)
I think it’s reductive to say all players who have issues with the Matchmaker (MMR) and how it works… are the same
1 Like
Saying a match is frustrating is quite literally criticizing the matchmaker. After all, its that very matchmaker that gave the frustrating match in the first place.