I’m not sure what you mean. Your opponents gets worse as you fall down ranks because that’s how a ranking system works.
What I’m referring to,
It doesn’t do this.
1 Like
Sounds like it does, regardless from what Blizzard claims. They won’t ever admit it, as it’s bad publicity.
Winrates are directly connected with performance of players, after all. Winning and losing in equal amounts, if you are in rank you supposed to be, is exactly 50% winrate. So it’s fair to assume, that matchmaking tries to find your rank, by adjusting gameplay, until you reach some balance between games lost/won. But, since it lacks precision, due to human factor, your rank can fluctuate within certain limits.
It indeed was supposed to work with 6 stacks, which would mean all players having similar % of victories/defeats, since they play together. It’s up to debate, if they made some changes, to make it work for solo players.
I win a lot of games when I feel like communicating with my team, it’s a 50-50 when I don’t bother.
I’ve had more than single digit games where people got discouraged because we got rolled on all points on defense. To the point where everyone was just angry at each other and pointing fingers until one person just basically told everyone to eff off cause he can’t focus. People shut up and listened to his calls and we won.
So you’re telling me that matchmaker whispered @my teammate to tell everyone on my team to st fu and then lead us to victory? Blizzard literally made one hell of a matchmaker, props to them.
Kind of, yes. It encourages solo carrying games, as it’s one situation your success doesn’t depend from 5 teammates. And it’s most accurate calculation of your skill, too, when other teammates have no influence on outcome of the game.
On the opposite side, it brings your teammates to ranks they shouldn’t be in, and doesn’t work for certain roles/heroes, which rely on teammates.
Nothing new, to be honest. Back in TF2, it was same way: one good player + pocket healer + everyone else. And from those two players on opposite teams depended result of the game.
This is more likely explained by people experiencing a streak or having one come to a halt and projecting the agency onto something mysterious.
It’s different from win rates because MMR exists independent of win rate, and only uses wins/loses as a basis to potentially move up or down on a match-by-match basis. We’ve expressly been told they don’t value win rates in matchmaking.
There is an inherent correlation between MMR (and associated confidence levels) and win rates when creating matches, mind you, but that isn’t the same thing as actually examining or making use of win rates for matchmaking - which, again, is something we’ve been plainly told they do not do
It’s not bad publicity, it’s bad game design. And you don’t have to believe the devs if you don’t want to, but there’s no reason to think that they would lie about how their system works.
Right, which means there would be NO REASON to give you teammates with less than 50% winrate if yours was higher than 50%. It would make a lot more sense to let you continue ranking up until you reached the proper rank, no?
1 Like
No, he’s proving your claim about
Being wrong. It would literally be impossible to reach certain ranks due to it being required to have over a 50% win ratio once you start to reach top 500
2 Likes
It makes sense, as your teammates are lower, than they should be, and you are higher, than you should be. Over multiple games, your % of victories should become equal to % of losses, stopping you in place. Depending from your skill, it would happen at bronze or at GM.
There are two ways of adjusting your gameplay: teammates and enemies.
To make claims on what someone "should* be is a very slippery slope, imo. Furthermore, it requires a matchmaking system to not only know where you currently are from an MMR perspective, but to simulataneously know where you “should” be and use that to its advantage.
I think you mixed those words up. If I’m winning more than 50% of my games, does it not stand to reason that I belong at a higher rank?
If your % of victories isn’t equal to % of defeats, you are not at your rank. Matchmaking doesn’t know your exact rank, but it can approximate, where it will be, related to your current position.
It means that games aren’t challenge for you, too easy. While yes, it means you should be at higher rank, but you get to prove, how exactly higher. Could be +100 SR, could be +1000.
Games would be made harder and harder, until you eventually stop climbing. That would be your rank.
It does the same thing with MMR and confidence levels already. Win-rate isn’t a needed statistic to make matches.
It’s easier to track for players, that’s why I use it. MMR is hidden from us.
Yes. This is how a ranking system works. I’m not arguing that your opponents don’t get harder as you rank up. SIMPLY THAT WIN RATE % IS NOT FACTORED.
I understand that we can use win rates to gain insight into our personal ranks. I’m saying that the actual matchmaker doesn’t use it when creating matches.
ugh sheevah. good luck with this guy i’m out haha.
It doesn’t matter for us, luckily. Our concern is how we can use information we get to our advantage, making whole secrecy around matchmaking mechanics pointless.
There already were some exploits, that used flaws of matchmaking to get ahead. We may not be able to open that “black box” of matchmaking, but we clearly can manipulate it.
It does matter to me when I see someone come in and spew misinformation. You came in here acting like the devs have lied to everyone and use win percentage as a way of making matches.
All you’ve really done in the last few posts in convey the most obvious truths for any game that features a ranking system - If you continue to win, you will climb. If you lose, you will fall. Therefore, it is generally preferable to maximize your chances of winning when possible.
And don’t get me wrong, that’s all well and good, but it’s a far cry from your earlier claims that you get handicapped in matches on the basis of win rates.
2 Likes
I don’t trust devs, however, as they were changing their minds many times. So I am very skeptical about them telling truth, as it’s not in their interests to make anything about matchmaking clear.
I don’t completely trust them either, but the bigger point is that you need to offer evidence if you’re going to make a claim that directly contradicts something they’ve told us.
2 Likes