Okay, so that brings your skill rating higher. You went on a win streak.
Okay, so you lost and are now using a scapegoat to blame your losses on literally anything besides yourself. You do realize, it isn’t unusual that when you start going higher on the ladder you start winning less games? Because the players get more skilled and will eventually become better than you?
I didn’t know ELO determines who a chess master is going to play next. Amazing.
We have these ratings called mmr. Don’t use anchor stats, or as the patent describes give better teammates for playing badly. Balanced game - if you are misranked you adjust by proving it in game. Is this difficult?
Or do you think what I described is what it does?
Again you fail to see the rigging.
If Player A fails in gameplay super bad, his mmr should go down. The patent instead says they give him better teammates. The opposite of what you just described.
Another game, another RQ loss while some do their job to a T.
This time, the entire team was in VC. I was the sole voice in it. No problem. So when the Mei and Reaper came at our flanks, did a soul listen? Nah. Did a soul counterpick? Nah.
RQ isn’t the issue. The playerbase is. Said it before, I’ll say it again (out of boredom waiting to pick someone up from work). 2-2-2 is great in theory. Hell, OWL teams abide by it even before RQ came out.
Now if you happen to be paired with other random players? It’s a coinflip. Few abide by how the game is meant to be played. As a team.
When used for chess, no. Because Chess doesn’t explicitly match people, it just rates them. Are we playing chess?
Okay well there’s your first issue. That’s how MMR works. That’s how Glicko-2 works. It’s how ELO works. It’s how IRT and Bayesian IRT work. It’s how TrueSkill and TrueSkill 2 work.
They use anchor stats. Because it’s impossible to rate people otherwise.
It is not for playing badly, it’s for underperforming. There is a difference. Playing poorly will get you ranked low. Playing worse than you normally do will cause the Matchmaker to begin to reconsider your placement. It’s not going to just drop you suddenly though - that wouldn’t be a good ranking system. Human error is accounted for, and these systems are designed with the principal that people don’t always perform at 100%, otherwise your ranking would be significantly more volatile.
That’s literally how it works. So no, not that difficult. This isn’t about being misranked, it’s about being stable in a rank then suddenly changing in playstyle. That is what the entire discussion is and has been about.
I know what it does, I’ve described what it does. You don’t know what it does - you believe that a ranking system’s entire purpose is just to make a match - not a balanced match, not a fair match, not an accurate match. No predictions, just a match.
That’s not how they work. Go make your own if you disagree with that principle, let’s see how far it goes.
No, you just don’t understand how the matchmaker works, and you think that math is rigging. It’s not rigged to keep people where they are - that’s its purpose. It keeps you where you are until one of 2 things happens: You get worse, or you get better.
By your logic ranking systems are inherently rigged. Which is misaligned, but if you choose to believe that then so be it; there’s nothing I can say that will ever change your mind.
Also, in regards to this
We need to describe what is defined as “better”, because you’re not using the same term that they likely are. What is realistically happening is that the matchmaker will design a team with a generally supposed influx of rating, meaning that player is expected to climb, where you, the subject, are currently falling. It tries to see if the reason you’re falling is because you’re dropping, or if you just had a poor match. If you still lose with people who are expected to win, then the matchmaker will readjust and lower your anchor (or increase your deviation).
Standard practice.
Ranking system = matchmaker now?
I don’t think it is necessary to use anchor stats in a competitive ranking system. It is a crutch, and was introduced because of qp systems. Not because of ranked. ELO has no anchor stats, just your current ranking.
Playing badly compared to their anchor stats. Ie underperforming. Good?
It’d take 20+ straight losses to drop a single rank. Also this adjustment can be affected by comparing to anchor stats for mmr/sr adjustments. This has noooooooothing to do with “giving better teammates” for underperforming.
That is silly. A matchmaker has no point in doing such a thing, as if you are better than your rank you will climb. If you are being given a better chance to win because you lost a few games, then your opponents are being given an unfair game. This goes against the entire design of a 50/50 system.
I don’t think you have the capacity to see the difference between post game adjustments (a ranking system) and a matchmaker.
In a competitive matchmaker (the subject of conversation), yes.
Your current ranking is your anchor. It is a less precise accumulation of prior stats.
In SR. We’re not talking about SR.
What are you even talking about here?
You’ll climb because of the matchmaker facilitating it.
Oh, I think we see the problem now. Your current mmr is not your anchor stats. Anchor stats (for Overwatch) are historical rates for your play, including accuracy, deaths, kills, time on fire etc.
We know this is true.
And can be proven by the conclusion that if otherwise the patent can only be read as giving better teammates for losing a single match.
I believe it said that the Blizzard devision of Activision was given access to the patent until October of 2016.
That said, I’m no lawyer, so I cant say I know exactly how it works.
Oh you, forum goer, know of all my accounts and how and when i’ve played them?
I’ve been low Plat for most of this game’s life. I peaked at about 2800. Why would i be making things up?
“8 min queues for four games straight. All wins.”
Okay, so that brings your skill rating higher. You went on a win streak.
“Suddenly 12 minute queues to find us the two worst Reins of all time two games in a row?”
Okay, so you lost and are now using a scapegoat to blame your losses on literally anything besides yourself. You do realize, it isn’t unusual that when you start going higher on the ladder you start winning less games? Because the players get more skilled and will eventually become better than you?
Missed the point entirely. Which is the queue is always longer when it’s trying to find wood tiers for you to play with.
The queue times jump by 50% and you get horrible teams. The system is looking for losers to team you with, and you can see it.
If you leave the game for three weeks and come back, you get low queue times and just random, usually easy as hell, games.
If you unplug your internet on your last game of the night, and lose 50SR, you can come back the next day to a couple easy games to make up for it.
Because the system is TRYING to put you somewhere, rather than just letting it happen.
Does no one pay attention to this matchmaker?
you should see my 3rd season, when system for 3 weeks forced me to 1500 from my standart 3.2k by giving me dedicated braindamaged teammates. Yet almost every game there i got called f**** smurf / diver and haxor and got many friend invites from red teams 
And when i stoped getting retards in blue team, i got back to 3k for like 2 days
but yeah sure, this game totally have no hidden mmr or whatever it called
Season 3 was years ago.
For a 3,2k player 1,5k will feel like brain damaged yes. The question is how on earth you fell so low. Second question would be how on earth you didnt get out. Im basically a diamond player and there is no way I could drop to plat unless I threw games. And if I dropped to bronze it would take less than a day to climb out, not 3 weeks lol.
It does have MMR; that isn’t speculated or refuted - it’s blatantly confirmed by the developers.
Also, I just don’t believe that the game gave you so many consecutive games with such terrible teammates that you dropped a staggering 1.7k SR. That’s a loss of around 70 games in a row.
i was playing tracer… and 99% games goes like:
So … from like 10 games i was losing like 7. The only why i didnt fall deeper, bcz for 1 win i was getting like 50+ points…
Ye it needs when you have at least adequate teammates, but not when you have 5 braindamaged players.
And when i say braindamaged, it basically means reinhardts what 24/7 charge 1v6 or continues holding shield when he 1v1 ith enemy rein that just stay and swing his hammer on out rein.
Peoples that picks junks vs pharmercy+wido.
Zenyattas, who click Q just to run away 1v6 and just die after 5 sec bcz he wanted to pew pew some1 like wido while he waits team
Same as above lucios
gengus that attacks tanks and etc etc
Its just so hard to believe. You do understand that your enemies are as bad as ur team mates and when ur 1500sr lower than ur real rank you should be able to carry at least 80% of the games, right? Easily. I once got hold on a bronze account and played 10 games, won all, everyone was like “gg” etc. I felt bad even tho it didnt seem like they even realized what happened, because everyone was so positive.
you carry before you got headshot and instantly lost point before you resd. It was so many times i killed 3 ppl (mainly both heals and some dps), then got headshot and instantly lost point 3v5
PS if u want u can add me and check my profile, i have ~3350 peak on most seasons
I dont know. Sure you can buy a boost to get 3,3k, but if you didnt buy a boost I just cant understand how you can manage to 1) drop to 1,5k 2) struggle to climb. So its 6v6. Basically 5bronzes v 6bronzes and then there is you, you kill 3 every fight and you team will on average win more 5v3 fights than lose. And if you play tracer you will reinforce fast anyways as bronzes dont know when to press W anyways. There IS something fishy. Unless ur like 3,3k mercy onetrick and this was before roleque and you went tracer with 0 idea how to dps.
Thats just fishy OW
actually its easy af
if u watch utub vids, theres even top500 have problems when 3v6 even silver. So its actually even worse, when you have like 3-4 throwers in a game that not only die - they FEED enemy ultimates.
all bcz dmg cap, its on csgo i can 5v1 headshots. On OW EVEN i would have 100%accuracy on tracer, it would took like 20+ seconds (8 sec 4 squieshies + 6 + 6 on tanks (without even count their shields). For this time previous enemy already got respawned.
So simple math, even i would be top 500 and have some sick 50% accuracy, i would need 40+ sec to kill everyone anyway
So if u play 6v many braindamaged - you go down