I’ve never said the match maker wasn’t good, what I said was the people abusing it make it not as functional as it should be, but yes, I can see where that could be taking out of context for saying it’s bad.
Even good things can use an overhaul once in a while to ensure the flexibility and functionality of it, please do not confuse this again.
No it’s not, is said person was to play to their best ability all accounts would be of the same (or as close to) possible, alternate accounts aren’t the problem, it’s the people who use them.
This is outlandish, comparing something like the “best of the best,” to a game that LITERALLY has different ranks built into the system based on skill level, your comparison would more likely be considered an NBA pro trying out for a middle class team.
Agreed, but for this game, there is literally no rule against having multiple accounts, though there are rules against throwing/cheating/gameplay sabotage, as well as punishment for leaving games.
You seem logical, Zest, and I’m sure I bring points you agree with as well, try looking at this from both sides, aka the people problem vs the system that doesn’t know how any person will act.
I don’t get this absolutism. Like, I’ve not seen anyone that “defends the matchmaker” actually say anything like “it’s perfect”. It’s more like not broken. “Not broken” is a pretty low bar.
More importantly, I especially have been quite firm on the idea that what people experience, especially what Zest claims to experience, is likely true. Yet he says he’s being accused of hallucinating.
It’s just that the problems aren’t a result of the fact that it’s matching on SR then MMR. It’s absolutely not taking people in a range of SR, then finding people of the same MMR, such that a 50% win rate will result in no change of SR. That system, the system that hulk, cuth, and zest (and many others) describe is disproven by the fact that anyone climbs at all. It would be literally impossible.
I’ve said it over and over again. There are problems. But the more these people try to pin the problems on a proven system rather than the smurfs and other bad actors, the less can be done.
Furthermore, it makes it worse, because people that think the system is rigged aren’t going to stick it out to the end if they get met with adversity. They blame the matchmaker and mentally quit.
The root of the “problems with the matchmaker” are the players. The players have been made worse by this false rigging theory.
Forgive me for thinking that anyone who spreads it just wants to make themselves feel better rather than make the game better.
Zest is not a dumb guy. He’s really not. But that just makes it more confusing as to why he seems so dead set on this theory of his that cannot possibly be true and doesn’t need to be true to explain his experience.
I just don’t get it. It would make more sense if they’re just trolling, maybe Riot employees who want to ruin this game?
I agree 100%. tbh I even like HULK for the most part, I do get tons of enjoyment from watching his rare Doomfist matches (as he is far better then I am).
I see we agree (for the sake of saying it again), that the major flaw of this particular system is the players.
In theory, I agree with everything you’ve said (opinions are probably the difference, but they sure aren’t too far apart).
I probably have some odd opinions. I could speak them out, but I really don’t like to discuss them much here unless I’m simply pointing out the difference between an opinion and a fact, or fact-like but false statement.
I would like to talk about opinions, but until the basic facts are agreed upon there isn’t much point.
Isn’t this just common knowledge now? MM doesn’t work with low player numbers. I believe there was even a prediction by one of the developers this would happen. Don’t ask me a link I don’t have one.
MM gives a test match after a win streak, large SR increase, or season or career high. Low player base means those test matches where you’re on the ‘bad’ team are far harder than they’re supposed to be. I guess because there’s less players within a similar MMR now so what might have been a 45/55 game is now a 30/70 game. You stay on the ‘bad’ team until you either win or your SR drops too far. End result is win steak loss streak win streak etc. with a few losses on the way up and a win or two on the way down caused by smurfs or throwers.
I wouldn’t be surprised if this system is removed at 3k along with PBSR. I have an account at 3.2 and matches seem far more consistent than my main which is usually mid gold. Either way it makes the game incredibly boring and frustrating to play. No fun at all and certainly not competitive.
Nothing is being taken out of context, you said this in another post:
I know you’re going to backpedal out of that comment but it’s irrelevant to me what you think about the garbage matchmaker, it IS garbage. There are two people in this “is the matchmaker bad or good” discussion, people who can see that it’s garbage, and people who don’t have the ability to see that it’s garbage, notice in both cases the matchmaker is garbage.
But a person can have multiple accounts that are in the same tier/skill level. Now multiply that times the hundreds of thousands of people doing it and what happens? What happens is you have a bunch of masters players creating a new account and getting placed where most people do, in plat, and then you have elo hell in plat where Masters smurfs are playing against Masters smurfs which is probably why plat can be more difficult than diamond.
I’ve already considered all sides, with an unbiased opinion, and the only good answer is that the Overwatch competitive system is complete garbage and on top of that perpetuates bad behavior. If the matchmaker were good I would be defending it, it’s not and so I describe the truth, which is that it’s awful.
Now, if you were to say “we should do X for the next 2 months because low player numbers overall contribute to poor matchmaking quality”, then you’d be onto something.
But no one says that. They just say “the matchmaker broken”, “rigged”, “streaks bad”, “my teammates suck and the enemy is all smurfs!” and other things that have been the same since when the playerbase was far more robust.
I don’t think there are test matches that are different than any other matches. LoL does something like that to go across tiers, which is probably a good idea, but unless you have a dev statement that says that there is some other kind of situation, each and every match is a test match.
Maybe if you’re thinking of the increase in uncertainty upon a lot of movement, you are open to getting a match where it is higher or lower than if someone of the same MMR was getting with a lower uncertainty. I’m not sure if I’d call that a test match, it’s just that your sigma is high and there’s a greater ranges of MMR values against which it expects a fair match. But, it’s not like, purposefully putting you there outside of normal procedures.
So you’re scared that people will realise it’s rigged and it’s your mission to convince them that it’s not?
Most players don’t even read this forum.
“people that think the system is rigged aren’t going to stick it out to the end if they get met with adversity.”
What does stick it out to the end mean? OP serves as a good example that the above statement is untrue.
You’re trolling right? No way you actually believe you’re manipulating everyone’s mental state and that intentionally playing poorly in the beginning JUST for this is a good strategy
If you really want to get to masters, I suggest swallowing your pride and getting some coaching. Actually make an attempt to look at your flaws and improve them. Even high ranked players do this and that’s why they are high ranked.
I’m interested in what you think causes the win/loss streak patten that a lot of people experience then? It’s not just a one time thing. I myself have had multiple 10 plus game win and loss streaks. My biggest win streak is 14 matches, and biggest loss is 23. 6 or 7 game streaks are the norm.
Nothing because there is no such thing. There is no pattern, people just lose and wins, sometimes you got lucky have more wins in row. Then you have higher chance to lose as games are naturaly harder in higher elo for you. Or you can lose more with bad luck, then its usualy easy to climb out.
I have yet to see forced loss/ win streak. So far everyone failed to provide it.
Yeah anyone can type anything, show it actualy happened so we can see games you played in order as you played them with codes so it can be reviewed.
Last guy witch such claims i remember failed horribly as it wasnt even streak in the end and just like 4 games which were totaly winnable.
I would also like to see forced loss streak on my own eyes so if you have it, i would like to join.
All we can do is go off our own experience of the game. It’s interesting that you used the word ‘luck’, as that implies that it’s not the norm, when in my experience streaks are more common than the WLWWLWLL you might expect once your account is old enough it should be stable.
I get that at a higher rank your overall chance of winning may be less as in general players should be at a higher skill. But this isn’t how it happens at all. From my experience matches are easy to win for a time, then flip and are next to impossible, then when you’re usually below where you were before you started winning they switch again and are easy. There’s very few average games any more where either side might win. I can call a match 30 seconds out of spawn and 90% of the time I’m right.
This of course is in the metal ranks. If you’re above 3k then your opinion of ranked isn’t valid as I firmly believe that this system is either removed or paired back above diamond. If you think they wouldn’t have one system for some players, and another for others - you only need to look at PBSR.
Again, I can only go by my own experience here. I have a diamond account currently sat on 57% WR and a gold account sat on 54%. The diamond games are FAR easier than the gold, and feel more balanced. When I lose there I’ve not just been spawn camped by a level 25 Hog.
So, Zax is basically right, but I have an exercise for you that you can do to prove it to yourself.
Go to a website that can generate a list of random numbers. I use random dot org.
Menu: Numbers → Integers
Generate 100 random integers with a value between 0 and 1. Format in 1 column. Click “Get Numbers”.
Open your favorite spreadsheet program.
=sum(A2:A101) in the first block. Copy/paste to next 5 across.
Copy/paste integer list to A2 to A101. Repeat for columns B:F
Set conditional formatting <1 is red.
Obviously all results vary, but just in this sample of 600 I have streaks of 6 pretty commonly. The longest streak is 9 “losses”. The actual “win” % is 283/600, which is 47%, even though it’s actual results of a coinflip.
Furthermore, what people commonly call “streaks” are more like 3 1 3, which is pretty much how they all go.
Your example of “what it should be” though, above, 10110100, is a series of 8 without a streak of 3. That happens often if you allow the first or last number to be part of a streak of 3 or more, but if you restrict that, as I think you intuitively would because you didn’t put a streak of 3 in there at all, then it’s less common than a streak of…well, that’s hard to find. But in my first column it happens about as much as and streaks of 4+. My first column is exactly 50%.
Basically, the “odd” win loss pattern that people experience is literally randomness, and our monky brainz trying to make sense of the complexity and randomness.
It’s a well-documented phenomenon. Humans are bad at random.
Oh, Edit to add: The reason I had you do 6 is to get some sense of what it could look like for the 6 people on your team. Most of mine were even, except the last one with the 9 losses that won only 35 of the 100 games. 35% win rate, completely random coinflip.
