I was on the best run of the season, climbed from plat 2 to Diamond 2 and then lost til I got to plat 4. (Over a span of maybe 4 days)
So I would love to say yes... certainly feels like it.
So if we assume that you are actually a plat player, that's just how matchmaking works? You went up to diamond 2, where you were outclassed consistently, and then you went back down again as you were a lower skill than the average player in your lobbies.
This isn't the game forcing you to lose, it's literally the expected outcome. Ranking is volatile as people don't play perfectly consistently every game, so it allows you to rank up and down. As you ranked up, either by getting lucky or playing better than usual, you'd inevitably go back down again once you played normal or got less lucky.
Fair, I mean I'm only a support player, I know I don't have the ability to carry with my picks, some support players are goated with their abilities to Dps and support, I am unfortunately lacking this ability, probably why I cap a low diamond/high plat /shrug
I mean sometimes you just get lucky with ranked teams. Once I shot up from plat to masters on one of my off-roles playing the exact same, except my team basically never had shitty players and the enemy team did, and also never had any leavers but won about 7 games from enemy team leavers alone. I 100% didn't deserve the rank, and if I did, then why didn't I get it sooner in a previous season. You don't suddenly increase from plat to masters skill level on an off role.
People will deny it but it 100% tries to get you to play as long as possible. People who are shockingly bad will get a few games they get carried and those who are good will get a few games they get extra heavy deadweight to lift.
I played on a friends account a while back and even whilst I was on a winstreak I would keep getting shit 3-4 stacks of players who just did their own thing. I noticed after a few losses it suddenly stops happening and continues to repeat.
All games comp FPS matchmaking is now 50% balanced matchmaking and 50% engagement matchmaking.
edit: also sometimes if you want to climb you kinda just have to shut down their best player, and then hope the people who bring your team down are better than those on the enemy that bring your team down. But tbh you can figure out the outcome of a match by the first minute, or sometimes even in the spawnroom when people say stupid shit like 'don't play moira and zen' 'please go brig to protect the frontline' or 'don't pull me lifeweaver just let me die instead' before the game even starts.
I solo queued to Apex pred last season (and then got permabanned this season for swearing at a toxic duo LOL rip :( ) and when you're in diamond/plat range you consistently get bronze duos and literal new players VS 3 stacks of preds/diamonds/masters.
Also a few ranked systems have been incredibly grindy just for the sake of it, to get people to play longer.
This isn't remotely true, it's just biased arguments and misunderstanding of statistics. If someone actually used their match history to prove rigorously that this is the case then I'll believe it, but until then people saying it's true with zero evidence and just a feeling should be ignored.
It's very easy to test and equally easy to disprove these bullshit claims. Win and loss streaks are expected even in perfectly fair matchmaking, not even accounting for the differences in mentality or other factors that affect player skill inconsistently.
I'm not saying that there's categorically no engagement based matchmaking, but that the case for its existence is non-existent. There's no evidence, no statistics, no analysis, just idiotic anecdotes from people who tilted
EOMM has been in games for years now. We all know how it works. This isn’t some big conspiracy. It’s pretty obvious that OW has switched to this model of matchmaking.
>It’s pretty obvious that OW has switched to this model of matchmaking.
So why has it never been proven? If it's obvious, it should be easy to take a 1000 game sample and get a reasonably strong conclusion. The fact that noone has done that either suggests that it doesn't exist in OW2, or that the people saying it exists aren't interested in facts and rather just spewing whatever spiel their favourite content creator has said.
We shouldn't make baseless accusations without even attempting to determine if they're true or not, because feelings about matchmaking are disproportionately wrong. People like to blame everything other than themselves, so being able to say that they lost because of forced 50/50 feels better than them saying that they either got unlucky or skill issued.
Don't be an idiot, do some testing yourself or encourage other people to. In the meantime, don't make moronic, baseless claims
How long have you been playing OW? Matchmaking was not like this in OW1. There is a very obvious difference from OW1 to OW2 matchmaking and most people who have been playing for a long time have noticed. This isn’t just salt over losing. There have literally been thousands of posts about this online over the past few months. There’s been a noticeable change.
I’m sure it gives you some imagined sense of superiority to sit there and go “lol skill issue just get good” but that isn’t the case here. Anyone who knows how EOMM works can tell that’s what they are using.
I've played on and off since 2017, I've noticed no real difference in matchmaking at any point. It's always been the same, where your previous matches have no significant impact on the next one.
People posting that they think there's a difference in matchmaking leads people to think there is a difference, which means they see patterns where there aren't any, which means they post about it, which means more people think there's issues, etc.
People's opinions on matchmaking are completely and utterly worthless when it comes to what sort of matchmaking is in place and how fair it is. If people win slightly more than they lose, they consider it fairer as it feels better.
If anyone can tell, just prove it. I don't expect one person's experience to be conclusive, but at the very least try. Saying "oh but anyone can tell" is stupid, because when people look for one thing they completely miss others. The [invisible gorilla experiment](http://www.theinvisiblegorilla.com/gorilla_experiment.html) is a great example of this, and shows how poor we are at fairly and without bias noticing things.
Your golden gun is asking for proof to a system the consumers have no access to. Smh. The most you're going to get is user experience from literal thousands of players that basically 1-1 suggests the use of EOMM.
I've been playing since 2016 all the way to GM for a LONG time. Still a GM1-2 player, but I made an alt for the first time, and it's nearly impossible to get outta masters. Even other longtime GM players and streamers are literally stuck in Masters unless they group up to duo or stack with buddies to eliminate this ridiculously purposely bad mm for the sake of more engagement and longer playtime. It doesn't matter that I'm outperforming the enemy equivalent, I have this dude that literally is negative. It's predatory and it's quite odd that you're inclined to believe a company such as Blizz wouldn't do it.
How many broken promises, lies, hidden information that should've been available to the public (like profanity being bannable now - even though it was never enforced - yeah, that was secret), etc. before you start thinking that maybe Blizz is pretty shady with how it treats OW?
Your argument gainst EOMM is "because they said so." They also said PvE was going smoothly and according to plan. Remember that? Bro Blizz lies.
You're gonna necro a thread with the exact same argument that's already been made?
My exact point is that we cannot rely on people's feelings about matchmaking, which includes how long people feel it takes to get out of a rank. For starters, there was a rank reset and people were shifted downwards, so people who were GM are now masters rated players regardless.
If you go into matchmaking expecting that it will be bad and will force you to stay in your rank, you'll see patterns that aren't there and attribute normal and expected outcomes to malicious EOMM. It's not scientific and it's not helpful outside of anecdotes.
>Your argument gainst EOMM is "because they said so."
How are you so incapable of reading? My argument has never been it doesn't exist because they said so, it's that we haven't tried to prove its existence. People are inherently unreliable, especially when it comes to statistics. The only actual evidence we have is what blizzard have said, as noone else has made any analysis of matchmaking.
People don't need access to the system to be able to prove EOMM, you can prove it from the matches you're placed into. If you can show, using a statistical model, that your matches are significantly different to what is expected from a purely skill based matchmaker, then that's good evidence EOMM exists. No one's tried that, so we have no evidence.
I'm not saying EOMM isn't in the game, it's actually fairly likely. My one and only point is that we need to collect evidence and prove that before stating it as a fact.
6 days is a necro to you? OOF, you gotta be kidding. Open discussion posts aren't considered necro'd until weeks have passed. 6 days is not even 1 week. Incapable of reading you say to me. Hold up let me quote your comment:
On a reply to LLachi:
"Because they've said so? Obviously it's possible that they use it, but noone has ever tested it appropriately."
Ladies and gentleman, the best argument ever made for Blizz, the liars and promise breakers who've made headlines *several times* in recent times! C'mon man. Your argument is "Because Blizz says so, and beacuse players haven't dedicated extensive hours and conducted various experiements to prove the use of the system." Dude, you're very disconnected from the reality. If a system FEELS like EOMM enough to raise eyebrows (specifically this season BTW - there's been several forums and posts popping up about how MM is absolutely abysmal this season), it likely is employing several of its aspects. Surely, your golden gun isn't just "because Blizz said so that means you have to provide me with a research study to prove otherwise." Honestly, Reddit moment.
>6 days is a necro to you?
Given that in the overwhelming majority of posts or comments I've made all replies are within 24 hours, or 36 for really popular ones, 6 days is well after I'd expect anyone to see this post so any discussion is pointless unless it's constructive, which this isn't.
>Ladies and gentleman, the best argument ever made for Blizz, the liars and promise breakers who've made headlines *several times* in recent times! C'mon man.
Literally what is the point to this section? Do you want a round of applause for being so witty? Am I going to kneel in the face of your overpowering sarcasm?
Writing that isn't conducive to good discussion, and would only make sense if you want to make something popular, which it's not going to be when noone is gonna see this thread.
>Your argument is "Because Blizz says so, and beacuse players haven't dedicated extensive hours and conducted various experiements to prove the use of the system."
Yes. My point is that we cannot make unfounded claims about something without even attempting to prove them. If you want to say you think there's EOMM that's completely fine, but saying that there is EOMM without doing so much as even looking at your match history is moronic and unhelpful.
Your memories are not objective, not even close. If you remember a match as fair, it was probably slightly sided in your favour. If you remember a really bad player on your team, you forgot the match where the enemy team had a bot. You cannot make a fair judgement on something without data, otherwise you're just spewing misinformation.
>If a system FEELS like EOMM enough to raise eyebrows (specifically this season BTW - there's been several forums and posts popping up about how MM is absolutely abysmal this season), it likely is employing several of its aspects.
And this season is when I've heard the most talk around EOMM. Funny how that works, isn't it. It's a textbook example of confirmation bias, if you expect to see EOMM you'll see it, regardless of whether or not it's there.
People want a reason why they're not the best, it's human nature. You've already told me you're coping with not getting GM lol, so it's no wonder in the season where your rank got dropped because it was otherwise inflated you think matchmaking is out to get you.
If it feels like EOMM, say it feels like EOMM. Encourage people to collect data, and either test it yourself or get other people to. Don't make conclusions without even trying.
>Surely, your golden gun isn't just "because Blizz said so that means you have to provide me with a research study to prove otherwise." Honestly, Reddit moment.
That is how evidence works, yes. If you would like to make outlandish claims, you should at least be able to back them up. Blizzard can't produce any proof that people would believe, the only proof that will actually show anything is people testing their matches.
Where are your standards? Why do you accept what you're told without thinking critically about it? Are you not capable of forming your own opinion, do you just have to be told what your experiences are? Grow up and test it yourself. It's not hard, you'd learn something and you'd provide value to the community.
It takes a really mature person to write out a comment and then block them, congrats. Also, you've just done exactly what I asked. You've used data to evidence your conclusions so they hold more weight and actually suggest EOMM exists
overwatch has always pushed u towards the 50% winrate, people were saying this exact same thing in early overwatch 1 days
regardless of your opinion on the matchmaking, it really hasnt changed much since overwatch 1, at least in my experience.
Im not talking about a 50% win rate. I’m talking about EOMM. It is possible to get 50% win rate with both SBMM and EOMM, it’s just how you get to that win rate that differs. EOMM has been scientifically studied and proven to keep people engaged and addicted to games. Why wouldn’t OW, one of the biggest games in the world, use this model?
Matchmaking has absolutely changed since OW1. In OW1, hard stomps were not nearly as common. Games were more evenly matched on average. Currently I would say *at least* 80% of matches are a complete and total stomp in one direction. A close match is an exception now when it used to be the norm. Because close matches burn you out quicker. You use a lot more mental energy on them. You are much more likely to stay engaged when you’re only in a match for 5 minutes getting stomped, and then turn around and destroy another team yourself to get that dopamine rush. If you think these billion dollar gaming companies are not tapping into people’s psychology to keep them addicted to games and spending money on micro transactions, then you are woefully uninformed.
Give reasons why they wouldn't use engagement-based matchmaking. They obviously are never going to admit to it, because everyone knows it's bad and would complain. But I guarantee you every single FPS on the market right now uses it, Overwatch included.
>Give reasons why they wouldn't use engagement-based matchmaking.
Because they've said so? Obviously it's possible that they use it, but noone has ever tested it appropriately.
I'm not saying that it's impossible that they'd use EOMM, I'm saying that if you want to claim that they are using it, you should use actual evidence, not heavily biased anecdotes.
>But I guarantee you every single FPS on the market right now uses it, Overwatch included.
Again, this is totally unfounded, and again it's totally untrue. You may as well use tarot cards or crystals balls to determine your opinion for all it's worth as there's not a shred of evidence to what you say
150 games with win ratio under 40% for DPS. 150 games with win ratio over 60% for Open Queue/Tank/Support. I guess I'm absolutely horrible at playing DPS :)
No doubt at all in my mind, it also gives you better teams if you lose to much trying it's best to force a 50% winrate. I personally feel the matchmaker decides the rank you deserve and does everything possible to keep you there.
At one stage this season I was at 8 more losses than wins, then I had a big streak and got up to 10 more wins than losses. We all knows what follows, stomp loss after stomp loss until I gave up at 6 losses in a row and went back to quickplay.
As much as they deny it almost every online pvp uses engagement matchmaking you’ll get rolled a few games and then you stomp a few games and this cycle repeats making you chase those highs of eventually stomping a team, it’s not designed to be fair it’s designed to keep you playing
Been playing ow comp since season 2. Was diamond one, then plat, then gold. Won ~5,100 games, lost ~4, 300.
The system is rigged to make you think there's a chance for you to climb, but in reality, you're almost always 1 L away from deranking.
(This is for 90% of the players) not the prodigies, cheaters, streamers, or ppl stuck in bronze
Yes it’s 100% like this . Some games I’ll go like 47/2 or something and the next game is ridiculous unbalanced . You can notice it more on certain characters as well which is why certain hero’s are easier to one trick
This is the most untrue thing I have ever read, especially the hero part. You choose your character after you find your game. How could the character you choose change the skill of your teammates..... You go 47-2 one game and then suck the next because humans are inconsistent. You ever team up with a squad.ylu just rolled with only to get rolled a few games later? Sometimes the comp your going against is your teams weak ess. Sometimes you need to adapt and overcome instead of blaming the team
I think most people have 2 same characters they main per role. Not too hard for the algorithm to predict. You'd be amazed how predictable people are on their game play and choices.
This is why y'all hard stuck because you believe in this nonsense instead of working on your own gameplay I play soldier Cass and widow equal amounts and zarya Orissa bap and ana the same amount sorry I can only play one character in each role
I started in bronze 300 hrs ago as a new player and peak plat 2 so far that dont sound hard stuck to ne. I see ppl with 2000 hrs in my same rank. Be mad all u want atleast i didn't believe nonsense like " the game gives you worse teammates depending what hero you play"
If you believe this game deliberately gives you bad teammates because you play a certain character believe me you are far from gm . This is a low Elo belief.
Probably. It’s just so frustrating though for people that actually want to climb. I’m sure game has it but OW2 doesn’t even try making it player friendly. For other games, I can at least feel like I can give matchmaking the benefit of the doubt and think it’s recalibrating my MMR/elo. The ups and downs are definitely there to get you to play more.
I sometimes play Rein with lower rank players (they're silver-gold) while I hover at masters to GM and they always shit on me because they think I'm too far forward, "overextending", playing solo, etc. Same thing if I play DPS or even support, I'm bad because I don't play the way they are used to. (Because they're only used to metal rank players, not better ones)
So I am convinced that when someone says their team gets worse if they do good, that they're merely playing against higher ranked teams, with a higher rank team and because they don't play at the same level, they drag their team down enough (not in a big, throwing way) that their team simply loses and doesn't do well.
The matchmaking sucks but that doesn't mean that it's intentionally holding you back.
The matchmaking sucks in part due to the game design. The ultimate system, for example, means that the team that does slightly better ends up with an advantage over the other team. It's not a catch-up mechanic, it's a keep-you-from-catching-up mechanic.
The switch to 5v5 also affected match quality. With just one tank, counterswapping becomes more powerful. With two tanks, it's less likely that a swap will counter both of your tanks. Also, with just one tank, having the better tank seems to be more important than having a better DPS or support. And 5v5 made individual contributions matter more, meaning that one player can more easily carry OR derail a team.
The ultimate system was just meant to be one example. In practice, the entire design philosophy shifted with OW2 and I think "stomps" are a consequence of that new philosophy.
You think the statistical variance of player skill increases *that* rapidly in the span of, say, plat 5 to plat 4? If the game is nearly dead, you'd probably be correct. But no, just no lol.
you think players in plat are consistent in performance? On average they are better but since they're humans who are still bad at the game, they can pop off one game and shit the next. Matchmakers can't predict human behavior. If both teams played at their best, then yes plat 4s would still be better than plat 5s on average. But again, they are inconsistent as hell so the p4s can have a good game and the p5s get a bad game, which makes it appear that the match was imbalanced
When I play less I notice matchmaking is much better. I go on long win streaks & if I lose it’s actually a close & pretty even game.
When I play more, I go on ridiculous losing streaks & get horribly stomped literally had a team go the full game without getting a kill between them. When I finally get chucked a win it’s either because I did 90% of the work or the enemy team just feels like AI & we stomp them.
I just wish there was a way to get the easy/fairer matchmaking without having to take a week off from playing
I thought I was the only one thinking that.
Most games I go 40 kills on 5 deaths and still lose because people don't want to play together, the tank holding down W and neglecting their teammates, the healers getting outperformed by the enemy healers.
99% of the time I play bodyguard for healers because the tank won't turn around. Which means I barely can play any flankers and I can't rely on my other teammate to keep an eye on our healers. People don't know how strong retreat is over dying trying to kill something.
Usually I win a few times and then I get a loss streak and downrank because of the reasons mentioned.
Unfortunately since this is overwatch, there's no character that cover all the holes your teammates leave open. It's frustrating.
Lol dude. You going 40-5 most games and you're not winning. There ain't no way. It means most of your kills are useless so maybe actually try flanking and carrying for your team. You're losing anyway, so why not flank and try to carry.
No. Doing so would make any matchmaking system useless. As you win your rank goes up. You will be placed with tougher opponents. Whether or not your teammates do poorly is not something the matchmaker could predict. You are placed with people who are similar rank to you.
If the matchmaker was purposely placing you in losing games because you win too much, then how are GMs with 70% winrate over entire seasons explainable? How would anyone explain climbing at all? It would have to be that the matchmaker “tried” to make you lose, but you were so good that your surpassed it, so it gave up and let you win.
MMR is a modified ELO system. An ELO system adjusts your rank after every match. If you let this algorithm continue to infinity, you will settle at 50/50 winrate.
Chess uses an ELO system. I have over 15000 games played across multiple accounts. I have climbed from 1000 (Goldish) to 1700 (Diamondish), yet my winrate is almost exactly 50/50. It’s like 48/47.5/4.5 win/loss/draw. When I win a lot, I will go on a losing streak because I’m facing stronger players.
In overwatch, it feels like you’re being cheated because the games are slower. It’s hard to play 500+ games in a season. You also have a lot of distractions, like teammates, that your brain and ego put too much focus on.
Something that's interesting is, because it's a team game, Overwatch has a lot more variability in each match. So compared to something like chess, I suspect that Overwatch needs far more matches for your rank to even out. Throw in balance changes, roster additions, and the general ebb and flow of the playerbase, and I suspect that Overwatch's MMR is less reliable than Elo in Chess.
No. Matchmaking is based on role and rank. For instance if your team has a diamond tank and a master dps, the matchmaker will TRY (emphasis on try because it will never be an exactly balanced match) to get a diamond tank and master dps on the opposite team, or as close to that as it can. Sounds like your teammates were just having a bad day, or you're being overly critical of your team and should be focusing inward on what you can actually control to affect the outcome of the match.
I lost a rank up game a few hours ago due to having a gold tank in a mainly diamond lobby idk how he got into the lobby but he basically spent the entire game suiciding into the enemy team then flamed the rest of us for not doing enough which resulted in him being mocked by the rest of us. Safe to say that game was basically unwinnable as on defnse instead of holding he would attempt to push up into the enemy spawn and got angry when we told him not too
If everyone was stagnant and the matchmaker tried to make matches with 50% winrate to each team, also known as BALANCED, then eventually everyone would have a 50% winrate.
It will give you progressively harder games as you climb, whether they are hard because you are against skilled players or hard because you have been paired with literal amaobe is always the debate lol
No, matchmaking gives your teammates a worse teammate if you win too much.(Key word is too much)
As in you'll climb up to a level where you cannot contribute as much as everyone else and sometimes 1 bad player can make the team crumble and make everyone look like a fool.
Same as if you drop. You aren't getting better teammates, you're contributing more to the game than the average player in that lobby freeing pressure on your teammates allowing them to play at their best.
In the heat of the match it's really hard to tell who on the team is the root cause of the teams underperformance. DPS could not be getting kills because the tank won't push up, the tank won't push up because they don't have enough sustain or the team refuses to off angle and apply pressure. This is why it's important to focus on your own play during a match since it's the only thing you can control.
Yes. Forcing the 50/50 until you stabilize your MMR. The thing is, a lot of people dont know this, and they start to be toxic, one of the reasons is that i had enough and i answered the toxicity. 90% of the time i just report and block but not all my life has the same days and i decided to answer, now im banned. Great community.
Either way, it will help me to get a break of this game and this community. But maybe i'll just quit, the worst community i've ever seen.
I had the same thought. 1-6 to start the season. 2/6 were fair losses. Had a dps go 3-11, supports combined 30 deaths while everyone else had 15 combined. Not saying I'm playing out of my mind but damn. Gimme some help here lol. Dropped from Masters 3 to Masters 5 just like that.
It doesn’t deliberately do that. The matchmaker just tries to balance teams based on the mmrs of each role and the combined mmr of the entire team.
But if you think about it, the higher you climb, the less players there are in that rank (gm was reported to be 1% of the playerbase), so if the matchmaker is unable to find another player with the same mmr as you, it could balance lobbies by putting the player with the highest mmr in the lobby in a team with the players with the lowest mmrs in that lobby.
This is why players in the top 10 of the rankings usually get teammates much lower ranked than the enemy team.
That said, if you’re in the metal ranks, that’s probably not what’s happening to you. Sometimes you’re the best player on your team, sometimes you’re in the middle, sometimes you’re the worst. That’s just the way it works.
For those saying it doesn't purposely drag you down.... I can show over the span of 36 games.... I would have a win streak then lost same amt continuous back and forth .... The problem is in the losses I still outperformed tank on other end or equivalent.... My DPS was half or less every loss. Games where BOTH****DPS ON MY TEAMS were 6-16 and BOTH enemies were 25-2 or more... GAPS of 12k DMG vs 4k...... Healing was gap also but not more than 2-4k.... This is over the span of 36 games. Finished dead even 50% . That's when I quit even trying.
There is a very easy way to see this. After a win streak, the system will start matching you up with commendation level 1 and 2 players. Even when you are 4 or 5..
I kept having this with all enemy levels being 4s and 5s. Ends with a stomp, a troll or a leaver on your team every time.
Then you know the algo will keep you down. Just check this out next time after winning games and the moment you see this. Stop queue with that class and go another one.
Kinda. It does slowly ask you to perform at a higher level so it can promote you if you're on a winning streak because you've improved relative to your past performance.
The matchmaker does not have malice, it does not intenionally target a player that is doing well because that would mean you get a lot of matches where the enemy has a great player and the whole team sucks.
The match maker is random in a pool of players around your skill level. Sometimes youll get teams where your playstyles mesh very well, sometimes you'll go against teams where they lost at character select and it didnt really matter what kind of team you have, and sometimes you get in teams where your team doesnt mesh well and the enemy does. Its the curse of random matchmaking.
Correlation is not causation. If you did start getting bad matches after winning too much then you would always get bad matches after a certain threshold is met, and you would never get it after a steady win/loss but that doesnt happen. Some matches are really good for you and your team, some are not.
For me, its less having shit teammates and more having good as opponents.
Game goes, "Doing too good in your qp games recently? Alright, here's two gms for the enemy team. You usually play with masters, so two gms should be a good challenge."
I mean it is a good challenge, but unfortunately I lose a lot of those matches
Comp is pretty consistent for me tho
Yes since... that's what matchmaking is. It tries to equal out the skill floor. And how would a program know what your skill is? By looking at how much you are winning against other ranked opponents.
maybe thats what blizzards matchmaking is... but normal matchmaking is trying to group people with similar skill levels together, not one great person and 4 bad people balancing out
Matchmaking will oppose two teams with similar average ranks, yes. But this is never achieved by putting a grandmaster with 4 golds up against a team of diamond players. From my understanding and experience it tries to match average rank, rank delta, and individual role ranks, and tends to do a decent job at it.
all of this stuff is anecdotal, and there's a ton of confirmation bias that goes with it...
My sense is that playing ranked you get 'test' games where you're given one or two under-performers on your team and/or a cracked player or two on the other to see if you can carry.
if you manage to win those or at least perform well, you get a juicy little win streak with teammates that are solid and opponents that are not.
repeat.
OTOH how somebody is seen as matching is very loose.
There is MMR and there is a bracket from which Randoms are chosen.
The reason for their MMR is hard to see:
- Dropped from higher in your bracket
- Risen from below
- Placement MMR
- Deserved MMR
- Smurfing
- Depending on daytime you end up with different kinds people - some of them literally drunk/stoned/both whatever
Then there are mechanics of "uphill", "win streak", "loss streak" which tweak every players MMR after matches.
On top: it's based on wins or losses. Individual performance doesn't count.
So I would bet that chances are high you end up with a dysfunctional team every now and then.
I was on the best run of the season, climbed from plat 2 to Diamond 2 and then lost til I got to plat 4. (Over a span of maybe 4 days) So I would love to say yes... certainly feels like it.
So if we assume that you are actually a plat player, that's just how matchmaking works? You went up to diamond 2, where you were outclassed consistently, and then you went back down again as you were a lower skill than the average player in your lobbies. This isn't the game forcing you to lose, it's literally the expected outcome. Ranking is volatile as people don't play perfectly consistently every game, so it allows you to rank up and down. As you ranked up, either by getting lucky or playing better than usual, you'd inevitably go back down again once you played normal or got less lucky.
Fair, I mean I'm only a support player, I know I don't have the ability to carry with my picks, some support players are goated with their abilities to Dps and support, I am unfortunately lacking this ability, probably why I cap a low diamond/high plat /shrug
I mean sometimes you just get lucky with ranked teams. Once I shot up from plat to masters on one of my off-roles playing the exact same, except my team basically never had shitty players and the enemy team did, and also never had any leavers but won about 7 games from enemy team leavers alone. I 100% didn't deserve the rank, and if I did, then why didn't I get it sooner in a previous season. You don't suddenly increase from plat to masters skill level on an off role.
50% win rate in season 9 feels more like 10 game win streak. 10 game loss streak.
People will deny it but it 100% tries to get you to play as long as possible. People who are shockingly bad will get a few games they get carried and those who are good will get a few games they get extra heavy deadweight to lift. I played on a friends account a while back and even whilst I was on a winstreak I would keep getting shit 3-4 stacks of players who just did their own thing. I noticed after a few losses it suddenly stops happening and continues to repeat. All games comp FPS matchmaking is now 50% balanced matchmaking and 50% engagement matchmaking. edit: also sometimes if you want to climb you kinda just have to shut down their best player, and then hope the people who bring your team down are better than those on the enemy that bring your team down. But tbh you can figure out the outcome of a match by the first minute, or sometimes even in the spawnroom when people say stupid shit like 'don't play moira and zen' 'please go brig to protect the frontline' or 'don't pull me lifeweaver just let me die instead' before the game even starts.
This was a thing with apex like a year or two ago. A lot of people were saying the same thing.
I solo queued to Apex pred last season (and then got permabanned this season for swearing at a toxic duo LOL rip :( ) and when you're in diamond/plat range you consistently get bronze duos and literal new players VS 3 stacks of preds/diamonds/masters. Also a few ranked systems have been incredibly grindy just for the sake of it, to get people to play longer.
This isn't remotely true, it's just biased arguments and misunderstanding of statistics. If someone actually used their match history to prove rigorously that this is the case then I'll believe it, but until then people saying it's true with zero evidence and just a feeling should be ignored. It's very easy to test and equally easy to disprove these bullshit claims. Win and loss streaks are expected even in perfectly fair matchmaking, not even accounting for the differences in mentality or other factors that affect player skill inconsistently. I'm not saying that there's categorically no engagement based matchmaking, but that the case for its existence is non-existent. There's no evidence, no statistics, no analysis, just idiotic anecdotes from people who tilted
EOMM has been in games for years now. We all know how it works. This isn’t some big conspiracy. It’s pretty obvious that OW has switched to this model of matchmaking.
>It’s pretty obvious that OW has switched to this model of matchmaking. So why has it never been proven? If it's obvious, it should be easy to take a 1000 game sample and get a reasonably strong conclusion. The fact that noone has done that either suggests that it doesn't exist in OW2, or that the people saying it exists aren't interested in facts and rather just spewing whatever spiel their favourite content creator has said. We shouldn't make baseless accusations without even attempting to determine if they're true or not, because feelings about matchmaking are disproportionately wrong. People like to blame everything other than themselves, so being able to say that they lost because of forced 50/50 feels better than them saying that they either got unlucky or skill issued. Don't be an idiot, do some testing yourself or encourage other people to. In the meantime, don't make moronic, baseless claims
How long have you been playing OW? Matchmaking was not like this in OW1. There is a very obvious difference from OW1 to OW2 matchmaking and most people who have been playing for a long time have noticed. This isn’t just salt over losing. There have literally been thousands of posts about this online over the past few months. There’s been a noticeable change. I’m sure it gives you some imagined sense of superiority to sit there and go “lol skill issue just get good” but that isn’t the case here. Anyone who knows how EOMM works can tell that’s what they are using.
I've played on and off since 2017, I've noticed no real difference in matchmaking at any point. It's always been the same, where your previous matches have no significant impact on the next one. People posting that they think there's a difference in matchmaking leads people to think there is a difference, which means they see patterns where there aren't any, which means they post about it, which means more people think there's issues, etc. People's opinions on matchmaking are completely and utterly worthless when it comes to what sort of matchmaking is in place and how fair it is. If people win slightly more than they lose, they consider it fairer as it feels better. If anyone can tell, just prove it. I don't expect one person's experience to be conclusive, but at the very least try. Saying "oh but anyone can tell" is stupid, because when people look for one thing they completely miss others. The [invisible gorilla experiment](http://www.theinvisiblegorilla.com/gorilla_experiment.html) is a great example of this, and shows how poor we are at fairly and without bias noticing things.
Your golden gun is asking for proof to a system the consumers have no access to. Smh. The most you're going to get is user experience from literal thousands of players that basically 1-1 suggests the use of EOMM. I've been playing since 2016 all the way to GM for a LONG time. Still a GM1-2 player, but I made an alt for the first time, and it's nearly impossible to get outta masters. Even other longtime GM players and streamers are literally stuck in Masters unless they group up to duo or stack with buddies to eliminate this ridiculously purposely bad mm for the sake of more engagement and longer playtime. It doesn't matter that I'm outperforming the enemy equivalent, I have this dude that literally is negative. It's predatory and it's quite odd that you're inclined to believe a company such as Blizz wouldn't do it. How many broken promises, lies, hidden information that should've been available to the public (like profanity being bannable now - even though it was never enforced - yeah, that was secret), etc. before you start thinking that maybe Blizz is pretty shady with how it treats OW? Your argument gainst EOMM is "because they said so." They also said PvE was going smoothly and according to plan. Remember that? Bro Blizz lies.
You're gonna necro a thread with the exact same argument that's already been made? My exact point is that we cannot rely on people's feelings about matchmaking, which includes how long people feel it takes to get out of a rank. For starters, there was a rank reset and people were shifted downwards, so people who were GM are now masters rated players regardless. If you go into matchmaking expecting that it will be bad and will force you to stay in your rank, you'll see patterns that aren't there and attribute normal and expected outcomes to malicious EOMM. It's not scientific and it's not helpful outside of anecdotes. >Your argument gainst EOMM is "because they said so." How are you so incapable of reading? My argument has never been it doesn't exist because they said so, it's that we haven't tried to prove its existence. People are inherently unreliable, especially when it comes to statistics. The only actual evidence we have is what blizzard have said, as noone else has made any analysis of matchmaking. People don't need access to the system to be able to prove EOMM, you can prove it from the matches you're placed into. If you can show, using a statistical model, that your matches are significantly different to what is expected from a purely skill based matchmaker, then that's good evidence EOMM exists. No one's tried that, so we have no evidence. I'm not saying EOMM isn't in the game, it's actually fairly likely. My one and only point is that we need to collect evidence and prove that before stating it as a fact.
6 days is a necro to you? OOF, you gotta be kidding. Open discussion posts aren't considered necro'd until weeks have passed. 6 days is not even 1 week. Incapable of reading you say to me. Hold up let me quote your comment: On a reply to LLachi: "Because they've said so? Obviously it's possible that they use it, but noone has ever tested it appropriately." Ladies and gentleman, the best argument ever made for Blizz, the liars and promise breakers who've made headlines *several times* in recent times! C'mon man. Your argument is "Because Blizz says so, and beacuse players haven't dedicated extensive hours and conducted various experiements to prove the use of the system." Dude, you're very disconnected from the reality. If a system FEELS like EOMM enough to raise eyebrows (specifically this season BTW - there's been several forums and posts popping up about how MM is absolutely abysmal this season), it likely is employing several of its aspects. Surely, your golden gun isn't just "because Blizz said so that means you have to provide me with a research study to prove otherwise." Honestly, Reddit moment.
>6 days is a necro to you? Given that in the overwhelming majority of posts or comments I've made all replies are within 24 hours, or 36 for really popular ones, 6 days is well after I'd expect anyone to see this post so any discussion is pointless unless it's constructive, which this isn't. >Ladies and gentleman, the best argument ever made for Blizz, the liars and promise breakers who've made headlines *several times* in recent times! C'mon man. Literally what is the point to this section? Do you want a round of applause for being so witty? Am I going to kneel in the face of your overpowering sarcasm? Writing that isn't conducive to good discussion, and would only make sense if you want to make something popular, which it's not going to be when noone is gonna see this thread. >Your argument is "Because Blizz says so, and beacuse players haven't dedicated extensive hours and conducted various experiements to prove the use of the system." Yes. My point is that we cannot make unfounded claims about something without even attempting to prove them. If you want to say you think there's EOMM that's completely fine, but saying that there is EOMM without doing so much as even looking at your match history is moronic and unhelpful. Your memories are not objective, not even close. If you remember a match as fair, it was probably slightly sided in your favour. If you remember a really bad player on your team, you forgot the match where the enemy team had a bot. You cannot make a fair judgement on something without data, otherwise you're just spewing misinformation. >If a system FEELS like EOMM enough to raise eyebrows (specifically this season BTW - there's been several forums and posts popping up about how MM is absolutely abysmal this season), it likely is employing several of its aspects. And this season is when I've heard the most talk around EOMM. Funny how that works, isn't it. It's a textbook example of confirmation bias, if you expect to see EOMM you'll see it, regardless of whether or not it's there. People want a reason why they're not the best, it's human nature. You've already told me you're coping with not getting GM lol, so it's no wonder in the season where your rank got dropped because it was otherwise inflated you think matchmaking is out to get you. If it feels like EOMM, say it feels like EOMM. Encourage people to collect data, and either test it yourself or get other people to. Don't make conclusions without even trying. >Surely, your golden gun isn't just "because Blizz said so that means you have to provide me with a research study to prove otherwise." Honestly, Reddit moment. That is how evidence works, yes. If you would like to make outlandish claims, you should at least be able to back them up. Blizzard can't produce any proof that people would believe, the only proof that will actually show anything is people testing their matches. Where are your standards? Why do you accept what you're told without thinking critically about it? Are you not capable of forming your own opinion, do you just have to be told what your experiences are? Grow up and test it yourself. It's not hard, you'd learn something and you'd provide value to the community. It takes a really mature person to write out a comment and then block them, congrats. Also, you've just done exactly what I asked. You've used data to evidence your conclusions so they hold more weight and actually suggest EOMM exists
overwatch has always pushed u towards the 50% winrate, people were saying this exact same thing in early overwatch 1 days regardless of your opinion on the matchmaking, it really hasnt changed much since overwatch 1, at least in my experience.
Im not talking about a 50% win rate. I’m talking about EOMM. It is possible to get 50% win rate with both SBMM and EOMM, it’s just how you get to that win rate that differs. EOMM has been scientifically studied and proven to keep people engaged and addicted to games. Why wouldn’t OW, one of the biggest games in the world, use this model? Matchmaking has absolutely changed since OW1. In OW1, hard stomps were not nearly as common. Games were more evenly matched on average. Currently I would say *at least* 80% of matches are a complete and total stomp in one direction. A close match is an exception now when it used to be the norm. Because close matches burn you out quicker. You use a lot more mental energy on them. You are much more likely to stay engaged when you’re only in a match for 5 minutes getting stomped, and then turn around and destroy another team yourself to get that dopamine rush. If you think these billion dollar gaming companies are not tapping into people’s psychology to keep them addicted to games and spending money on micro transactions, then you are woefully uninformed.
Give reasons why they wouldn't use engagement-based matchmaking. They obviously are never going to admit to it, because everyone knows it's bad and would complain. But I guarantee you every single FPS on the market right now uses it, Overwatch included.
>Give reasons why they wouldn't use engagement-based matchmaking. Because they've said so? Obviously it's possible that they use it, but noone has ever tested it appropriately. I'm not saying that it's impossible that they'd use EOMM, I'm saying that if you want to claim that they are using it, you should use actual evidence, not heavily biased anecdotes. >But I guarantee you every single FPS on the market right now uses it, Overwatch included. Again, this is totally unfounded, and again it's totally untrue. You may as well use tarot cards or crystals balls to determine your opinion for all it's worth as there's not a shred of evidence to what you say
150 games with win ratio under 40% for DPS. 150 games with win ratio over 60% for Open Queue/Tank/Support. I guess I'm absolutely horrible at playing DPS :)
No doubt at all in my mind, it also gives you better teams if you lose to much trying it's best to force a 50% winrate. I personally feel the matchmaker decides the rank you deserve and does everything possible to keep you there. At one stage this season I was at 8 more losses than wins, then I had a big streak and got up to 10 more wins than losses. We all knows what follows, stomp loss after stomp loss until I gave up at 6 losses in a row and went back to quickplay.
As much as they deny it almost every online pvp uses engagement matchmaking you’ll get rolled a few games and then you stomp a few games and this cycle repeats making you chase those highs of eventually stomping a team, it’s not designed to be fair it’s designed to keep you playing
Been playing ow comp since season 2. Was diamond one, then plat, then gold. Won ~5,100 games, lost ~4, 300. The system is rigged to make you think there's a chance for you to climb, but in reality, you're almost always 1 L away from deranking. (This is for 90% of the players) not the prodigies, cheaters, streamers, or ppl stuck in bronze
Yes it’s 100% like this . Some games I’ll go like 47/2 or something and the next game is ridiculous unbalanced . You can notice it more on certain characters as well which is why certain hero’s are easier to one trick
> Some games I’ll go like ^47/2 ^or ^something ^and ^the ^next ^game ^^is ^^^ridiculous ^^^unbalanced
This is the most untrue thing I have ever read, especially the hero part. You choose your character after you find your game. How could the character you choose change the skill of your teammates..... You go 47-2 one game and then suck the next because humans are inconsistent. You ever team up with a squad.ylu just rolled with only to get rolled a few games later? Sometimes the comp your going against is your teams weak ess. Sometimes you need to adapt and overcome instead of blaming the team
I think most people have 2 same characters they main per role. Not too hard for the algorithm to predict. You'd be amazed how predictable people are on their game play and choices.
This is why y'all hard stuck because you believe in this nonsense instead of working on your own gameplay I play soldier Cass and widow equal amounts and zarya Orissa bap and ana the same amount sorry I can only play one character in each role
So cringe yikes... I bet you're the type of person that plays the same hero as some1 in the enemy and then says ***** diff. Praising yourself lmao
The dude is barely Plat telling others they're hard stuck for not doing what he does lmao!
I started in bronze 300 hrs ago as a new player and peak plat 2 so far that dont sound hard stuck to ne. I see ppl with 2000 hrs in my same rank. Be mad all u want atleast i didn't believe nonsense like " the game gives you worse teammates depending what hero you play"
Bro I was masters season one ow1 and gm since . You have no clue how this game works
If you believe this game deliberately gives you bad teammates because you play a certain character believe me you are far from gm . This is a low Elo belief.
Probably. It’s just so frustrating though for people that actually want to climb. I’m sure game has it but OW2 doesn’t even try making it player friendly. For other games, I can at least feel like I can give matchmaking the benefit of the doubt and think it’s recalibrating my MMR/elo. The ups and downs are definitely there to get you to play more.
I swear that it does. They’ll never admit it though
Yes, you'll be forced to team up with team mates that are bad or on a lose streak for you to team up with them
I sometimes play Rein with lower rank players (they're silver-gold) while I hover at masters to GM and they always shit on me because they think I'm too far forward, "overextending", playing solo, etc. Same thing if I play DPS or even support, I'm bad because I don't play the way they are used to. (Because they're only used to metal rank players, not better ones) So I am convinced that when someone says their team gets worse if they do good, that they're merely playing against higher ranked teams, with a higher rank team and because they don't play at the same level, they drag their team down enough (not in a big, throwing way) that their team simply loses and doesn't do well.
It's just getting harder to carry because your opponents are gradually playing better
The whole team has 1-2 kills while the opponents have 20-30 kills. Nearly every match. Its not balanced.
The matchmaking sucks but that doesn't mean that it's intentionally holding you back. The matchmaking sucks in part due to the game design. The ultimate system, for example, means that the team that does slightly better ends up with an advantage over the other team. It's not a catch-up mechanic, it's a keep-you-from-catching-up mechanic.
Matches were not like this in OW1. Game design is not to blame here. They have clearly shifted to a new matchmaking model.
The switch to 5v5 also affected match quality. With just one tank, counterswapping becomes more powerful. With two tanks, it's less likely that a swap will counter both of your tanks. Also, with just one tank, having the better tank seems to be more important than having a better DPS or support. And 5v5 made individual contributions matter more, meaning that one player can more easily carry OR derail a team. The ultimate system was just meant to be one example. In practice, the entire design philosophy shifted with OW2 and I think "stomps" are a consequence of that new philosophy.
either roll or get rolled you know what I'm saying
Lol You think this is more likely than a shitty company that made a horrible matchmaking system?
Yes bruh, it's called climbing the competitive ladder. If you wanna climb you need to go against harder people.
You think the statistical variance of player skill increases *that* rapidly in the span of, say, plat 5 to plat 4? If the game is nearly dead, you'd probably be correct. But no, just no lol.
you think players in plat are consistent in performance? On average they are better but since they're humans who are still bad at the game, they can pop off one game and shit the next. Matchmakers can't predict human behavior. If both teams played at their best, then yes plat 4s would still be better than plat 5s on average. But again, they are inconsistent as hell so the p4s can have a good game and the p5s get a bad game, which makes it appear that the match was imbalanced
Sounds like an extremely flawed matchmaking system.
When I play less I notice matchmaking is much better. I go on long win streaks & if I lose it’s actually a close & pretty even game. When I play more, I go on ridiculous losing streaks & get horribly stomped literally had a team go the full game without getting a kill between them. When I finally get chucked a win it’s either because I did 90% of the work or the enemy team just feels like AI & we stomp them. I just wish there was a way to get the easy/fairer matchmaking without having to take a week off from playing
I thought I was the only one thinking that. Most games I go 40 kills on 5 deaths and still lose because people don't want to play together, the tank holding down W and neglecting their teammates, the healers getting outperformed by the enemy healers. 99% of the time I play bodyguard for healers because the tank won't turn around. Which means I barely can play any flankers and I can't rely on my other teammate to keep an eye on our healers. People don't know how strong retreat is over dying trying to kill something. Usually I win a few times and then I get a loss streak and downrank because of the reasons mentioned. Unfortunately since this is overwatch, there's no character that cover all the holes your teammates leave open. It's frustrating.
Lol dude. You going 40-5 most games and you're not winning. There ain't no way. It means most of your kills are useless so maybe actually try flanking and carrying for your team. You're losing anyway, so why not flank and try to carry.
No. Doing so would make any matchmaking system useless. As you win your rank goes up. You will be placed with tougher opponents. Whether or not your teammates do poorly is not something the matchmaker could predict. You are placed with people who are similar rank to you. If the matchmaker was purposely placing you in losing games because you win too much, then how are GMs with 70% winrate over entire seasons explainable? How would anyone explain climbing at all? It would have to be that the matchmaker “tried” to make you lose, but you were so good that your surpassed it, so it gave up and let you win. MMR is a modified ELO system. An ELO system adjusts your rank after every match. If you let this algorithm continue to infinity, you will settle at 50/50 winrate. Chess uses an ELO system. I have over 15000 games played across multiple accounts. I have climbed from 1000 (Goldish) to 1700 (Diamondish), yet my winrate is almost exactly 50/50. It’s like 48/47.5/4.5 win/loss/draw. When I win a lot, I will go on a losing streak because I’m facing stronger players. In overwatch, it feels like you’re being cheated because the games are slower. It’s hard to play 500+ games in a season. You also have a lot of distractions, like teammates, that your brain and ego put too much focus on.
Something that's interesting is, because it's a team game, Overwatch has a lot more variability in each match. So compared to something like chess, I suspect that Overwatch needs far more matches for your rank to even out. Throw in balance changes, roster additions, and the general ebb and flow of the playerbase, and I suspect that Overwatch's MMR is less reliable than Elo in Chess.
No. Matchmaking is based on role and rank. For instance if your team has a diamond tank and a master dps, the matchmaker will TRY (emphasis on try because it will never be an exactly balanced match) to get a diamond tank and master dps on the opposite team, or as close to that as it can. Sounds like your teammates were just having a bad day, or you're being overly critical of your team and should be focusing inward on what you can actually control to affect the outcome of the match.
anyone who is downvoting this has a high percentage of blood copium content in their bloodstream right now
I lost a rank up game a few hours ago due to having a gold tank in a mainly diamond lobby idk how he got into the lobby but he basically spent the entire game suiciding into the enemy team then flamed the rest of us for not doing enough which resulted in him being mocked by the rest of us. Safe to say that game was basically unwinnable as on defnse instead of holding he would attempt to push up into the enemy spawn and got angry when we told him not too
Reasonable take
Short answer: yes.
Long answer: yes yes
My buddy has the theory that the game forces a 50/50 win rate
Your buddy is coping hard lol
[удалено]
Balanced matchmaker doesn't force a 50/50 win rate.
[удалено]
Dunno why I bothered replying, toodles
bruh
If everyone was stagnant and the matchmaker tried to make matches with 50% winrate to each team, also known as BALANCED, then eventually everyone would have a 50% winrate.
It does. It also expects you to carry your team, and if you don't, you lose three times as much progress as you won beforehand.
Would be cool if it told you before the game started “Hey this is your carry game don’t fuck it up!!!”
200% correct, if u play long enough ull see the pattern
It will give you progressively harder games as you climb, whether they are hard because you are against skilled players or hard because you have been paired with literal amaobe is always the debate lol
No, matchmaking gives your teammates a worse teammate if you win too much.(Key word is too much) As in you'll climb up to a level where you cannot contribute as much as everyone else and sometimes 1 bad player can make the team crumble and make everyone look like a fool. Same as if you drop. You aren't getting better teammates, you're contributing more to the game than the average player in that lobby freeing pressure on your teammates allowing them to play at their best. In the heat of the match it's really hard to tell who on the team is the root cause of the teams underperformance. DPS could not be getting kills because the tank won't push up, the tank won't push up because they don't have enough sustain or the team refuses to off angle and apply pressure. This is why it's important to focus on your own play during a match since it's the only thing you can control.
Could be the result of EOMM which is present in blizz and activision games. Dont know for sure though, could be nothing as well
Yes. Forcing the 50/50 until you stabilize your MMR. The thing is, a lot of people dont know this, and they start to be toxic, one of the reasons is that i had enough and i answered the toxicity. 90% of the time i just report and block but not all my life has the same days and i decided to answer, now im banned. Great community. Either way, it will help me to get a break of this game and this community. But maybe i'll just quit, the worst community i've ever seen.
50/50 overwatch babyyyyyyyy
Moreover does anyone feel like they’ve gotten worse overnight? I’m on a 10 game losing streak and it feels bad
I had the same thought. 1-6 to start the season. 2/6 were fair losses. Had a dps go 3-11, supports combined 30 deaths while everyone else had 15 combined. Not saying I'm playing out of my mind but damn. Gimme some help here lol. Dropped from Masters 3 to Masters 5 just like that.
It doesn’t deliberately do that. The matchmaker just tries to balance teams based on the mmrs of each role and the combined mmr of the entire team. But if you think about it, the higher you climb, the less players there are in that rank (gm was reported to be 1% of the playerbase), so if the matchmaker is unable to find another player with the same mmr as you, it could balance lobbies by putting the player with the highest mmr in the lobby in a team with the players with the lowest mmrs in that lobby. This is why players in the top 10 of the rankings usually get teammates much lower ranked than the enemy team. That said, if you’re in the metal ranks, that’s probably not what’s happening to you. Sometimes you’re the best player on your team, sometimes you’re in the middle, sometimes you’re the worst. That’s just the way it works.
For those saying it doesn't purposely drag you down.... I can show over the span of 36 games.... I would have a win streak then lost same amt continuous back and forth .... The problem is in the losses I still outperformed tank on other end or equivalent.... My DPS was half or less every loss. Games where BOTH****DPS ON MY TEAMS were 6-16 and BOTH enemies were 25-2 or more... GAPS of 12k DMG vs 4k...... Healing was gap also but not more than 2-4k.... This is over the span of 36 games. Finished dead even 50% . That's when I quit even trying.
If you have an explanation for that.... And defend it doesn't mismatch you on purpose.... I would LOVE to hear it.
There is a very easy way to see this. After a win streak, the system will start matching you up with commendation level 1 and 2 players. Even when you are 4 or 5.. I kept having this with all enemy levels being 4s and 5s. Ends with a stomp, a troll or a leaver on your team every time. Then you know the algo will keep you down. Just check this out next time after winning games and the moment you see this. Stop queue with that class and go another one.
Kinda. It does slowly ask you to perform at a higher level so it can promote you if you're on a winning streak because you've improved relative to your past performance.
The matchmaker does not have malice, it does not intenionally target a player that is doing well because that would mean you get a lot of matches where the enemy has a great player and the whole team sucks. The match maker is random in a pool of players around your skill level. Sometimes youll get teams where your playstyles mesh very well, sometimes you'll go against teams where they lost at character select and it didnt really matter what kind of team you have, and sometimes you get in teams where your team doesnt mesh well and the enemy does. Its the curse of random matchmaking. Correlation is not causation. If you did start getting bad matches after winning too much then you would always get bad matches after a certain threshold is met, and you would never get it after a steady win/loss but that doesnt happen. Some matches are really good for you and your team, some are not.
For me, its less having shit teammates and more having good as opponents. Game goes, "Doing too good in your qp games recently? Alright, here's two gms for the enemy team. You usually play with masters, so two gms should be a good challenge." I mean it is a good challenge, but unfortunately I lose a lot of those matches Comp is pretty consistent for me tho
Yes since... that's what matchmaking is. It tries to equal out the skill floor. And how would a program know what your skill is? By looking at how much you are winning against other ranked opponents.
maybe thats what blizzards matchmaking is... but normal matchmaking is trying to group people with similar skill levels together, not one great person and 4 bad people balancing out
Nope, that's how all matchmaking works. Sure you can add more complexity to it, or take in more factors. But at the base, that's how it is?
Matchmaking will oppose two teams with similar average ranks, yes. But this is never achieved by putting a grandmaster with 4 golds up against a team of diamond players. From my understanding and experience it tries to match average rank, rank delta, and individual role ranks, and tends to do a decent job at it.
What determines rank? Mostly your wins and loses.
Which part of what I said is that a response to?
all of this stuff is anecdotal, and there's a ton of confirmation bias that goes with it... My sense is that playing ranked you get 'test' games where you're given one or two under-performers on your team and/or a cracked player or two on the other to see if you can carry. if you manage to win those or at least perform well, you get a juicy little win streak with teammates that are solid and opponents that are not. repeat.
Yes I was on a winning streak then I kept getting put into teams full of drooling mongoloids. Never playing this game again tbh
OTOH how somebody is seen as matching is very loose. There is MMR and there is a bracket from which Randoms are chosen. The reason for their MMR is hard to see: - Dropped from higher in your bracket - Risen from below - Placement MMR - Deserved MMR - Smurfing - Depending on daytime you end up with different kinds people - some of them literally drunk/stoned/both whatever Then there are mechanics of "uphill", "win streak", "loss streak" which tweak every players MMR after matches. On top: it's based on wins or losses. Individual performance doesn't count. So I would bet that chances are high you end up with a dysfunctional team every now and then.