Forced 50/50?

General Discussion
Prev 1 2 3 20 Next
This thread is full of misinformation.

The game does its best to make each individual game a 50/50 win chance. Over time that means the vast majority of players end up with a 50% win rate.

Nothing more, nothing less. It isn't changing damage numbers or purposely putting you in bad games to make you win or lose. There are players who sit at 55%+ and 45%- win rates and they aren't constantly getting placed in lopsided games.
I think most people would be fine with a win rate around 50% if the vast majority of matches were close matches and not one sided curbstomps. Whatever system Blizzard uses either requires thousands of matches to be played or it is completely broken, both of which are unacceptable for a game of this caliber.
06/13/2016 07:16 AMPosted by Ender
This thread is full of misinformation.

The game does its best to make each individual game a 50/50 win chance. Over time that means the vast majority of players end up with a 50% win rate.

Nothing more, nothing less. It isn't changing damage numbers or purposely putting you in bad games to make you win or lose. There are players who sit at 55%+ and 45%- win rates and they aren't constantly getting placed in lopsided games.


This is correct. There has been an unfortunate trend of people believing that we somehow force you to lose, which couldn't be further from the truth.
06/13/2016 08:32 AMPosted by Jeff Kaplan
06/13/2016 07:16 AMPosted by Ender
This thread is full of misinformation.

The game does its best to make each individual game a 50/50 win chance. Over time that means the vast majority of players end up with a 50% win rate.

Nothing more, nothing less. It isn't changing damage numbers or purposely putting you in bad games to make you win or lose. There are players who sit at 55%+ and 45%- win rates and they aren't constantly getting placed in lopsided games.


This is correct. There has been an unfortunate trend of people believing that we somehow force you to lose, which couldn't be further from the truth.


How am I suppose to believe this when I am queued up against teams who's lowest level is roughly equal to our highest? I can understand this happening now and again, but it happens like clockwork and tends to coincide with win streaks. If you were to let players progress through the ranks naturally, wouldn't the game organically start to level the playing field as you encounter better opponents?

50/50 is ideal, but it sure appears that the game is trying it's hardest to assure a certain win rate through unbalanced team experience.
<span class="truncated">...</span>

This is correct. There has been an unfortunate trend of people believing that we somehow force you to lose, which couldn't be further from the truth.


How am I suppose to believe this when I am queued up against teams who's lowest level is roughly equal to our highest? I can understand this happening now and again, but it happens like clockwork and tends to coincide with win streaks. If you were to let players progress through the ranks naturally, wouldn't the game organically start to level the playing field as you encounter better opponents?

Sure 50/50 is ideal, but it sure appears that the game is trying it's hardest to assure a certain win rate through unbalanced team experience.


Level is meaningless as a determiner of skill, it's simply a measure of how long you've been playing. Every day I see level 70-80 players that struggle with the Medium AI bots. Once you disabuse yourself of the notion that levels mean something you'll find the matches are a lot more fair than they let on and many higher-levels are just as prone to dumb things as their lower-level kin.

As for the bit about streaks, leavers are your enemy here. If you're on a winning streak, then the enemy team is on a losing streak and they're going to get a lot of leavers or people who quit after the match. This will often cause the match to get reinstanced, resulting in what is essentially a new game (which may or may not have the same players) and a new chance at losing.
<span class="truncated">...</span>

How am I suppose to believe this when I am queued up against teams who's lowest level is roughly equal to our highest?

Sure 50/50 is ideal, but it sure appears that the game is trying it's hardest to assure a certain win rate through unbalanced team experience.


Level is meaningless as a determiner of skill, it's simply a measure of how long you've been playing. Every day I see level 70-80 players that struggle with the Medium AI bots. Once you disabuse yourself of the notion that levels mean something you'll find the matches are a lot more fair than they let on and many higher-levels are just as prone to dumb things as their lower-level kin.

Couldn't have put it better myself. I find myself playing more and more players who have already prestiged when I am only level 37. At first I get a little weary, thinking that since they have more experience than me they must be better. That is rarely, if ever, the case.

EDIT: I'd also like to say that "experience" (knowing what heroes do and how maps are laid out) is extremely shallow in this game and pretty much ends after level 20.
...

How am I suppose to believe this when I am queued up against teams who's lowest level is roughly equal to our highest?

Sure 50/50 is ideal, but it sure appears that the game is trying it's hardest to assure a certain win rate through unbalanced team experience.


Level is meaningless as a determiner of skill, it's simply a measure of how long you've been playing. Every day I see level 70-80 players that struggle with the Medium AI bots. Once you disabuse yourself of the notion that levels mean something you'll find the matches are a lot more fair than they let on and many higher-levels are just as prone to dumb things as their lower-level kin.


^This.

Go on twitch and watch some games of pro players in 3-6 stacks. Some pros are at levels below 50 even his teammates but they face others at levels greater than 100. You are not matched based on level.
06/13/2016 08:38 AMPosted by Flows
<span class="truncated">...</span>

This is correct. There has been an unfortunate trend of people believing that we somehow force you to lose, which couldn't be further from the truth.


How am I suppose to believe this when I am queued up against teams who's lowest level is roughly equal to our highest? I can understand this happening now and again, but it happens like clockwork and tends to coincide with win streaks. If you were to let players progress through the ranks naturally, wouldn't the game organically start to level the playing field as you encounter better opponents?

50/50 is ideal, but it sure appears that the game is trying it's hardest to assure a certain win rate through unbalanced team experience.


You're supposed to believe it by not being dumb. It's an MMR/ELO based system. If you don't know what that means, look it up.
06/13/2016 08:32 AMPosted by Jeff Kaplan
This is correct. There has been an unfortunate trend of people believing that we somehow force you to lose, which couldn't be further from the truth.


Can you comment on a potential "damage handicap"?

http://us.battle.net/forums/en/overwatch/topic/20745115328

Capped thread on the topic.
06/13/2016 08:51 AMPosted by Zish
06/13/2016 08:32 AMPosted by Jeff Kaplan
This is correct. There has been an unfortunate trend of people believing that we somehow force you to lose, which couldn't be further from the truth.


Can you comment on a potential "damage handicap"?

http://us.battle.net/forums/en/overwatch/topic/20745115328

Capped thread on the topic.


He did. A damage handicap would in effect be Blizzard forcing you to lose somehow. They don't do that. Period. End of discussion.
06/13/2016 08:53 AMPosted by Sidratha
He did.


No, not directly.
...

Level is meaningless as a determiner of skill, it's simply a measure of how long you've been playing. Every day I see level 70-80 players that struggle with the Medium AI bots. Once you disabuse yourself of the notion that levels mean something you'll find the matches are a lot more fair than they let on and many higher-levels are just as prone to dumb things as their lower-level kin.

Couldn't have put it better myself. I find myself playing more and more players who have already prestiged when I am only level 37. At first I get a little weary, thinking that since they have more experience than me they must be better. That is rarely, if ever, the case.


Generally speaking, I have had the opposite experience, bit mileage is going to vary for everyone.

Level is not an absolute determinate of skill, but there has always been a strong correlation in every game between the two. I think it's a little niave to dismiss level entirely when you're looking at MMing because it's the best indicator that we have at the moment.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, there seems to be a lot of strong indicators supporting the whole idea of influenced win rates.

Ranked play should be an interesting and welcomed mode.
06/13/2016 06:28 AMPosted by Dabba
Forced 50/50 isn't a thing, its an absurd myth propagated by people delusional about their own personal skill who are looking for an excuse.

Jeff Kaplan himself said that the matchmaking makes groups based on player skill, ping, and group size to ensure you play with and against other people of roughly equivalent skill, ping, and group size.

A near 50% win rate for most people is a natural byproduct of a matchmaker that pits you with and against players of equivalent skill.


People like to perpetuate the fiction of the forced 50/50 whenever they lose. Because most people think they are better than they are and should win more often than not. When they don't, well it must've been rigged. It's human psychology and happens to all of us.
EDIT: I'd also like to say that "experience" (knowing what heroes do and how maps are laid out) is extremely shallow in this game and pretty much ends after level 20.


This is not true. The notion that the game is simple and can be learned in 20 levels is probably causing some of the confusion in regards to why people are struggling when they try to play this game solo - without a group and without communicating and strong strategy adaptation.
06/13/2016 08:54 AMPosted by Flows
...
Couldn't have put it better myself. I find myself playing more and more players who have already prestiged when I am only level 37. At first I get a little weary, thinking that since they have more experience than me they must be better. That is rarely, if ever, the case.


Generally speaking, I have had the opposite experience, bit mileage is going to vary for everyone.

Level is not an absolute determinate of skill, but there has always been a strong correlation in every game between the two. I think it's a little niave to dismiss level entirely when you're looking at MMing because it's the best indicator that we have at the moment.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, there seems to be a lot of strong indicators supporting the whole idea of influenced win rates.

Ranked play should be an interesting and welcomed mode.

Analyzing your own skill, your teammates' skill, and your opponents' skill is the best indicator you have at the moment.

I'm not dismissing that there can be a correlation between skill and level, but in this game it is extremely weak and should not be leaned upon at all.
...

How am I suppose to believe this when I am queued up against teams who's lowest level is roughly equal to our highest? I can understand this happening now and again, but it happens like clockwork and tends to coincide with win streaks. If you were to let players progress through the ranks naturally, wouldn't the game organically start to level the playing field as you encounter better opponents?

50/50 is ideal, but it sure appears that the game is trying it's hardest to assure a certain win rate through unbalanced team experience.


You're supposed to believe it by not being dumb. It's an MMR/ELO based system. If you don't know what that means, look it up.


I have a hard time believing my team of level 40 somethings has the same MMR as the opposing team of lvl 80-100's. It becomes especially difficult to believe when everyone on my side plays appropriate roles for a complete team and we get absolutely steamrolled.

Remember, we were roughly the same MMR according to your beliefs.
06/13/2016 08:53 AMPosted by Zish
06/13/2016 08:53 AMPosted by Sidratha
He did.


No, not directly.


Why would he directly address something that is beyond Eric Cartman grade conspiracy nonsense? Particularly when it falls into the category of forcing players to lose? Which, again, he said they in no way do.
06/13/2016 08:54 AMPosted by Flows
...
Couldn't have put it better myself. I find myself playing more and more players who have already prestiged when I am only level 37. At first I get a little weary, thinking that since they have more experience than me they must be better. That is rarely, if ever, the case.


Generally speaking, I have had the opposite experience, bit mileage is going to vary for everyone.

Level is not an absolute determinate of skill, but there has always been a strong correlation in every game between the two. I think it's a little niave to dismiss level entirely when you're looking at MMing because it's the best indicator that we have at the moment.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, there seems to be a lot of strong indicators supporting the whole idea of influenced win rates.

Ranked play should be an interesting and welcomed mode.


Those 'strong indicators' are likely confirmation bias. People who have gotten it (or any other idea) into their heads that this will happen will start seeing evidence for it everywhere they look. They'll remember the one time in ten that seems to support it while not noticing the other nine that don't. It's where stereotypes and conspiracy theories come from.
06/13/2016 08:57 AMPosted by Fox
EDIT: I'd also like to say that "experience" (knowing what heroes do and how maps are laid out) is extremely shallow in this game and pretty much ends after level 20.


This is not true. The notion that the game is simple and can be learned in 20 levels is probably causing some of the confusion in regards to why people are struggling when they try to play this game solo - without a group and without communicating and strong strategy adaptation.

I didn't say it only took 20 levels to "git good". I said it took 20 levels to learn what the heroes do and how the maps are laid out. That is all "experience" can offer. How to use heroes/maps and communicate properly have absolutely nothing to do with how much time experience you have with the game. You're strongly correlating the amount of time played with skill. That correlation can exist but by no means has to, and depending on it to make judgments is just foolish.
06/13/2016 08:32 AMPosted by Jeff Kaplan
06/13/2016 07:16 AMPosted by Ender
This thread is full of misinformation.

The game does its best to make each individual game a 50/50 win chance. Over time that means the vast majority of players end up with a 50% win rate.

Nothing more, nothing less. It isn't changing damage numbers or purposely putting you in bad games to make you win or lose. There are players who sit at 55%+ and 45%- win rates and they aren't constantly getting placed in lopsided games.


This is correct. There has been an unfortunate trend of people believing that we somehow force you to lose, which couldn't be further from the truth.


I'm inclined to not believe you, sorry. Nowadays studios have to make sure that everyone enjoys this game. The same way there's a "pity counter" when opening boxes there's most likely also a similar mechanism at work for people who just keep losing. You don't want to lose them as a player (and more importantly as a customer) so you stick them in teams where they could get carried to victory.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum