Why Handicapping (MMR) is Wrong for Competitive Play

Competitive Discussion
Prev 1 48 49 50
02/19/2018 04:35 PMPosted by JTMoney
If it's all well and good, why not be transparent and reveal everyone's MMR?

The same reason any company doesn't release the true metrics????......?? what? lol

02/19/2018 04:35 PMPosted by JTMoney
You should have to climb and play a few games to prove that you're "top level".

You do have to prove it.... That is the point. Sure you might get lucky and climb higher than you should at the start, but just as fast as you can climb you can fall. Again MMR assists in that ladder movement.

02/19/2018 04:35 PMPosted by JTMoney
How does handicapping each match to be a 50/50 win/loss chance help determine their skill faster, when it is designed to *slowly* and carefully determine your correct rating?


It doesn't "handicap" each game to be a 50/50.... This has been stated so many times your understanding of what a handicap is, and how the system works are flat out wrong. Just because your SR doesn't match the team, doesn't mean that you don't belong there. They base your matches from MMR and put you into a team. If you are climbing, you will have a lower SR than the teams you are playing, thus you win more points, so on so forth until you hit your skill cap. If you are dropping they put you at the top of the team, so to give you a chance to carry and win again. If you keep losing you drop from there. The system is literally there to help you get to your accurate competitive tier as fast as possible.

02/19/2018 04:35 PMPosted by JTMoney
We haven't seen 100 OW games in an alternative system to the MMR one. But if its matchmaking is based on performance and skill rather than some handicap system, you'd only face those people that "destroy" you during placement matches, which happens in the MMR system anyway.


Difference is the people that destroy you need much less games to get out of your skill tier.

02/19/2018 04:35 PMPosted by JTMoney
What same rank? Your "true" rank, as some have called it?
Who actually believes that 15-20 games can determine your true rank?

20 games is only ~500 SR. So you think 10 placement matches put you within 500 SR of your rank? With 50% winrate, it'd have to be within 250 SR. Pretty far fetched.


Sigh. Your taking examples hugely out of context, i used an example from WoW... "True rank" is where you should fit on the competitive tier.... Of course examples from 1 game are not exact in overwatch, but the premise is still the same.

To continue that example:
I can get to 2200+ on pretty much any class in wow in sub 30 games due to MMR. From there the climb slows down as i get closer to my true rating. Depending on the class depends on where i finish up. If it was SR based the amount of games needed to get to those ranks would go up hugely, thus ruining a heap of games for people that had no chance to win in the first place.

You ask who actually believes that 15-20 games can determine your true rank, the answer is it can't. What it is designed to do is get you in the ballpark area as fast as possible so as to not ruin the tiers you go through that you shouldn't be in.

Again the entire system is designed around ladder movement, yet people complain that it is hindering their ladder movement... Funny really.
02/19/2018 03:57 PMPosted by CrackmanDan
02/18/2018 07:20 AMPosted by Hun
So you agree with the guy that went to University to major in English? Has zero evidence to prove anything and is unable to BASIC MATH.


I have two separate answers for you regarding this one sentence.

1. I won't say that Blizzard is acting conspiratorially because usually a conspiratorial act normally follows a crime. Thus far the only "crime," Blizzard has committed is tricking people to continually play their game. Which in essence, is just being business savvy.

2. Evidence, or at least what that word means has become watered down. I have debated many different types of people on various subjects and I have found one thing to be common through out every debate.

When evidence is presented, if the results are contrary to one's belief, that evidence is rejected. This happens a lot in the political realm (which I will not mention any further).

What Cuthbert has mentioned and articulated does make logical sense. Just so you know I will post within a few more days a little experiment whereby I will be recording 10 games for a 10 day period and releasing those numbers in this forum.

This may help us better understand how the game functions and how games are indeed, "handicapped."

Lastly, try to understand that we aren't raving lunatics screaming at he sky--we are simply trying to expose a possible discrepancy in Overwatch that we hope to fix.


This..
02/19/2018 11:55 AMPosted by Hun
02/19/2018 11:24 AMPosted by tawT

Fun how you constantly keep trolling the thread and spouting your rude drivel then? You're clearly not in a state of mind to have rational discussions with anyone, and you keep missing the point of this thread. So be nice or stay away.


Can't have rational conversations with people that have English degrees, logic fails you guys. If you even knew basic math, you would realize how stupid this topic is, but unfortunately you're too proud to actually study math and rather be ignorant.

You've clearly not read everything Cuthbert has said from the start, I have, and he's changed his story over and over for the last 4 months. He's deleted his posts were he's clearly talking about "!@#$ teammates" and how it's their fault he's stuck in Silver.

You're so ignorant about everything, even when you have logical proof in front of your face you. You rather ignore it and accept a false "truth" from a person that didn't even know the difference between MMR and SR for over 3 months after making his initial "match making is rigged" post.

But hey I'm just a random GM player that got there after 2 Season, who started at gold. It just so happens to be more convenient for you to believe in a "rigged match making" system, than the fact that you just suck at a video game.


You've played like a total of one hour this entire season. In past seasons you've played like two hours. Unless you have another account I don't think you really understand things like those of us who play so many hours every season in competitive.
Overall i find it laughable that desk jockeys think they know better than people that make a living out of designing this. Multiple statisticians have sat down (with actual degrees relating in the field) and worked out the best way for these things to work. There is a reason why almost every game uses a varied version of pretty much the same thing.

Do you think Blizzard implemented this with no thought? Did they just go "HEY LETS DO THIS LOL", no they put a lot of time and effort and money reading into statistics to work out the best way to go about a ranking system. The fact that people sitting at home, most of which have not even finished school yet, are trying to tell them how to do their job is laughable.

Have any of you actually done actuarial studies? or?
02/19/2018 07:19 PMPosted by S23
<span class="truncated">...</span>

Can't have rational conversations with people that have English degrees, logic fails you guys. If you even knew basic math, you would realize how stupid this topic is, but unfortunately you're too proud to actually study math and rather be ignorant.

You've clearly not read everything Cuthbert has said from the start, I have, and he's changed his story over and over for the last 4 months. He's deleted his posts were he's clearly talking about "!@#$ teammates" and how it's their fault he's stuck in Silver.

You're so ignorant about everything, even when you have logical proof in front of your face you. You rather ignore it and accept a false "truth" from a person that didn't even know the difference between MMR and SR for over 3 months after making his initial "match making is rigged" post.

But hey I'm just a random GM player that got there after 2 Season, who started at gold. It just so happens to be more convenient for you to believe in a "rigged match making" system, than the fact that you just suck at a video game.


You've played like a total of one hour this entire season. In past seasons you've played like two hours. Unless you have another account I don't think you really understand things like those of us who play so many hours every season in competitive.


This is what I said lol.. Scared to play or something lol.. I'm sure there are other people in GM too that just play for the minimum time to prevent decay and rank loss. How can you be such a high rank and not even defend your actual right to stay in those ranks. This is why the system is stagnate and needs a reset or a re-work. I mean kudos to all that people that made High Masters/GM but if you are only playing 10 - 20 games a season it is hardly a representation of your skill. If you are in M/GM and play a few hundred games a season and are still there then I fully believe you belong there. After looking through tons of GM player profiles that post here in these forums this is pretty much commonplace. GM's who play like 30 games a season saying they don't see any problem with the game's ranking system other than the OTP's they all cry about.. The sad thing is those OTP's probably play WAY more than they do. If you are M/GM and you barley play to keep your rank you are hardly proving you belong there. Just my opinion.. Same with any rank tbh...
@tawT, only way you clowns seem to respond :) since logic doesn't get through your thick skull, so I was being snide and sarcastic.

@JTmoney, if you're an engineer then you are an insult to our profession. To have someone as dumb as you who is not able to logically think about this easy math problem, is just sad.

@S23 and Whistler, I'm pretty sure I've mention this multiple times. I've been traveling for the last 2 months, and will continue to do so for a couple more months until I feel like settling somewhere. So that's why I haven't played this season at all.

I'll decay to 3k SR before I return to play, and when I play it will be vs 4k+ players, knowing I won't be at that skill because of not playing for so many months. You make it seem like I dodge playing because I want to, it's more like I haven't had much time to do so.

I'll try to play in China on their servers next month if I have time.
02/19/2018 03:59 PMPosted by JTMoney
<span class="truncated">...</span>

Do you know any other games that mess people around the way this one does, with matchmaking? I can think of a few but none that are branded "Competitive Games" with "E-Sports."

Does WoW use Match Making Rating the same way? Another commenter said something about this.


I'm sure there are, but I don't know any off the top of my head. In large FPS games such as Battlefield, etc. I believe they assemble those large teams randomly. In that case, any anomalies would be washed out by the fact that the teams are large. In Starcraft 2 they use MMR, but it wasn't as much of an issue because the primary competitive format is 1v1 whereas team games 2v2, 3v3 and 4v4 aren't taken as seriously and aren't of much interest in competition or as a spectator event. I can say anecdotally that I have queued as a duo with my friend in SC2 3v3 and 4v4 and it did tend to give us crappy teammates. I think they try to match premade teams with other premade teams, however.

I don't know how WoW arenas matchmaking works, I just know that there is a vested interest in dragging out player progress so as to keep them as a customer for an extended time. Mobile gaming takes it to the next level: they intentionally handicap you and make everything slow, and offer to speed it up for a small fee.


So Blizzard already has some practice with handicapping systems. And Overwatch's MMR system seems particularly sophisticated. I want to know everything they're not telling us about how it's designed. As players, we have a right to that information.
02/20/2018 07:56 AMPosted by Cuthbert
I want to know everything they're not telling us about how it's designed. As players, we have a right to that information.


While I can appreciate the desire for more details, I'm not sure what would satisfy you. You've all ready ignored what Blizzard has officially said. You all ready ignore the basics about the system we know. Why would more details make you suddenly go "okay now I believe you"?

Blizzard says your SR closely follows your MMR (under normal circumstances, like not decay or the old placements), and you're matched based only on MMR. Now combine this with what we know from bronze to GM streams. That these vastly under-ranked players who are dominating games are still put with people right around their current SR, they just start to get larger gains in SR (and MMR) as they continue to win. What does this mean? Well, if you believe Blizzard, it means your MMR isn't going to be secretly higher than your SR. Even in the absolute extreme of "over-performance". If you don't believe Blizzard, why would you care about having them tell you more things you'll say aren't true?

Here's the most important logical flaw you have: You think making 50% win-rate, or balance games, handicaps players at their rank. But the game is balanced on the assumption that your rank is accurate.

  • IF you think you should be a higher rank, THEN you are better than your rank
  • IF you are better than your rank, THEN what is supposed to be a balance 50% game should be stacked on your team sides.


This is, of course, exactly what we see with the people using accounts to climb.

Even if Blizzard did tend to match you with weaker players while making 50% games (they don't, that's a delusion, almost everyone at low ranks blames their team), you could fairly argue the games are "un-fun" but not fairly argue it "handicaps" your rank. Because, regardless of how good your teammates are enemies are, if a game is balanced on you being as good as X SR, and you're actually as good as X+200 SR, that tilts the balance in your teams favor.
@FriendlyFire, you're talking to a person that has an English degree, logic will not work on him, I repeat, logic has no affect on Cuthbert or on any of these clowns.

I would write a math solution as to what they would expect to happen in MMR, but they don't even know have to do statistics which is basic math.
FriendlyFire thanks for the thoughtful and substantive response. I think we are getting closer to understanding each other's positions. I'm just on my phone but will write back soon.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum