so I won 65% of my matches this season yet I still lost over 200 sr?
the matches I lost were mostly people leaving in my team or having a dc or intentionally feeding I mean… why do I lose sr for these games when I’m 3v6 4v6 or 5v6 that’s unfair especially bc u already lose more sr than u gain even if u have 50% winrate and why can I one trick baguette on my smurf and gain 300 sr in ONE DAY
2 Likes
The leaver problem has been discussed before and it is almost impossible to solve. Every suggested solution is either exploitable, unfair or just impossible to execute. You can only prevent having a leaver by looking for a group of trusted players.
Scott Mercer has explained how groups and matchmaking works. In this thread, he mentioned how SR is calculated:
- What was the quality of the enemy team and your predicted win chance? You gain more on a win if your predicted win chance was <50%. You gain less on a win if your predicted win chance was >50%.
- Are you playing consistently? New accounts or accounts that have been inactive will see larger magnitude changes both upwards and downwards. This settles back to normal as you play additional games.
- Did your 3000+ SR recently decay due to inactivity? If this happened, you’ll gain more SR on a win until you get back to your “undecayed” SR.
- Are you a Platinum-tier player or below? If you performed particularly well or worse than what is considered a typical performance during a match, then there’s a small SR modification to reflect that.
- Is your current SR really high? Your SR increases less on a win than it decreases on a loss as your SR approaches the systemic limit of 5000.
Given the fact that you are a plating player, you might have lost more SR than you gained because your winchance was over 50% or you performed worse than the average.
2 Likes
Don’t miss the fact that regardless of your team, your performance will be compared to other players that played your hero, regardless of teamcomp, on that map. So it basically means if you’re 24/7 mercy pocketed and rain havoc over the enemy team, as a hero that usually doesn’t perform like this… There you go: “you played that hero on that map better than most others, have some more sr”
But don’t give a damn on that once you hit diamond. All that counts now is the victory!
(as a team!!)
1 Like
If anything diamond is a good showing of the broken matchmaker. Naturally it is ±25…if it was balanced. After a horrible loss what happens? I lose 22 points because the teams were flawed from the get go with one being the favorite to win.
This means the SR distribution system is working as intended: Your winchance is below 50%, thus you lose less SR.
Also, read the thread by Scott and you’ll notice something:
Several months back we implemented a restriction that prevents the matchmaker from creating games that are severely one-sided. Whenever it wants to make a game, it calculates an expected win percentage for each team based on the SR of all the players. If one of the teams doesn’t have at least a predicted 40% win rate, then we simply don’t create the game. Even if you do end up in game where your predicted win rate is close to 40%, it’s important to remember that it also means that your SR will drop less when you lose, and you will gain more SR if you win. To help explain this further, here’s a simplified example to help explain how predicted win percentage affects your SR. As an example, let’s say you play 10 games in a row and all 10 games only have a predicted 40% win rate. If you win 4 of those 10 matches, your SR be the same as it started.
As a note: with “win rate”, Scott means “win chance”.
A game with a win chance of 40% or below won’t start so there are no big differences in skill. Nevertheless, if the difference is at its limit (near 40%), some compensation is triggered and you gain more or lose less SR.
The problem is that matchmaking can only create fair fights, not perfect synergies. MM can calculate performance, not cooperation.
Away from the
So you are admitting that its creating unfair games.
It does create unfair games by accident. If Matchmaking always tries to create completely fair matches where both teams have a 50% winchance, it would take hours to queue to a match. If MM can’t find a truly fair match, it increases the border of the winchance, which allows quicker queuing times at the cost of more unbalanced matches.
However, the game acknowledges that unbalanced winchance and, to make it fair again, it changes your SR distribution.
While MM does make unfair matches, if necessary, an SR buff/nerf neutralizes that imbalance.
Thats fancy words for saying the matchmaking is a failure. Either it is ok and the game is simply completely unbalanced(which might be the case considering Reinhardt is still not nerfed) or it is a failure and we’ll be better without it.
Think about this - random matchmaking. It only takes 12 people and spreads them randomly without trying to create “even” games. In the long term such matchmaking will truly put everyone in their place.
How exactly have I explained that MM is a failure? It always tries to make fair mirror matches yet it has to expand the limits if necessary. Otherwise, queuing would take forever.
A matchmaking system where you have to wait hours to play, that is a failure.
Because the games are inherently unfair. Suppose you win a bunch, you have higher MMR and become the designated carry so the game balanced it out by giving you weaker teammates. It is similar when you lose a bunch and suddenly your teammates become competent to compensate. You are the system’s plaything and do close to nothing yourself. In a random system each player will show their individual worth without restraints and handouts.
That is not the case. You are talking about forced winrate. I’m talking about forced winchance. MM never forces you to get a winrate of 50% by placing you with worse teamates. MM tries to create matches where both teams have an equal team SR, thus a winchance of 50%.
The “MM forces a 50% winrate” is a myth.
Thats not forced win rate it is a forced 50/50 matchmaker.
What exactly do you mean with that?
What’s wrong with a matchmaking that tries to create fair matches?
Because to climb you need to be constantly at 100%, you are not allowed to slip up because by being the highest MMR on your team the game expect you to carry. If you cant handle it you lose. Horribly. Which is too much pressure to put. Meanwhile people who are objectively bad stay where they are for longer because they are being pushed to play with better teammates.
It is bad on both side. Good people struggle to climb up, bad ones struggle to climb down. It may create “fair” matches but in reality it completely stagnates the ladder and the matches are of no better quality anyway.
1 Like
You are attacking a strawman here. I’m not talking about skill differences between you and your teammates. I’m talking about skill differences between your team and the enemy team.
MM tries to put your team against another team with an equal skill level. Do you have any way to prove that wrong? If no, then MM is no failure in terms of finding a fair opponent.
Now to MM for your teammates: Why do you suddenly play with worse or better players? The answer is actually simple. It’s because those players are in groups. If a match consists purely out of solo queuers, your teammates would have a similar MMR like you. However, if you group up with a high SR-Player, It causes an imbalance but there’s a catch.
MM doesn’t force the other team to have a high SR-player, too. What’s important is that the Team-SR is almost equal. This means that if a team of one 2000 SR player and 5 1000 SR players (7000 SR total) might fight against a team of 6 1166 SR players (around 7000SR total).
MM always tries to create teams of equally skilled players. If one team has a high skilled player, MM doesn’t force the other team to have a high skilled player as well.
Ok, so you further show why the system is bad and why a solo queue would be good.
And why exactly is it bad? No good player is forced to play with terrible ones. This is exactly what you want, isn’t it?
Because solo queue exists in literally every other competitive team game so unless you claim that Overwatch is better than all of them something is wrong here.
Uh, what does solo queuing have to to with the current MM issue?
The question is whether or not MM creates fair matches and how it compensates for unfair matches, not whether Overwatch should have solo queue competitive modes.
Didn’t you say the good/bad teammates happen because of groups? They are one of the reasons why matchmaking is so bad in this game.