|
I find, that especially for newer players, they may be mechanically at their proper MMR, but their game sense doesn't match up.
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2024 21:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 14:07 |
|
|
it's a shame that when designing OW and borrowing characteristics from MOBAs that they had to inherit the confusion over how matchmaking works in a team game
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2024 21:44
|
|
|
Rawrbomb posted:I find, that especially for newer players, they may be mechanically at their proper MMR, but their game sense doesn't match up. I remember one time in high diamond I had a Symmetra on my team who peeked a Widowmaker five times and got killed each time I was making plenty of mistakes that were probably super obvious but stuff like this is, I dunno man, it's nuts. dogs learn faster
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2024 22:08
|
|
|
Notice how responses either home in on the bit about "stomps are normal outcomes" and disregard the whole "but match outcomes are nevertheless obviously calculated enough to lead to a roughly 50% win/loss ratio" or are simply "man people just don't understand matchmaking" that's what these posts are about, trying to understand the matchmaking. At this point my understanding is firming up to "it creates very loose matches because that optimises queue times, but is smart enough to put widely average players into loose matches either in their favour or against to roughly steer them to a 50% average." As I said earlier I don't think this is an intentional Forced 50/50 in the way that people on e.g. Reddit discuss it. I think this is an artifact of their trying to get quick queue times and aggressively correcting for the outcomes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2024 00:03
|
|
|
They don’t have enough people playing to have tighter matches is about the long and short of it. So unless they have some big event to get people back, I don’t really know if they can do anything.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2024 00:13
|
|
|
Lord Packinham posted:They don’t have enough people playing to have tighter matches is about the long and short of it. So unless they have some big event to get people back, I don’t really know if they can do anything. they can't, since the only available solution - tightening the algorithm to ensure closer average team MMR - means pushing queue times into unacceptable territory and straight killing the game. despite how much redditors like to say how they'd gladly wait X+ more minutes for fairer matches, the majority of players do not have that extreme level of patience, and they will (perhaps begrudgingly) ditch to go play valorant or apex rather than sitting on their haunches doing nothing for 10 minutes every time they want to play ranked obviously unbalanced matches where you're getting loving creamed aren't fun, but the game is at least there to play, and the fact that people are still playing means a relatively stable population, continued investment in development, and, possibly, even a return to growth if MS decides there's life left in the brand and starts pumping marketing/event cash into it
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2024 00:30
|
|
|
toadee posted:Bro. Any online multiplayer game is swingy and almost all matches are stomps. It's not an OW thing. the vast majority of my play-queue team fortress 2 matches are not stomps in either direction, it's often unclear even going into overtime whether the attacking team will successfully capture the final point. it very much is an overwatch thing lol
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2024 00:33
|
|
|
game's dying and that's ok
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2024 00:34
|
|
|
SadisTech posted:I was drat certain that someone was going to swing and miss with this one. The issue isn't win rate and hasn't ever been win rate, the issue is match quality. If you refer to my previous posts you'll see that my complaint was that the matchmaking was providing long strings of really really easy and really really hard imbalanced lobbies which were essentially algorithmically pushing me towards 50/50. Or you're playing worse players now and therefore its easier to go up, then you face better players and you aren't good enough to beat them so you go down? I dunno, must be a grand conspiracy or something 
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2024 03:10
|
|
|
dogstile posted:Or you're playing worse players now and therefore its easier to go up, then you face better players and you aren't good enough to beat them so you go down? That would be an example of an absolute poo poo matchmaker, it shouldn't jump from absolutely easy matches to impossible matches in one adjustment. Blizzard could easily solve the matchmaker discussion by making it less opaque. There is a reason they removed everything visible that could be used to evaluate the matchmaker. It's not good. The problem is not about win rates, it's not about climbing. It isn't people who think they should be higher than where they are. People who know they are exactly where they belong are mad because people much higher ranked (or lower ranked) are being fed into their matches. Blizzard made this choice to lower queue times. As the game's population declines, the matchmaker gets worse and worse.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2024 03:29
|
|
|
Blizzard absolutely should make some things more transparent about the matchmaking, whether it be both teams' average SR (probably best shown after the match) or the highest and lowest SRs on your team, or some combination. There also already is the "longer queues for tighter matches" option, it's competitive. Unfortunately as the game loses players the matchmaking's only going to continue to degrade
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2024 04:59
|
|
|
they won't ever show team MMR because of how easily it engenders intrateam spats (e.g. "why am i stuck with some loser gold player") and how it makes people more readily give up from the jump if they think that the team MMR discrepancy is too high for them to bother even trying
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2024 05:19
|
|
|
Showing sr after the match would go a huge way to offset the toxicity showing it before the match can encourage. Also while we are at it just make it impossible to look up a career profile when you're in a game with someone
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2024 05:30
|
|
|
Jabor posted:the vast majority of my play-queue team fortress 2 matches are not stomps in either direction, it's often unclear even going into overtime whether the attacking team will successfully capture the final point. Are these still 12v12?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2024 09:12
|
|
|
They used to show individual and team SR in OW1, why did they stop
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2024 09:30
|
|
|
Toxicity. I remember watching streamers who would get a match and go "Sheeeee-it" when looking at the team SR difference up front.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2024 09:34
|
|
|
Gravitas Shortfall posted:They used to show individual and team SR in OW1, why did they stop To hide the fact that they lowered the quality of the matchmaker for OW2 to appease the DPS players.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2024 10:09
|
|
|
Jack Trades posted:To hide the fact that they lowered the quality of the matchmaker for OW2 to appease the DPS players. but that's impossible, OW2's matchmaking is perfect??
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2024 10:17
|
|
|
Gravitas Shortfall posted:but that's impossible, OW2's matchmaking is perfect?? Well shoot, you got me there. I'm sure it must be some good and wholesome reason then. Blizzard wouldn't do anything wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2024 10:49
|
|
|
It definitely hasn't reduced toxicity. Maybe at game start but as soon as the first teamfight happens, people are bitching about who they feel is to blame.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2024 16:17
|
|
|
Tuxedo Gin posted:That would be an example of an absolute poo poo matchmaker, it shouldn't jump from absolutely easy matches to impossible matches in one adjustment. That wasn't what i said. The matches are definitely not impossible, you're getting a mix of burnt out people, smurfs and being lower/higher in each game. That isn't something blizzard can really solve. Blaming this on "the matchmaker" like its doing anything other than going "this is who i've got to put in, here's the closest average i can do with the players available" is insane.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2024 17:06
|
|
|
dogstile posted:That wasn't what i said. The matches are definitely not impossible, you're getting a mix of burnt out people, smurfs and being lower/higher in each game. That isn't something blizzard can really solve. Blaming this on "the matchmaker" like its doing anything other than going "this is who i've got to put in, here's the closest average i can do with the players available" is insane. It's understandable why you came to that conclusion if that's your understanding of the matchmaking system.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2024 17:17
|
|
|
Things that can be done to improve the matchmaker: 1. Ban smurfs. There is no reason for anyone to ever have more than one account in this game. 2. Reduce player MMR ranges per match so that no player is more than 150 MMR or so from the highest or lowest person on either team (until this is not possible, like higher master and GM lobbies). This probably means longer queues, but too bad. This probably also means you can't play with friends. Get better (or worse) friends. I'm not sure why games with competitive ladders try so hard to make the game "accessible" by queuing with friends when it fucks so much poo poo up. 3. Make it 6v6 again, so that any role has an equal chance of dumbfuckery ruining your game, rather than one role being twice as volatile. 4. BAN SMURFS. Like seriously, why not? The matchmaker has just been VASTLY improved. Doesn't fix a lot of fundamental game design issues that cause the game to be difficult to matchmake, however. BabyRyoga fucked around with this message at 10:02 on Jan 9, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2024 05:15
|
|
|
BabyRyoga posted:Things that can be done to improve the matchmaker: They already do MMR matching per player role in both QP/Ranked. You could get a 500 tank, 1500 dps, 1000 dps, 1200 support, and 900 support (using made up MMR numbers), and the other team should have something like 450-550 tank, 1400-1600 dps, 900-1100 dps, 1100-1300 support, and 800-1000 support. Both teams should be more or less equal. However, a new player at 1300 MMR for example, has decent mechanical skills, but probably no game sense. If the oppsite support is only 1200 but has 500 hours in the game, even if they're not as good of a player mechanically, the game sense more than makes up for that. In theory, this should be a pretty evenly matched game. If one team has 3/5 new players, and the other team has 2/5 new players, I'd probably pick the 2/5 team to win. I don't see how 6v6 fixes any of the 5v5 match maker issues.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2024 18:48
|
|
|
BabyRyoga posted:1. Ban smurfs. There is no reason for anyone to ever have more than one account in this game. They already do ban Smurfs. Many accounts Chazm used (ie bought) to go unranked to GM get banned. Usually a lot of people report them for cheating or something (ironic on Wrecking Ball) and Bliz pulls the trigger
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2024 19:02
|
|
|
The fact that there's no report category for smurfing is hosed up in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2024 19:04
|
|
|
Rawrbomb posted:They already do MMR matching per player role in both QP/Ranked. You could get a 500 tank, 1500 dps, 1000 dps, 1200 support, and 900 support (using made up MMR numbers), and the other team should have something like 450-550 tank, 1400-1600 dps, 900-1100 dps, 1100-1300 support, and 800-1000 support. Both teams should be more or less equal. However, a new player at 1300 MMR for example, has decent mechanical skills, but probably no game sense. If the oppsite support is only 1200 but has 500 hours in the game, even if they're not as good of a player mechanically, the game sense more than makes up for that. In theory, this should be a pretty evenly matched game. If one team has 3/5 new players, and the other team has 2/5 new players, I'd probably pick the 2/5 team to win. Supposing they actually do choose ranks by role (who knows if they actually do, or just insist that they do), 6v6 v 5v5 is less significant as a match maker fixer, though I do think the more players per game in general, the higher quality match making you would get. A game where one player out of 5 is out of their depth is much harder to win than a game where 1 out of 6 is. I'm not convinced they ban smurfs. They should honestly ban all accounts except for a person's main account automatically so that smurfs don't even need to be reported.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2024 21:01
|
|
|
dont you have to enter your phone number or something or was the ow1
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2024 21:13
|
|
|
BabyRyoga posted:I'm not convinced they ban smurfs. They should honestly ban all accounts except for a person's main account automatically so that smurfs don't even need to be reported. lol at this. Why would they give up a potential revenue stream? A smurf account (an older player, on a new account) isn't a huge deal, within 20~50 games, they should be at their real MMR. If we look at the Mauga to GM games on those accounts, you will see those maugas played like 40 games, and won 39/40 and are now t500. The game knows very quickly about what your possible skill level is. As long as they're actually playing the game fairly and not throwing/cheating, what's the problem? Yeah they're widely overskilled for the game that they're in, but that isn't much different than a lot of games when you're a new player. Like if they're coming into 20 games to throw to go down to brozne 500, sure, ban those shitfucks. Those people can barely play the game, you don't need to be a god to stomp them. Also, what if I lose my battle.net account? I can never start a new one to play my game? That'd be very lovely. tyrelhill posted:dont you have to enter your phone number or something or was the ow1 They got rid of this at some point. PantsBandit posted:Like right after release. It was wildly unpopular. Edit: https://www.pcgamesn.com/overwatch-2/phone-verification-removed It was removed for existing accounts? Not sure if its required for new accounts. There is still probably someway to bypass it even for new accounts, like purchasing a starter pack or something lol. Either way, I'm pretty sure you can still get a number from some provider and attach it to verify then hope you never give two shits about it again. Rawrbomb fucked around with this message at 21:48 on Jan 9, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2024 21:29
|
|
|
Like right after release. It was wildly unpopular.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2024 21:34
|
|
|
Rawrbomb posted:lol at this. Why would they give up a potential revenue stream? A smurf account (an older player, on a new account) isn't a huge deal, within 20~50 games, they should be at their real MMR. If we look at the Mauga to GM games on those accounts, you will see those maugas played like 40 games, and won 39/40 and are now t500. The game knows very quickly about what your possible skill level is. This sort of logic is indeed a big contributor to why the match maker sucks. "It isn't a huge deal" or, they are "only ruining 5 games" or 10 games, or 20 games, etc. is making light of fact that they are RUINING that number of games. You said it yourself, they go 39/40 wins. So what about the 39 x 5 = nearly 200 players who had games, once again RUINED by that player? How many tens or even hundreds of thousands of players do you think have quit the game at this point because the match maker blows a donkey dong? I assure you the revenue stream they get from people obtaining new accounts to smurf on is much less than the number of people they could be making money from if they had not quit due to various factors contributing to the game being bad. If anything, it would be a bigger loss for content creators who thrive because a large part of their content revolves around doing 1-2 unranked to GMs every season.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2024 22:00
|
|
|
Sounds like the issue is that Overwatch is bad and badly balanced and I don’t think any matchmaking changes is going to fix it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2024 22:02
|
|
|
smurfs (the ones looking for pubstomps) decrease the fairness of games to inflate one person's ego. people are much more likely to be okay with a loss if it was close than if it was a stomp. some games take the matter seriously like valorant b/c they value player retention: https://playvalorant.com/en-us/news/dev/valorant-systems-health-series-smurf-detection/ i would not be surprised if overwatch already has a bunch of these anti-smurf measures in place. something interesting to note here is that the valorant blog places stomps naturally occuring in about 1/6th the games, although valorant also has some significant snowball mechanics.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2024 22:07
|
|
|
Lord Packinham posted:Sounds like the issue is that Overwatch is bad and badly balanced and I don’t think any matchmaking changes is going to fix it. Oh yeah for sure, the game is a goddamn mess
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2024 22:13
|
|
|
Lord Packinham posted:Sounds like the issue is that Overwatch is bad and badly balanced and I don’t think any matchmaking changes is going to fix it. I mean, yes, but slowly eradicating contributing factors is the way you make the game marginally better. Perhaps if you eliminate a bunch of small things in various categories, the game gets quite a bit better. Maybe after a few seasons of fixing obvious flaws, the game gets significantly better and a resurgence of players occurs. The bottom line is, when we are discussing something like matchmaking, the idea should be that the matchmaker makes the games as balanced as possible. When there are extremely blatant obvious things you can eliminate (like smurfs) that will in literally 100% of cases make the games more balanced, not making those changes and finding excuses to not make them is either lazy, or stupid. It doesn't matter if you think that 1 in 5, 1 in 10, or even 1 in 50 games has a smurf. If you eliminate that poo poo, 1 in 50 games just got better.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2024 22:14
|
|
|
pointlessone posted:Welp, my mostly casual rear end just unlocked Mauga. Expect nerf announcements within the week. I hate when I'm right.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2024 22:59
|
|
|
It seems that we have traded Mauga meta, for yet another round of Orisa meta.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2024 23:22
|
|
|
Is orisa a poke tank now?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2024 23:59
|
|
|
comedyblissoption posted:smurfs (the ones looking for pubstomps) decrease the fairness of games to inflate one person's ego. people are much more likely to be okay with a loss if it was close than if it was a stomp. Seems like they could easily fix the smurf problem by selling Overwatch at a retail price just like OW1 rather than this FTP/GAAS steaming horseshit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2024 00:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 14:07 |
|
|
pointlessone posted:I hate when I'm right. he was the highest winrate tank by far, it would have been outrageous for them not to nerf him.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2024 00:47
|
|
