Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
But i agree, games are very one sided. I'm barely having close games but, tbf, overwatch2 has the same problem.
You either roll or you get rolled, theres not much in between.
Its just personal experience. I notice when I play healer and keep my team alive it doesn't matter if they are bots we can still hold points. I still love this game im not completely poopin on it. I just wish they would make solo que matchmaking.
The game can't force your team to play 1-4-1.
You don't understand how EOMM works, which is understandable. AI knows who plays what, of course. It pairs you with people who play specific roles based on what you play. The algorithm can do anything it wants to pair you with terrible or good players based on high percentages, and it can pair you with people who have the most likelihood to play in certain roles or have certain behaviors. It's even able to adjust hit box sizing in real time. It's all in NETEASES documentation and their own marketing video for engagement match making, please search for it, there are videos on it as well if you don't want to go through all of it yourself. The game is a slot machine where skill matters very little in term of increasing rank, and it's getting old.
I'm Currently GM 2 (I play all strategists), and the 50% win/loss ratio is inevitable as a SOLO. I had a 70% win rate, then a 60%, then a 53% at the end of last season - which would be fine if it wasn't the game forcing 6-10 losses in a row (same pattern every few wins), but it will sneak 1-2 wins in there to break up the losses - but it's always the same outcome. I get steam roll games, then games where my team mates have their keyboards unplugged many times in a row if I win too much -- where it should be pairing me with similarly skilled team mates as I increase rank.
The reality is, if they ignore everyone complaining about this and keep forcing 50% win rates on everyone, the game will lose its popularity because it's blatantly rigged. The streamers will get tired of it eventually because it's too blatant, and the viewers will stop watching the streamers because they don't play anymore. Game will die if this happens.
The solution is insanely simple. Pair players of equal or similar skill rating on both teams. It's okay to use an algorithm to pair players with certain majority roles, play styles, etc., to ensure fairness/variety, but it's not okay to RIG games so that players always lose and always win a set amount of times based on whatever arbitrary nonsense these publisher/developers think is the highest percentage method to keep players playing. EOMM is DESTROYING competitive/fair gaming, and it has been going on for years.
Of course, it helps that I play support, but you can always learn it yourself to guarantee at least one support per match.
It cannot, however, make those players play badly or choose a certain hero, nor can it make the other side play well. Even if it tried to rig a game, there would be a lot of factors beyond its control. This is especially true in ranked where it has to choose players of the same rank, so it's not like it has the option to just stack one side with highly ranked players.
It obviously never does this. It would be super obvious via replays if this was being done. The dataminers would also likely have found it as well as the client would need code to be able to support it.
So, rather obviously, if the system is making fair matches most players should be around 50% win rate, especially over a large number of games. It's quite logical that you would start to converge on 50% as you played more games, as any outlier games gradually lose importance. If you play a very large number of games, even having a 53-55% win rate (which many people do) is notable and denotes that person as a good player.
This is exactly what the game does.
One thing that always gets to me is people are always like "it's absolute common sense as to how the game should work", but they're so convinced the game doesn't work that way for some reason. You're right, this is the most obvious thing in the world, which is precisely why that's exactly how the game works. If it's braindead obvious to everyone this clearly includes the game's development team. It all seems to be based on some silly conspiracy theory where people think rigged games somehow make more money, even though they obviously wouldn't because no one enjoys rigged matches. In fact, we know what kind of matches people enjoy the most, they're matches that are really close, this is even mentioned in the Netease papers. So if you were going to rig matches, you'd want to rig them to be close, but there's basically nothing they can do to force close matches other than try to make the teams as balanced as possible.
The real problem is that the vast majority of players in the game play inconsistently, especially in the low ranks. They make a lot of mistakes, and it doesn't take many mistakes to lose a game. You're winning and losing games not because of it being rigged (as obviously, the matchmaker cannot force the players to make these mistakes), but based on whether or not the big mistakes are on your team or the enemy team. As you get to higher ranks these mistakes become somewhat less common and thus there are more close games.