MATCHMAKING! Forcing win rate/Trying hard to balance?

[AKM_7]

NOTE: *Whatever I am considering and telling here are for players like me with 10K BS, Who don't rage / quit / feed etc., Always try their best and help teammates and don't get grieving scum teammates often (I get a rage quitter / feeder / abusive player like once in some 20 or 30 games).*

Everyone is posting about the issue with matchmaking that: After winning some games in a row - the match making "forces" you to loose games by having you play against good players with terrible/low-skill teammates.

During the win-streak games, some of the wins will be such easy wins wherein even if you feed you would win...
And during the losing-streak games, some of these games will be such losses that no matter what you do, opponents will be too good and teammates will be too bad, hence, guaranteeing a loss...


To put in simpler terms with an example...
If you play, let's say, 20 games -
You would win something around 9-12 of those in a row - and of these winning games,
1. Around 4 games you would be carried entirely by your team and opponents will be of lower skill level, and
2. A few games your teamwork / draft etc., would be the reason for victory and
3. Even fewer games would be a fight to death type games with scores like 32-35 or something where the game is very exciting with a final teamfight or crazy base race deciding the game...

And then the disappointment begins...

After pulling off a decent win streak, in come the difficult games where the tables are now turned...
Of the remaining games (let's say 10 of the 20) -
1. You would lose some games where no matter how hard you try where opponents seem to be too good and teammates seem to be too bad,
2. Sometimes a couple of games with nasty teammates who guarantee loss (like afk / feeders / rage quitters etc.) and
3. few games where is a tough fight to the death with scores like 32-35 or something.


Now your win-rate is going to somehow hover around 50% such that
1. If you are improving, then in those clutch games which are very close you end up winning am extra game or 2 tilting the win rate to ~60%
2. If you have started playing a new role / hero and may make a few mistakes, the crazy close games may end in a loss and win rate may drop to ~40%


So, basically what I think is, DotA has a lot of players who are not of your skill level... Many are below your skill level and many are above.
So, only in a few games matchmaking is able to pool in all players of almost exact skill level (the hard to win, fight to the death, crazy close call games)... And in rest of the games, the system shifts bad players on your side for some games and shifts them to the opponent side for some games, maintaining the win rate...
Now, in case you are well ahead of your skill level / you are a smurf / booster, in some of the games, you would be able to carry even those games where you are given Noobs to carry - that way your win rate jumps to higher numbers like 70+%...

It sucks to be on a losing streak where you feel like punching your teammates... But then, is the game doing that to get you to quit the game, or is it happening because there is no other choice?
I think it is the way that valve has chosen to keep your games "even" instead of making you just constantly win games by never giving your team the low-skill players and always sending them to opposite side.

**And another thing is valve cannot always give you "same skill" level players in the true sense because then you have to wait until ONLY players of your skill level in your server region Login and search for a match selecting roles that will allow for a game to begin at the same time when you are searching.
So what it seems to be doing instead is just shifting the worse / better players for a few games on your side and then for a few games on the other side. Your win rate now depends on your ability to win the tough games, easy games and if possible - the seemingly impossible games.

P.S., All that I have said is just my theory based on experimental observations and drawing conclusions based on certain evidences. There is no conclusive proof that what I have said is exactly what is going on.

P.P.S., An inconsistency in my theory that I can sense is that - "How come the matchmaking manages to always give the combination of low skilled players in a stretch and high skilled players players in stretch? - As in, if the system is truly trying to find same skill players queueing at the same time, how does the system seemingly maintain the win streak games / losing streak games instead of everything being a random mix?"
For this I think the answer is fluctuation of "MMR" (maybe a hidden MMR that some people talk about?) that increases when you win games, showing that maybe you are capable of carrying some newer players (increasing difficulty) until you end up getting caught in a losing streak.

[Си́нтез]

Simple math - each match has two teams
Each recorded game can only two outcomes. You will be randomly put in one of those two teams.
So if you have only two teams and you are in one of those teams and each recorded game ends in either radiant victory or dire victory. Meaning that average user will have ~50% chance of winning a game. Meaning that your ~50% winrate is forced by math, not by Valve...

[Instinct]

I read only the first part of this long post and I fully agree, the game balance is abysmal, I deleted the game after several really sad matches...

[AKM_7]

Originally posted by poprygun:

Simple math - each match has two teams
Each recorded game can only two outcomes. You will be randomly put in one of those two teams.
So if you have only two teams and you are in one of those teams and each recorded game ends in either radiant victory or dire victory. Meaning that average user will have ~50% chance of winning a game. Meaning that your ~50% winrate is forced by math, not by Valve...

Yes, you are right. This, the people who don't complain much like me and maybe even people who complain may understand bro...
But the issue, I think, which causes people to complain is the pattern of it.

In a two outcome event like tossing a coin, the probability of 50% manifests in randomness - as in sometimes alternating heads/tails (wins/losses) sometimes more wins than losses and vice-versa... Keeping it more exciting than what DotA's 50% provides.

In the case of matchmaking (at least according to my observations and that of many others) if you get heads - you get heads in a row, and if you start getting tails, then in the same way you get tails in a row (win-streak and losing-streak)... This annoys people. By this, I specifically mean the losing streak annoys people because they feel it is "forced".

It is like saying - the coin will give you only tails for a while now because you got heads the past few times. Which never happens in simple probability of an independent event.

People don't remember the times when they got free wins, but they dread the times when they lose games in a row - causing the player base to reduce I feel.

[Highrule -1]

Win streaks lead into loss streaks. Let's say your average skill is 5. You get a sudden wins streak thanks to better picks or more suitable teammates or smurfs or whatever. MM looks at you and thinks, this guy's skill is improving. Let's rate him as 7. MM tries to balance team skill levels at 5; now you're put into teams as a higher skill player to balance the game. You obviously can't do that since your skill level is 5 and not 7; thus, you get a streak of losses.

This can lead into a seesaw effect where MM doesn't adjust you to your proper skill level. You get too high rating when you're on a win streak, and the following loss streak takes you below your appropriate rating, leading into another win streak since now you're rated below your average skill level.


System isn't to be blamed. If you get into a win streak, especially in ranked, without actually having improved your skill, you should expect to hit a wall of losses at some point.

[majzerofive]

Originally posted by AKM_7 <GOAT & WOLF>:

Yes, you are right. This, the people who don't complain much like me and maybe even people who complain may understand bro...
But the issue, I think, which causes people to complain is the pattern of it.

In a two outcome event like tossing a coin, the probability of 50% manifests in randomness - as in sometimes alternating heads/tails (wins/losses) sometimes more wins than losses and vice-versa... Keeping it more exciting than what DotA's 50% provides.

In the case of matchmaking (at least according to my observations and that of many others) if you get heads - you get heads in a row, and if you start getting tails, then in the same way you get tails in a row (win-streak and losing-streak)... This annoys people. By this, I specifically mean the losing streak annoys people because they feel it is "forced".

It is like saying - the coin will give you only tails for a while now because you got heads the past few times. Which never happens in simple probability of an independent event.

People don't remember the times when they got free wins, but they dread the times when they lose games in a row - causing the player base to reduce I feel.

Does Dota 2 forces a player to have 50% winrate? Yes, to some degree (write that down, i'll comeback to that). But not for the reasons that may seem obvious. Pretty much any popular game does the same. HS has 100% lost matchups unless your opponent leaves. Hitting a legend in HS is possible only if you have unbeatable and very flexible deck. If you're playing with crap, world's top player or a noob, you wouldn't hit even the top 5 rank. Every professional player knows that, most players know that, yet nonetheless it is a very popular card game. Whether some Witcher's Gwent card game which has no such thing is a misunderstanding even for me. It is not interesting to win everything just because you're good. Even though you understand that it is unfair to make a player lose a game even though he should've won it would it be random. Still, winning 30 in a row and then quitting the game instantly is an awful experience. Same happened to HOTS and a few other games I've been winning in a row for 20+ being a complete newbie (well, in that particular game) versus very experienced imho players. Loosing 20+ in a row is as uninteresting as winning them. That is why any popular game has that queue filter to sometimes put you versus 100% better opponents just so you'd feel what struggling is.

Now back to "some degree". To win games in dota 2 you basically need one of:
1) be much more skilled than your opponent and play any core (works for me even for support 4 role, if I pick the right hero that is able to solo mid game without the help of teammates. What to say about my offlaner riki that dominates the whole map, even the enemy's hardcarry right in front of his team).
2) be a little more skilled than your opponent and play mid and be confident (not hardcarry, that is very important). Mid player is the one "giving space" to his team. Hardcarry requires time, so he's dependant on his support player. Offlaner is dependant on his support as well in some cases.
3) be of equal skill with an opponent, but really try your best to win the game, again, playing one of the core roles. With the right items all three can solo the game. Only if they choose to solo it, instead of blaming the team.
4) be of lower skill than your opponnent. That one implies that you know you can't carry, so you choose support role and do best for the player that "might" carry you to win.

1) 2) are able to easily solo any game, without the help of their team. Unless someone on the opponent's side has greater skill than you. e.g. booster/smurf.
3) 4) is the way any player climb up the ranking ladder. By improving each day step by step and learning on mistakes, minimum involvement.
Every other scenario returns LOSS. If you put not enough efforts into the game as 1)2)3), you lose. If you do not do the 4) in case you can't do 1)2)3), you lose. Simple as that.

Yes, sure, sometimes you get 100% loss which you wouldn't be able to carry. But that sometimes is 2/10 tops of your total games. Based on my personal experience, ofcourse. Can't tell for the others. The reason for me still sitting at low MMR (arguably low for some players, more middle, 4k) is that I choose the 4th method to win my games. I have 55% winrate. That is exactly what you get for playing support (like real support, not the support-carry which I easy can do). Even having a decent score in any game, you're still dependant on your carries to win you a game. Even if you can kill enemy's carry solo within a stun... If your carry doesn't put enough efforts into the game, - LOSS. I've been spamming supports with occasional offlaners for about 500 games in a row. I got approx. 1.2k to my MMR. About 2 MMR a game in average by playing support.

A player that really wants to raise his rank should remember the most important thing: you want to do it right then do it yourself. No one would carry you to your real rank. You want it? You go and take it, by playing the most important role in the match (although some would argue that support is the most important, but that applies only to high ranked or professional matches, where supports really matter and most of the times are the sole reason their carry wins the game).

[BossGalaga]

You're not going to believe this but people complain about solo matchmaking in pretty much every competitive online team game. Joining or creating your own party is typically going to be a better experience than queuing with completely random players in a team and objective based game. I know, I know, it sounds insane but it's true.

[majzerofive]

Originally posted by Σ£ ßehavioℝ 666:

the whole purpose of the report system was to "improve things" so that nothing the original poster listed could happen.

... and here we are.

(let's step aside from the fact that I have no idea where exactly you caught the idea that report system is an issue).
There's no such thing as "perfect report system" that would leave only <worth> players. If the issue was in the system itself, it is an easy solution. But the issue is in players. Community you may say, but basically it is an issue for any comp MP game. You have toxicity in WOW, HS, CSGO, DOTA, LOL, FORTNITE, PUBG et cetera. Any competitive multiplayer game. Do they all have bad coders that for some reason can't figure out those* ideal lines of code? Or are they trying to fix the issue from the wrong side? I'll leave it for you to decide.
Topic is informational, not a discussion (although I still managed to put in a little extra), so i'll unsub. If you want to keep discussing strictly informational and subjective topic, you may stay. I'm leaving tho.

[GoBigRed]

In my opinion....they shouldn't fluctuate MMR that hard. Going 8-0 or 7-2 shouldn't change MMR so drastic that you end up getting curb stomped for 8-10 games. I honestly have no idea how fast they factor it, but 20 games in my opinion is a much better place to start.

[Ulthwé]

There were many players here assuming you were assigned a number according to your performance and that the average of that number should be equal for both teams. But they don't have any evidence to support their claims apart their own experience.

Why would the game put a minus 3 person and a +8 person in the same team to have an average team? It doesn't even make sense. Actually such skill gaps are very rare, you see them almost exclusively on purpose in parties with an archon and an immortal in pubs to confuse the algorithm and get a chance to crush noobs.

Whevener you reach a decent skill bracket, and I would begin by legend, because people begin to understand the game there, although games are better at ancient or divine, then you get opponents and teammates with equal or really close skill.

It is not that hard to understand, if you become better, or at least, it looked like it, the game will put you with and against stronger player and you will win only if you actually became better. Because you are not at your maximum mmr if you manage to do 10+ winstreak.

No need to pull great conspiracy about valve forcing a 50% winrate on you. It is a consequence of fair matchmaking system. The only thing the game could do to make you lose would be to put you on radiant or on dire ( I have a 51% winrate on dire and 59% on radiant), but here again, uou can see the number of games in each camps are roughly equal.

If things were forced I wouldn't have 70% winrate with mirana but 25% with batrider, or 42% on puck.

[AKM_7]

Originally posted by SIR COCKLESS:

Originally posted by AKM_7 <GOAT & WOLF>:

Yes, you are right. This, the people who don't complain much like me and maybe even people who complain may understand bro...
But the issue, I think, which causes people to complain is the pattern of it.

In a two outcome event like tossing a coin, the probability of 50% manifests in randomness - as in sometimes alternating heads/tails (wins/losses) sometimes more wins than losses and vice-versa... Keeping it more exciting than what DotA's 50% provides.

In the case of matchmaking (at least according to my observations and that of many others) if you get heads - you get heads in a row, and if you start getting tails, then in the same way you get tails in a row (win-streak and losing-streak)... This annoys people. By this, I specifically mean the losing streak annoys people because they feel it is "forced".

It is like saying - the coin will give you only tails for a while now because you got heads the past few times. Which never happens in simple probability of an independent event.

People don't remember the times when they got free wins, but they dread the times when they lose games in a row - causing the player base to reduce I feel.

Does Dota 2 forces a player to have 50% winrate? Yes, to some degree (write that down, i'll comeback to that). But not for the reasons that may seem obvious. Pretty much any popular game does the same. HS has 100% lost matchups unless your opponent leaves. Hitting a legend in HS is possible only if you have unbeatable and very flexible deck. If you're playing with crap, world's top player or a noob, you wouldn't hit even the top 5 rank. Every professional player knows that, most players know that, yet nonetheless it is a very popular card game. Whether some Witcher's Gwent card game which has no such thing is a misunderstanding even for me. It is not interesting to win everything just because you're good. Even though you understand that it is unfair to make a player lose a game even though he should've won it would it be random. Still, winning 30 in a row and then quitting the game instantly is an awful experience. Same happened to HOTS and a few other games I've been winning in a row for 20+ being a complete newbie (well, in that particular game) versus very experienced imho players. Loosing 20+ in a row is as uninteresting as winning them. That is why any popular game has that queue filter to sometimes put you versus 100% better opponents just so you'd feel what struggling is.

Now back to "some degree". To win games in dota 2 you basically need one of:
1) be much more skilled than your opponent and play any core (works for me even for support 4 role, if I pick the right hero that is able to solo mid game without the help of teammates. What to say about my offlaner riki that dominates the whole map, even the enemy's hardcarry right in front of his team).
2) be a little more skilled than your opponent and play mid and be confident (not hardcarry, that is very important). Mid player is the one "giving space" to his team. Hardcarry requires time, so he's dependant on his support player. Offlaner is dependant on his support as well in some cases.
3) be of equal skill with an opponent, but really try your best to win the game, again, playing one of the core roles. With the right items all three can solo the game. Only if they choose to solo it, instead of blaming the team.
4) be of lower skill than your opponnent. That one implies that you know you can't carry, so you choose support role and do best for the player that "might" carry you to win.

1) 2) are able to easily solo any game, without the help of their team. Unless someone on the opponent's side has greater skill than you. e.g. booster/smurf.
3) 4) is the way any player climb up the ranking ladder. By improving each day step by step and learning on mistakes, minimum involvement.
Every other scenario returns LOSS. If you put not enough efforts into the game as 1)2)3), you lose. If you do not do the 4) in case you can't do 1)2)3), you lose. Simple as that.

Yes, sure, sometimes you get 100% loss which you wouldn't be able to carry. But that sometimes is 2/10 tops of your total games. Based on my personal experience, ofcourse. Can't tell for the others. The reason for me still sitting at low MMR (arguably low for some players, more middle, 4k) is that I choose the 4th method to win my games. I have 55% winrate. That is exactly what you get for playing support (like real support, not the support-carry which I easy can do). Even having a decent score in any game, you're still dependant on your carries to win you a game. Even if you can kill enemy's carry solo within a stun... If your carry doesn't put enough efforts into the game, - LOSS. I've been spamming supports with occasional offlaners for about 500 games in a row. I got approx. 1.2k to my MMR. About 2 MMR a game in average by playing support.

A player that really wants to raise his rank should remember the most important thing: you want to do it right then do it yourself. No one would carry you to your real rank. You want it? You go and take it, by playing the most important role in the match (although some would argue that support is the most important, but that applies only to high ranked or professional matches, where supports really matter and most of the times are the sole reason their carry wins the game).

Excellent and interesting read :)

Improving MMR without smurf/booster etc is like a slow and gradual process due the Match making taking actual learning curve... because the 1) 2) that are easily able to solo the game... If they are genuinely playing on their first account from the beginning, will also have a learning curve to follow. So even they will have to fight their way by increasing their win-rate a few games at a time to skill up a Few MMR at a time.
👍🏻 Makes sense :)

[AKM_7]

Originally posted by Highrule -1:

Win streaks lead into loss streaks. Let's say your average skill is 5. You get a sudden wins streak thanks to better picks or more suitable teammates or smurfs or whatever. MM looks at you and thinks, this guy's skill is improving. Let's rate him as 7. MM tries to balance team skill levels at 5; now you're put into teams as a higher skill player to balance the game. You obviously can't do that since your skill level is 5 and not 7; thus, you get a streak of losses.

This can lead into a seesaw effect where MM doesn't adjust you to your proper skill level. You get too high rating when you're on a win streak, and the following loss streak takes you below your appropriate rating, leading into another win streak since now you're rated below your average skill level.


System isn't to be blamed. If you get into a win streak, especially in ranked, without actually having improved your skill, you should expect to hit a wall of losses at some point.

Yeah. The MM seems to do the best that it can given the conditions right.
I mean, the MM is not like a god to know exactly who is gonna win the game to be able to set you up for a loss... But still it somehow manages to do it's best lol.

But even though it is trying it's best to have a "equal win-rate", people are definitely gonna complain about the seesaw effect (excellent reference by the way 😊) - because they remember the time they dropped MMR more than the time they gained MMR in a row... Hence feeling "Cheated" of their grand rise to the Ancient / Divine :P

The MM seems to have a cheeky way for showing people their real skill level lol.
If they have more than 50% win rate and go higher on the seesaw over many many games - they will gain MMR to reach their actual skill level.
If they have 50% win rate, then voila! They are in their skill bracket.
If they have less than 50%, then they end up (complaining a lot about the matchmaking LMAO and) reaching their lower skill bracket for more "equal" games.

[AKM_7]

Originally posted by BossGalaga:

You're not going to believe this but people complain about solo matchmaking in pretty much every competitive online team game. Joining or creating your own party is typically going to be a better experience than queuing with completely random players in a team and objective based game. I know, I know, it sounds insane but it's true.

Haha true! If not a five man stack, even 2/3 man party leads to fun games with less crap. Especially if the party members are actual friends and you know them well. Personally, I don't mind solo matchmaking too much because I end up meeting and playing so many people with such insane differences, it is a fun challenge. It's like when I am in a classroom honestly, with a bunch of naughty kids and a bunch of studious ones, handling them is fun.

Plus I already got the patience to handle them in real life, so in-game, it makes it easy and fun :)

[AKM_7]

Originally posted by Nagash:

There were many players here assuming you were assigned a number according to your performance and that the average of that number should be equal for both teams. But they don't have any evidence to support their claims apart their own experience.

Why would the game put a minus 3 person and a +8 person in the same team to have an average team? It doesn't even make sense. Actually such skill gaps are very rare, you see them almost exclusively on purpose in parties with an archon and an immortal in pubs to confuse the algorithm and get a chance to crush noobs.

Whevener you reach a decent skill bracket, and I would begin by legend, because people begin to understand the game there, although games are better at ancient or divine, then you get opponents and teammates with equal or really close skill.

It is not that hard to understand, if you become better, or at least, it looked like it, the game will put you with and against stronger player and you will win only if you actually became better. Because you are not at your maximum mmr if you manage to do 10+ winstreak.

No need to pull great conspiracy about valve forcing a 50% winrate on you. It is a consequence of fair matchmaking system. The only thing the game could do to make you lose would be to put you on radiant or on dire ( I have a 51% winrate on dire and 59% on radiant), but here again, uou can see the number of games in each camps are roughly equal.

If things were forced I wouldn't have 70% winrate with mirana but 25% with batrider, or 42% on puck.

Okay, from what you have said I can infer a few things (please do correct me if I am wrong) -
People in lower skill bracket don't understand the game well enough (valid point) to understand why they lost the games.
For instance, so many games where the last pick actually goes for a hero that is fully countered by opponents - like picking storm spirit when opponents have Silencer and Am etc., And so many games where nobody buys items like BKB / Halbeard / dust / wards to help them win and instead stick to some crappy build they saw on YouTube. Hence, they blame it on the Matchmaking for forcing them to loose, not seeing the other actual reasons.

That does sound convincing 👍🏻😊

And second thing is that it's not all simple - put Noobs on team and better players on opponents to - to maintain win rate.
It's actually a more complex system with other stats involved like win rates with certain heroes, win rates on certain sides etc.. This sounds definitely possible too.

I understand that all games are not going to be equal, there will be some differences in terms of people picking roles they don't play etc that leads to a difference in how well they play.
One issue that I personally face though - is in quite a few games (like say 20% where my team carries my ass) - I am not exactly a feeder, as in I end up somehow helping the most I can by asking them for item suggestions etc since I recognise they are carrying me and they seem to know better.
And in quite a few games where we are equal-ish (like say 30% of the games where we lost / won because teamwork / picks) - I end up putting an average KDA, and again communicating with team regarding what when and how.
In some crazy decisive games (like say 20% whenever it seems like all of us are equal) it almost feels like we won because we did something right at one point of time slightly better than opponents, and those games are great with a lot of communication.

And then come these weird games right after a win streak that I can't quite put my finger on...
Suddenly I get a teammate who rage quits in 3 rd minute (although this is very rare, like once in 20 games).
In quite a few games, I get teammates who just don't communicate or listen, and they definitely (DEFINITELY) don't seem to know about the basics of the game (at least not as well as me) and they keep doing random stuff while all of a sudden opponents seem to be fully coordinated (it feels like the 20% game where I got carried and we have noobish opponents - but this time I am on the other side).

I understand this is balanced in a way that my over-all win rate is gonna be around 50% and overall I have played against Newbies as much as I have played with them. But coming to my concern... It's about communication.
In games when I am the noob - I am not this raging, quitting, grieving, crying, annoying teammate, and neither am I someone who doesn't communicate at all. But still, after a win streak, I manage to get players who do the aforementioned things. It's disappointing to not have newbies who are nicer. Whenever I am the newbie of the team, I am nicer... But when I get Newbies on the team, they are such a pain. They are like this students who don't study anything but still act like they entitled for everything trouble me for the entire class, it requires a lot of patience to not get frustrated.

[【Silver】]

Since you seem to be tackling this from the perspective of a teacher, and I am curious to know if you're actually employed as one, where do you recon this impulsion construes from?

Personally, I believe it's a collapse of community standards and the failure to properly grow them due to majority consensus and their financial backing of platforms. Over the past 5 or so years in the gaming industry, this has become a strange phenomena and the results thereof. Dota is one of the few titles that still holds a strong suit of complexity, versatility of challenge and competition throughout the passing decades. Can't say for how long though at this rate.

Basically, I feel like we've failed to foster a proper playerbsae for the game as it was, and since it seems difficult or near impossible to fix that, all that can be done is try to alter the game itself to appeal to the current consumer base and focus more on what most other large companies do to make profit margins. Game health doesn't matter as much as they're able to continue making a profit, and I can practically guarantee you that it'll eventually fall to that if things aren't able to get better within the communities.

[AKM_7]

Originally posted by 【Silver】:

Since you seem to be tackling this from the perspective of a teacher, and I am curious to know if you're actually employed as one, where do you recon this impulsion construes from?

Personally, I believe it's a collapse of community standards and the failure to properly grow them due to majority consensus and their financial backing of platforms. Over the past 5 or so years in the gaming industry, this has become a strange phenomena and the results thereof. Dota is one of the few titles that still holds a strong suit of complexity, versatility of challenge and competition throughout the passing decades. Can't say for how long though at this rate.

Basically, I feel like we've failed to foster a proper playerbsae for the game as it was, and since it seems difficult or near impossible to fix that, all that can be done is try to alter the game itself to appeal to the current consumer base and focus more on what most other large companies do to make profit margins. Game health doesn't matter as much as they're able to continue making a profit, and I can practically guarantee you that it'll eventually fall to that if things aren't able to get better within the communities.

I have been teaching for a few years now - both as social service and as a job. Although, for a few months now, I have switched jobs and I teach only for a social cause and not as a job (teaching for a good cause felt better than teaching for money)...

Yeah the declining "quality" of player base is definitely a serious concern. :(
I think the majority of the community's toxicity can be linked straight to immaturity. I mean, it has been studied and proven that the abusive people on online platforms do it because it takes only a few keystrokes without any personal risk in confrontation. So, people just abuse to their hearts content to "escape" the misery in the real world.
It's the people who understand that it is just game unworthy of losing their minds over (mature people) who actually manage to bring in some amount of sanity lol.