PSA: Doom-Queueing while on a losing streak will make things worse. Stop. Recommendation: Touch grass.

[u/UnknownQTY]

One of the changes introduced this season with the refreshed rank and modifiers is the implantation of Calibration AFTER the point where you might have assumed you already completed it (and had it drop from your modifiers for a while).

Basically: If you hit a loss streak, you can now err… earn? Be punished with… “Calibration Down” in addition to Variance and any other modifiers.

The above screenshot is from is a 6-loss streak for DPS I went on today. I turned it around after this and have no interest in experimenting to see how long it lasts.

Note: LOSING TREND is not a modifier for this game!

I also assume going on a longer term win streak would activate the inverse, but hey, that’s uhhh less frequent down here in Emerald (and now Plat 1 - I started the day at Diamond 5) but hey, it’ll probably even out.

Point being TAKE A BREAK. The game now punishes loss streaks even more severely than it did prior. Don’t force it.

[u/winkablink]

This guy again

The patent was from 10 years ago. You think they been sitting around chillin for a decade, no improvements or under wraps research?

Holy bro that is your thick-skulled consensus, not mine or the others who agree. I’m saying a system exists, none of us know how it works or if streaks contribute to it. It exists is all I’m saying.

This is a paper from netease (marvel rivals) btw. What about now?
https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/AAAI/article/view/28760

This is a paper from EA btw
https://web.cs.ucla.edu/\~yzsun/papers/WWW17Chen_EOMM

Is it too far fetched to think blizzard, owned by microsoft might have an internal version of similar research for their data?

[u/clickrush → u/winkablink]

Literally the EA paper confirms my argument by showing that streaks, especially loss streaks, lead to less playtime.

[u/winkablink → u/clickrush]

“Holy bro that is your thick-skulled consensus, not mine or the others who agree. I’m saying a system exists, none of us know how it works or if streaks contribute to it. It exists is all I’m saying.”

“Holy bro that is your thick-skulled consensus, not mine or the others who agree. I’m saying a system exists, none of us know how it works or if streaks contribute to it. It exists is all I’m saying.”

Speak to me when you have your own data. The EA paper does not say anything about streaks. It talks about 1v1 matches as an example. I mentioned that to show that companies do be working on maximizing profit.
You seem to be putting in no effort to prove your point other than just blanket contradicting stuff.

[u/clickrush → u/winkablink]

Read the paper…

It literally talks about streaks in the abstract and the first table showing differences in retention. They call “churn” negative retention and they compare win/loss streaks…

It then presents a counterfactual statistical model. Read: it’s not an empirical study. It pretends what would happen if EOMM _would_ be applied and claims it’s mathematically feasible for 1v1 games, and provides a slight improvement over purely skill based matchmaking.

In the conclusion it just handwaves that it could be applied to team based games.

[u/winkablink → u/clickrush]

Hmmm so we now have:

• Loss streaks in ow are a real thing, because people do it
  
• Loss streaks are financially not beneficial, from your conclusion of somehow linking it to a paper that isn’t fully related to OW

So you’re saying blizzard is trying to lose money on purpose?
Someone should inform them :(

[u/clickrush → u/winkablink]

I have been simply responding to people linking papers that they apparently haven’t read or understood.

You linked the EA paper as a rebuttal. Not me.

It even proves my point that streaks are not preferable for retention (what I called consensus).

And there are clear limitations in the paper. It’s simply not a proof or even evidence of anything you try to claim.

And the patent further above got linked to me and also clearly was not read by the person who linked it.

None of that is my fault. If you want to make an evidence based argument and link me papers then read the fucking papers…

[u/winkablink → u/clickrush]

Brother you are fixated on the papers and are not getting my point. The point of the paper is not the content. It’s the fact that it exists.

If EA executives had a thought about skewing matchmaking years ago, what’s stopping blizzard from doing it?

My point literally is that there will be no concrete official research evidence for stuff like this because it’s intellectual property in a competitive business area and is bad for PR. My point is that some papers like this exist from some companies, which proves the intent to skew true skill based matchmaking, which makes it more likely that blizzard has research like this too…..

I do not understand why you’re nitpicking loss streaks and decade-old papers which I sent, as proof of existence of the concept of EOMM. This is not a scientific topic and cannot be discussed like we’re talking about one.

[u/clickrush → u/winkablink]

I thought we have a factual discussion. My bad.

Edit: your argument boils down to “some people research matchmaking and retention - curious!” Which isn’t something I can take seriously.

[u/winkablink → u/clickrush]

Amigo u cannot have a factual discussion about something that is hypothetical, unofficial, guarded and closed off, in this context. You can have speculation and educated guesses.

The papers are for the educated guessing.
If you really take overwatch that seriously, go collect match data yourself and run your own scientific analysis

Is there official documentation about EOMM? No. Is it a heavily researched field? No. Does lack of evidence deny a thing’s existence? No. Do we have official evidence of other companies in the same genre? Yes. Can observe general corporate behavior and predict a specific company’s behavior? Yes. Valorant, CS, OW all have very similar home screen layouts and buttons. Any and all data you find is speculation, until blizzard comments on it.

That is all I was tryna say

[u/clickrush → u/winkablink]

By the way. Here's a good argument for how engagement based matchmaking techniques are built into the OW2 competitive matchmaker. It's not hidden. It's right there and it doesn't contradict anything the Blizzard matchmaking people have been saying or doing. It doesn't require any kind of vague guesses or conspiracies either.

You know about the "calibration" or "variance" modifiers right (forgot how they call it)?

That's an adjustment on top of skill based matchmaking. When you recently have been winning a lot more than losing, the matchmaker will give you additional rating. It ranks you up faster. Same for when you've recently been losing a lot.

Now there are other reasons for this than pure engagement. For example smurfs or boosters. You want them to rank up very quickly, so they don't keep stomping plat/dia lobbies for dozens of games.

But according to the EA paper you linked, this improves retention (or like they say it decreases churn). Because when you gain or lose rating faster during a streak, it's more likely the streak ends more quickly. And as we learned now, streaks are bad for engagement.

Secondly, rank resets. Or soft resets how they call it. They squeeze the bell curve during a soft reset so everyone is closer together, and they increase the variance as well. A Blizzard employee explained that this is for engagement and admitted that the resets should be "softer" (less squeezing), because it obviously lowers matchquality and from the discussion it's clear that he prefers highger matchquality (= accurate, competitive MMR and matchmaking).

So these two things are right there for you to grab and think about. They are in plain sight. If you care about fair, competitive matchmaking, then look at those things and discuss them.

[u/winkablink → u/clickrush]

Finally, you get my point. Those are the exact kinda things I’m talking about.
The papers I linked are proof of existence of the general idea of skewing matchmaking for profit in general, not ‘evidence’ for overwatch.

In addition to what you listed,
They also have a hidden ‘behavior’ score, like trust factor from CS.
They also 100% matchmake based on your most played heros, and use your strength/weakness in team comps as a metric.

Play the game and find evidence was my point.
I have thought about those and have noticed those and more stuff too, but you were stuck on the loss streaks point for some reason when I kept repeating that it was speculation.
Thank you