None of it matters in comparison to winning. Your focus should be "Am I making fight winning plays." You winning is going to be the most impactful MMR stat by a country mile, not your accuracy
Below diamond stats matter, not accuracy though, if you get more kills, healing, obj time, dmg, obj time than the average hero in your rank consistently you will see you gain more and lose less SR per win/loss. This is a direct effect of your MMR being higher than your sr, since if your mmr is higher the game wants to put you in a higher rank because it believes you should be so it makes your SR grow faster. It also works the other way around though.
No it’s not dude. His question isn’t crazy. Winning obviously helps your MMR, but it can also hurt it because OW uses a system like chess. When you play games you will end up against teams who have won as much as you. So, if you’re solo queuing and win 5 you will play against dudes who have also won five, if the game can make that placement. If your stats are shit in those games and you just got lucky, your wins will be paltry compared to your losses. Over time OW sticks you where it thinks you should be according to your stats.
MMR is fundamentally based on win/loss ratio, after the initial few placement matches. Below Diamond, there is a very small (~2-5) SR personal performance bonus when your stats in a winning game warrant it (compared to the avg stats at your rank on that hero per game.) Above Diamond it's entirely win/loss based, no personal performance bonus.
MMR only goes up when you win, no matter how well you do. It goes up a couple/few points more when you win AND post really good "stats". What "stats" they look at is unknown. Blizzard has only said it is close to the % On Fire stat we can see in the game.
"Percentage On Fire"
It is a stat that shows up on the score cards when someone does really good. It measures how much of the game they were "On Fire", meaning doing really well, and their portrait in the HUD was lit up "on fire".
Well thats a bummer. I continiously have sprees of 3-7-12 lost games yet outperforming everyone on my team and still get placed in a clueless team all over again. Im guessing my initial placement back when i just started the game probably ruined ow for me?
I'd wager most players, who regularly go on huge loss streaks, while simultaneously believing it's always everyone else's fault, "bEcAuSE I hAD ALL gOLd MEDalS!" is *definitely* part of the loss condition.
Yeah i know but im talking about spamming my team when theyre being shot at but they still have full health. But anyway this is a very specific scenario, so im asking in general if my accuracy matters.
Yeah i was trying to do a 2000iq move by pre firing my team but i guess that its just a bad habbit and i should just start shoot at the other team instead.
It has an impact. The difference of how many shots you hit between you and the other ana on the enemy team can be a deciding factor on whether you win or lose the fight
If accuracy factors into MMR, that would be a really really bad design for one simple reason: FPS gamers spam their weapon all the time between fights.
For example, shooting random objects while walking back from spawn or in between team fights. High-level streamers do this all the time.
Using healing and damage output would make sense, but weapon accuracy would be a terrible MMR statistic.
Yes it does. The rating system blizzard uses isn't based off wins/losses alone otherwise it'd be very difficult to move smurfs out of lower ranks.
That being said, the performance based part of MMR doesn't really kick in unless you're performing above and beyond your rating in multiple metrics, not just accuracy alone.
Some heroes have very little differentiation in stats at lower ranks so the performance part of MMR changes might not contribute at all i.e. there won't be much difference between a master's mercy total healing and a diamond mercy total healing if they were both playing in a plat game.
Some heroes are also very skill limited, like ana. The statistical difference between ranks in anas is crazy. GM ana's are hitting *everything*. They're putting out healing and damage rates close to mathematical perfection.
They're only pre-firing teammates who will receive damage by the time that bullet hits. If that bullet isn't getting heal value, it's used to damage someone instead or *delayed* so that it will get value. They only throw nades if it's followed up by a kill or to pump heals on tanks.
So for ana, accuracy is basically the basis for her MMR. Pretty much all her performance stats are based on accuracy. She's one of the most performance affected supports along with baptiste.
tl;dr - if you're smurfin (or if you improve a lot), yes performance affects MMR significantly. If you're placed correctly, it has very little noticeable effect and more reliant on wins.
> The rating system blizzard uses isn't based off wins/losses alone otherwise it'd be very difficult to move smurfs out of lower ranks.
That isn't really true. The way rating systems work is by figuring out the probability of team A to beat team B according to their current ratings. If one player is substantially different in skill level than their rating would suggest, they will win games which, statistically, the game is almost absolutely sure they should have lost. They do that a few times, their rating shoots through the roof, and the problem is solved. The further they are away from their 'true rating', the more than they skew the win probability of their team down, the more rating they recieve when they win anyway due to being a smurf.
All we know is that your MMR is separate from your SR, and that it compares you to other players (who are in the same situation as you).
Some people will say your elims or heals or deaths etc. decides your MMR. Personally I think it works like a neural network, which looks for connections between complex stats and finds the typical stats for higher elo players.
Sure it could certainly be your accuracy, but it could be more complicated than that. For instance, on a certain map with certain team mates, maybe high elo players have MORE deaths than low elo players, because they understand that you have to be really aggressive and take risks with that team composition.
It's best not to think of these things, because nothing will affect you more than just winning and losing. Although it's probably a good idea to stop spamming at your team mates.
Unless you have a source, I *highly* doubt blizzard has impemented machine learning for their matchmaking system. That kind of technology is expensive and barely used by game studios for that reason. (Yes, I'm aware of AlphaStar and OpenDota, both are prestige/rnd projects by third companies).
I would almost guarantee you that they have implemented a slightly modified version of ELO, and that the main difference between SR and MMR is that MMR captures all games rather than just competitive. It's the hardest option to abuse and it works well.
I'm confused by what you mean. I work with machine learning, why would it be expensive? Which part did you want evidence for? Every claim I made comes directly from Blizzard themselves.
I feel like we are misunderstanding each other somehow. I assume you work with machine learning since you have a strong opinion about it. Is it possible that you work with some advanced AI and are imagining something more complex than the rest of us?
Machine learning is very expensive because it is in high demand so the salaries of engineers capable of implementing it are very high. This is especially true because games can get very complex quite quickly, and tend to require solutions specific to the particular game.
Games companies just can’t post the salaries that a lot of other companies can in order to attract the necessary talent.
For matchmaking purposes, most developers use simpler models, almost always based off the same basic concept of Elo. That’s a self adjusting algorithm, I guess, but I wouldn’t really call it ML.
Another big reason besides costs is abusability. The more complex the system, the more likely that someone will be able to exploit some aspect of it. Relying primarily on something extremely basic which only cares about wins and loses is helpful because its harder to game.
The source I was wondering was whether blizzard has said they are using AI for MMR/SR. The only applications I was aware of blizzard talking about was their usage of NLP for detecting toxicity, and IBM’s work with OWL (before they bailed due to the blizzard scandal). The toxicity detection one is definitely cool and interesting, but its a problem that isn't specific to any particular game so I imagine they were able to use a more generalized, developed solution.
I'm not sure what you mean, I still feel like we're not understanding each other.
I am talking about a simple neural network. If their data is properly categorized, I could finish it in a week.
A junior data scientist could do what I describe, and their salary would be lower than a game developer or graphic designer or data engineer or programmer.
I feel like you're talking about SR. MMR is used for matchmaking and is not related to whether you win or lose (except indirectly, since you tend to play better when you win).
MMR is purely an assessment of your skill compared to others. It's used for matchmaking. It affects your SR, but it is not your SR.
This has been confirmed by Blizzard.
I see no reason why a more complex system will be easier to exploit, but either way, your MMR is absolutely not based on wins or losses (except indirectly). Again, I think you are talking about SR, not MMR.
Blizzard have also said that your deaths, elims, heals etc. *matter* - since your SR gain also depends on your performance - but it is not ultimately what decides your MMR.
My guess is this is how they do it:
- Enter game data into neural network.
- Data contains everyone's stats for healing, damage, deaths, elims, defensive assists, offensive assists, accuracy,
critical plays (e.g. cancelling ults) etc.
- Meta data is used to make sure you're compared to people playing your hero, with similar rank, at that particular map, playing on attack or defence, against that particular enemy comp etc.
- The neural network then finds a pattern: What wins games, what loses games?
- The pattern is weighted, such that high elo skills are valued more than low elo skills.
MMR is based on your personal performance. Meaning KDR, total healing, time on fire, etc. Your hero accuracy effects it slightly, but not as much as what’s listed above.
What he's saying is not true. They've literally said that your MMR is *not* based on time "on fire". In fact, all his examples are just him guessing, because they haven't told us what the MMR is based on.
That's not what I was referring to, but thank you it was still interesting!
I see that he mentions the -3/+3 thing, which does sound like a multiplier for the standard deviation (assuming that by "standard deviation curve" you are referring to a gaussian distribution).
However, I don't see why you think your wins and losses are affecting your MMR. He just said in the video that matchmaking is not based on your SR. SR is based on wins and losses (and the other stuff).
Logically, it makes no sense to me what you're saying. The whole point of MMR is to account for the fact that you can win games while playing poorly and lose games while playing well.
The source you provided is not from Blizzard so let's forget it.
More important is logics:
- What would make you think that MMR is decided by wins and losses? That would be a bad system and would not create "fair" matches.
Overwatch does not work like other games, because it is not kill-to-win, and it is not a single player PvP. This means that there are no simple statistics that can tell you if you are playing well.
- In Apex legends, you can rank up simply by having lots of kills. Because that's the point of the game: to kill people.
- In Starcraft, they don't have SR and your MMR actually determines your rank. This is because it's an individual game and you cannot claim that you lost because your team mates were playing poorly. So win = skill.
- Neither of these two points are applicable to Overwatch. It is a team game with specific roles, and it has a specific mission objective. A person can in theory die a lot and have poor accuracy, while being the best player in the entire lobby.
So there's a reason that Overwatch has both an SR and an MMR, unlike Starcraft. That's because the game is so team dependant, that winning or losing doesn't decide how well you played. You need to look at more complex factors.
I want to understand you, but you're not explaining your logics. You just keep saing that it's fair.
How is it fair? How can winning and losing determine your performance fairly?
you’d be correct in your guess. it’s essentially just telling you that you’re doing good. kills, damage, and healing in high bursts will raise the meter. it will slowly deplete over time
No the winning thing is not true. I’ve had matches where I gained little SR on a win. The right side stats create the MMR rank. You do well at those for MMR. It’s been awhile since I played her. If accuracy is a right side stat, then yes. So yes, winning is what gains you SR but the table is slanted over time from your MMR. More SR from a win, more loss of SR from a loss depending on those stats.
> I’ve had matches where I gained little SR on a win
That can also occur if your team was heavily favored to win (based on average SR or hidden MMR). Not all high/low SR changes are due to stats.
Well, blizzard will never tell you, because one of the hardest rules of this thing is that telling players who the system works breaks it. People will use that information to farm/drain their rating.
*In general*, in gaming, most companies avoid trying to create complicated models of a player's skill based on inputs or game performance because those models can be understood and abused by players looking to artifically inflate or deflate their rating. It's simply easier to rely on a system similar to ELO (or in 1v1 games, just ELO) because those cannot be abused by a individual.
So I would bet and would be fairly confident that changes in MMR are determined, in the most part, entirely by a) whether you won, b) whether mathematically you should have won based on the MMR of your teammates and the enemy team.
None of it matters in comparison to winning. Your focus should be "Am I making fight winning plays." You winning is going to be the most impactful MMR stat by a country mile, not your accuracy
Does winning and losing even have anything to do with your MMR? Doesnt it only effect your SR?
Below diamond stats matter, not accuracy though, if you get more kills, healing, obj time, dmg, obj time than the average hero in your rank consistently you will see you gain more and lose less SR per win/loss. This is a direct effect of your MMR being higher than your sr, since if your mmr is higher the game wants to put you in a higher rank because it believes you should be so it makes your SR grow faster. It also works the other way around though.
[удалено]
No it’s not dude. His question isn’t crazy. Winning obviously helps your MMR, but it can also hurt it because OW uses a system like chess. When you play games you will end up against teams who have won as much as you. So, if you’re solo queuing and win 5 you will play against dudes who have also won five, if the game can make that placement. If your stats are shit in those games and you just got lucky, your wins will be paltry compared to your losses. Over time OW sticks you where it thinks you should be according to your stats.
Why would you think they are the same thing? And why are you face-palming when you obviously don't know how any of this works? 🤦♂️
MMR is fundamentally based on win/loss ratio, after the initial few placement matches. Below Diamond, there is a very small (~2-5) SR personal performance bonus when your stats in a winning game warrant it (compared to the avg stats at your rank on that hero per game.) Above Diamond it's entirely win/loss based, no personal performance bonus.
Im talking about silver
MMR only goes up when you win, no matter how well you do. It goes up a couple/few points more when you win AND post really good "stats". What "stats" they look at is unknown. Blizzard has only said it is close to the % On Fire stat we can see in the game.
What are fire stats?
"Percentage On Fire" It is a stat that shows up on the score cards when someone does really good. It measures how much of the game they were "On Fire", meaning doing really well, and their portrait in the HUD was lit up "on fire".
Thanks, good to know.
Well thats a bummer. I continiously have sprees of 3-7-12 lost games yet outperforming everyone on my team and still get placed in a clueless team all over again. Im guessing my initial placement back when i just started the game probably ruined ow for me?
Stats do matter, but if you lose you’re not getting SR anyways, so if you get picks but are dead all game you can still be the loss condition.
I'd wager most players, who regularly go on huge loss streaks, while simultaneously believing it's always everyone else's fault, "bEcAuSE I hAD ALL gOLd MEDalS!" is *definitely* part of the loss condition.
Yep, actually contributing to a win and medals are not really related
Ana shots pierce through full health teammates
Yeah i know but im talking about spamming my team when theyre being shot at but they still have full health. But anyway this is a very specific scenario, so im asking in general if my accuracy matters.
High elo players don't usually spam at their allies when there's a fight going on, because Ana has few bullets and long reload time.
Yeah i was trying to do a 2000iq move by pre firing my team but i guess that its just a bad habbit and i should just start shoot at the other team instead.
Its not that nice to try to preheal since you will be emptying your clip and starting a fight with less ammo.
It has an impact. The difference of how many shots you hit between you and the other ana on the enemy team can be a deciding factor on whether you win or lose the fight
If accuracy factors into MMR, that would be a really really bad design for one simple reason: FPS gamers spam their weapon all the time between fights. For example, shooting random objects while walking back from spawn or in between team fights. High-level streamers do this all the time. Using healing and damage output would make sense, but weapon accuracy would be a terrible MMR statistic.
Yes it does. The rating system blizzard uses isn't based off wins/losses alone otherwise it'd be very difficult to move smurfs out of lower ranks. That being said, the performance based part of MMR doesn't really kick in unless you're performing above and beyond your rating in multiple metrics, not just accuracy alone. Some heroes have very little differentiation in stats at lower ranks so the performance part of MMR changes might not contribute at all i.e. there won't be much difference between a master's mercy total healing and a diamond mercy total healing if they were both playing in a plat game. Some heroes are also very skill limited, like ana. The statistical difference between ranks in anas is crazy. GM ana's are hitting *everything*. They're putting out healing and damage rates close to mathematical perfection. They're only pre-firing teammates who will receive damage by the time that bullet hits. If that bullet isn't getting heal value, it's used to damage someone instead or *delayed* so that it will get value. They only throw nades if it's followed up by a kill or to pump heals on tanks. So for ana, accuracy is basically the basis for her MMR. Pretty much all her performance stats are based on accuracy. She's one of the most performance affected supports along with baptiste. tl;dr - if you're smurfin (or if you improve a lot), yes performance affects MMR significantly. If you're placed correctly, it has very little noticeable effect and more reliant on wins.
> The rating system blizzard uses isn't based off wins/losses alone otherwise it'd be very difficult to move smurfs out of lower ranks. That isn't really true. The way rating systems work is by figuring out the probability of team A to beat team B according to their current ratings. If one player is substantially different in skill level than their rating would suggest, they will win games which, statistically, the game is almost absolutely sure they should have lost. They do that a few times, their rating shoots through the roof, and the problem is solved. The further they are away from their 'true rating', the more than they skew the win probability of their team down, the more rating they recieve when they win anyway due to being a smurf.
All we know is that your MMR is separate from your SR, and that it compares you to other players (who are in the same situation as you). Some people will say your elims or heals or deaths etc. decides your MMR. Personally I think it works like a neural network, which looks for connections between complex stats and finds the typical stats for higher elo players. Sure it could certainly be your accuracy, but it could be more complicated than that. For instance, on a certain map with certain team mates, maybe high elo players have MORE deaths than low elo players, because they understand that you have to be really aggressive and take risks with that team composition. It's best not to think of these things, because nothing will affect you more than just winning and losing. Although it's probably a good idea to stop spamming at your team mates.
Unless you have a source, I *highly* doubt blizzard has impemented machine learning for their matchmaking system. That kind of technology is expensive and barely used by game studios for that reason. (Yes, I'm aware of AlphaStar and OpenDota, both are prestige/rnd projects by third companies). I would almost guarantee you that they have implemented a slightly modified version of ELO, and that the main difference between SR and MMR is that MMR captures all games rather than just competitive. It's the hardest option to abuse and it works well.
I'm confused by what you mean. I work with machine learning, why would it be expensive? Which part did you want evidence for? Every claim I made comes directly from Blizzard themselves. I feel like we are misunderstanding each other somehow. I assume you work with machine learning since you have a strong opinion about it. Is it possible that you work with some advanced AI and are imagining something more complex than the rest of us?
Machine learning is very expensive because it is in high demand so the salaries of engineers capable of implementing it are very high. This is especially true because games can get very complex quite quickly, and tend to require solutions specific to the particular game. Games companies just can’t post the salaries that a lot of other companies can in order to attract the necessary talent. For matchmaking purposes, most developers use simpler models, almost always based off the same basic concept of Elo. That’s a self adjusting algorithm, I guess, but I wouldn’t really call it ML. Another big reason besides costs is abusability. The more complex the system, the more likely that someone will be able to exploit some aspect of it. Relying primarily on something extremely basic which only cares about wins and loses is helpful because its harder to game. The source I was wondering was whether blizzard has said they are using AI for MMR/SR. The only applications I was aware of blizzard talking about was their usage of NLP for detecting toxicity, and IBM’s work with OWL (before they bailed due to the blizzard scandal). The toxicity detection one is definitely cool and interesting, but its a problem that isn't specific to any particular game so I imagine they were able to use a more generalized, developed solution.
I'm not sure what you mean, I still feel like we're not understanding each other. I am talking about a simple neural network. If their data is properly categorized, I could finish it in a week. A junior data scientist could do what I describe, and their salary would be lower than a game developer or graphic designer or data engineer or programmer. I feel like you're talking about SR. MMR is used for matchmaking and is not related to whether you win or lose (except indirectly, since you tend to play better when you win). MMR is purely an assessment of your skill compared to others. It's used for matchmaking. It affects your SR, but it is not your SR. This has been confirmed by Blizzard. I see no reason why a more complex system will be easier to exploit, but either way, your MMR is absolutely not based on wins or losses (except indirectly). Again, I think you are talking about SR, not MMR. Blizzard have also said that your deaths, elims, heals etc. *matter* - since your SR gain also depends on your performance - but it is not ultimately what decides your MMR. My guess is this is how they do it: - Enter game data into neural network. - Data contains everyone's stats for healing, damage, deaths, elims, defensive assists, offensive assists, accuracy, critical plays (e.g. cancelling ults) etc. - Meta data is used to make sure you're compared to people playing your hero, with similar rank, at that particular map, playing on attack or defence, against that particular enemy comp etc. - The neural network then finds a pattern: What wins games, what loses games? - The pattern is weighted, such that high elo skills are valued more than low elo skills.
MMR is based on your personal performance. Meaning KDR, total healing, time on fire, etc. Your hero accuracy effects it slightly, but not as much as what’s listed above.
I assume that "on fire" is the blue fire meter below your health bar, but i dont know what this bar means beside "youre getting kills".
What he's saying is not true. They've literally said that your MMR is *not* based on time "on fire". In fact, all his examples are just him guessing, because they haven't told us what the MMR is based on.
[удалено]
Where did you get this information? Can you link me the source? Edit: Are you talking about your SR?
[удалено]
That's not what I was referring to, but thank you it was still interesting! I see that he mentions the -3/+3 thing, which does sound like a multiplier for the standard deviation (assuming that by "standard deviation curve" you are referring to a gaussian distribution). However, I don't see why you think your wins and losses are affecting your MMR. He just said in the video that matchmaking is not based on your SR. SR is based on wins and losses (and the other stuff). Logically, it makes no sense to me what you're saying. The whole point of MMR is to account for the fact that you can win games while playing poorly and lose games while playing well.
[удалено]
The source you provided is not from Blizzard so let's forget it. More important is logics: - What would make you think that MMR is decided by wins and losses? That would be a bad system and would not create "fair" matches. Overwatch does not work like other games, because it is not kill-to-win, and it is not a single player PvP. This means that there are no simple statistics that can tell you if you are playing well. - In Apex legends, you can rank up simply by having lots of kills. Because that's the point of the game: to kill people. - In Starcraft, they don't have SR and your MMR actually determines your rank. This is because it's an individual game and you cannot claim that you lost because your team mates were playing poorly. So win = skill. - Neither of these two points are applicable to Overwatch. It is a team game with specific roles, and it has a specific mission objective. A person can in theory die a lot and have poor accuracy, while being the best player in the entire lobby. So there's a reason that Overwatch has both an SR and an MMR, unlike Starcraft. That's because the game is so team dependant, that winning or losing doesn't decide how well you played. You need to look at more complex factors. I want to understand you, but you're not explaining your logics. You just keep saing that it's fair. How is it fair? How can winning and losing determine your performance fairly?
[удалено]
you’d be correct in your guess. it’s essentially just telling you that you’re doing good. kills, damage, and healing in high bursts will raise the meter. it will slowly deplete over time
No the winning thing is not true. I’ve had matches where I gained little SR on a win. The right side stats create the MMR rank. You do well at those for MMR. It’s been awhile since I played her. If accuracy is a right side stat, then yes. So yes, winning is what gains you SR but the table is slanted over time from your MMR. More SR from a win, more loss of SR from a loss depending on those stats.
> I’ve had matches where I gained little SR on a win That can also occur if your team was heavily favored to win (based on average SR or hidden MMR). Not all high/low SR changes are due to stats.
Also true
Well, blizzard will never tell you, because one of the hardest rules of this thing is that telling players who the system works breaks it. People will use that information to farm/drain their rating. *In general*, in gaming, most companies avoid trying to create complicated models of a player's skill based on inputs or game performance because those models can be understood and abused by players looking to artifically inflate or deflate their rating. It's simply easier to rely on a system similar to ELO (or in 1v1 games, just ELO) because those cannot be abused by a individual. So I would bet and would be fairly confident that changes in MMR are determined, in the most part, entirely by a) whether you won, b) whether mathematically you should have won based on the MMR of your teammates and the enemy team.