The Matchmaker's primary purpose is to promote player engagement by ensuring that every match has an equal chance of being a win or loss, regardless of player skill or player veterancy. There's many reasons for this. Bad players will stop playing if they never get wins. Good players will get bored if they seldom lose. Additionally, what makes a game fun isn't always demonstrating and using skill… what is considered to be "fun" is derived from uncertain outcomes. Without uncertainty, something ceases to be fun because it becomes a measurement. Measurements aren't fun.
Game devs are also very aware that a match having an even chance of being a win or a loss fuels the "gambling" aspect that makes a player want to try again and keep playing. I know we've all been there.
If we think about the matchmaker in these terms, trying to give every player a 50% chance of winning every time… things start to make more sense. Especially when factoring in another thing the game developers want match making to accomplish: Games ending fast. The more matches, the more the player participates in the game economy. Evenly matched teams could accomplish a similar goal of a player having a 50/50 chance of winning, but those matches would be extremely drawn out. A player can have a blowout and a 'normal' match in a not too much more than the span of a close one that uses the full twenty minutes
It's been an open secret for people using match making monitors that teams will be ruthlessly stacked with low WR against high WR. This is the MM working as intended. In these situations you're merely being told "it's your time to lose" or "here's your free win" because the match maker wants to make sure your overall winrate stays as close to that 50% target as possible.
To me, this is incredibly frustrating because it means the player actually has very little control over the outcome of the match if they are shoveled onto a team of low WR versus almost all high WR. All the time and energy invested in skills and veterancy is reduced to a coin toss out of our control in the MM.
Maybe this would be better if losing a match wasn't so punishing. I hate nothing more than the helplessness of watching a team flounder and collapse. The huge hit to player economy when a victory is not achieved also stings. Losses are unfortunate and induce toxic feelings far in excess of how common they are in the gameplay loop. Losing in games like these is to breathing out like winning is to breathing in as far as the devs are concerned, so it should hurt less.
Even freshman college level game devs know that even though uncertain outcomes are "fun," but taking control away from the player to such an extent and handing them outcomes that feel so unfair is terrible. Especially in a game that has so much to learn and such a spectrum of ability. I honestly see no point in playing when my 10,000+ matches worth of experience aren't even given the chance to be applied because of hopelessly stacked teams. I could have played the game for two hours and the MM would still work in a way to feed as close to a 50% WR as possible.
The way this all shakes out in practice is a player gradually becomes punished for their own ability to achieve victory, because a positive WR only ensures the MM will try to force them back towards 50% by sticking them on a team that is impossible to win with. I can't think of a greater slap in the face to a player than rewarding mastery with futility in an effort to mitigate the benefits incumbent to being skilled and experienced.
Anyway, that's my rant. This "theory" is founded on watching many GDC talks including ones made by WG developers and ones specifically about match making and the F2P space. I myself have played over 10,000 matches and have played on and off for 4 years. Having heard many other theories, I never hear this one and to me it's the one that makes the most sense and explains the phenomena we're all familiar with
This post backs up these claims. If i can find the the video where this is outlined verbatim ill link it as well:
Source: Original link
© Post "The why the Matchmaker seems broken and blowouts explained, For real." for game World of Warships.
Top 10 Most Anticipated Video Games of 2020
2020 will have something to satisfy classic and modern gamers alike. To be eligible for the list, the game must be confirmed for 2020, or there should be good reason to expect its release in that year. Therefore, upcoming games with a mere announcement and no discernible release date will not be included.
Top 15 NEW Games of 2020 [FIRST HALF]
2020 has a ton to look forward to...in the video gaming world. Here are fifteen games we're looking forward to in the first half of 2020.