>>969635 >Barely makes games anymore >More industrious They thrive off of being a publisher and collecting a percentage of all sales now. Their industry is just being middlemen.

I decided to uninstall the game today, I felt like I was falling into the same rut which Dota 2 put me in years ago. The matchmaking is clearly not fair for solo play, you are more likely to have fun with a full party but good luck finding one, and soli matchmaking deliberately seems to make your winrate stuck at a steady 50% which is fucking criminal. At least with Dota I had only four other variables to worry about, now with Deadlock you have to worry about 5 other variables. Very very rarely do I ever get an evenly matched game, and I know this because I love those kinds. They are the ones which usually go on the longest with tons of back and forth between the two teams. Mostly, though, I have to deal with full on wipes with retarded teammates feeding the enemy team. Wouldn't be quite as much of a problem if characters had clear roles like in Dota but as it stands, every character in Deadlock is a carry to be played mostly selfishly. Too many times now have I had really successful early lanes only to get bomblasted by the other lanes ganking because they are fed to high hell by my teammates. I shouldn't have to deal with a game like this where fun is not guaranteed and depends on the quality of my teammates. Not to mention, my interest will just go straight down the shitter with no return when (not if) they add paid cosmetics. Take this as a cautionary tale.

>>971433 >I'm seeing such a pathetic cope. >>>/cuckchan/ >>973494 >>After the initial panic I had to step back and ask, wait a minute, Valve is barely a gaming studio at this point, I mean is Sweet Baby Inc going to fuck up Half Life 3? Is there going to be a TF3 with trans characters? What is there for Sweet Baby to infect? <Doesn't even conceive of them infecting the game approval process >>1011228 >soli matchmaking deliberately seems to make your winrate stuck at a steady 50% which is fucking criminal. What? If you're winning half the time, doesn't that mean it's giving you either evenly matched opponents, or at least an equal amount of better and worse opponents? Isn't that matchmaking working well?

>>1011232 >Doesn't that mean it's giving you either evenly matched opponents <One game you are in a team full of pros who all know what they're doing and work together just as well as they work in a team so you roflstomp the other team and win quickly <Next game you are in a team full of feeders who have never played the hero they're using, leading you to lose quickly without even having a chance at carrying the team to victory Since you're new, I'll forgive you, but no that is not a sign of good matchmaking. Genuinely fair matchmaking would cause one's winrate to be something more irregular, like 70% or 80% if they're good, or 20% to 30% if they're bad. A straight 50/50 is suspect at best. This has been proven not only in Dota but also Counter Strike. Look it up.

>>1011236 I guess that what I get for mostly playing solo offline games.

>>1011236 Pure MMR based matchmaking doesn't artificially cause a 50% winrate. It happens organically as you hit the ceiling of your skill level. Smurfing wouldn't exist if the game artificially forced a 50% winrate. Matchmaking manipulation is more common in things like CoD where Activision gets a hard-on running hilarious jew experiments like matching you with people using skins your advertisement profile says you'd be inclined to buy.

>>1011261 Smurfing happens regardless of the 50% winrate, those few occurrences of a smurf being in your game could sway your game one way or the other but at the end of the day your winrate will still either be 50% or somewhere near it, give or take 5%-10%. Smurfing is just someone with an exponentially higher skill level going to an exponentially lower skill level, so much so that the game's inherent 50% matchmaking scheme isn't strong enough to cause the smurf to lose as often as it wants it to. The smurf can still lose if the cards are stacked high enough against him, although that's less likely depending on the game and the patch status and the character he picks. Like in Dota 2, a good smurf needs only pick a selfish hard carry and then he can mostly save the game by himself. In Deadlock, I don't see smurfing working very well since every character is a potential hard carry. Believe me, the forced 50% winrate is a real thing, and it's not got anything to do with an arbitrary skill ceiling. You could argue that for one-on-one games like Street Fighter, but not games like this wherein your game experience highly depends on the quality of your teammates, randomly chosen.

>>1011266 Just sounds like a conspiracy theory, especially when your proof is "trust me". Win rates will always inevitably end up near 50% in an MMR system completely independent of any manipulation. >You could argue that for one-on-one games like Street Fighter, but not games like this wherein your game experience highly depends on the quality of your teammates, randomly chosen. Other players are irrelevant, they only increase the total number of games required to accurately represent MMR because of variability.

>>1011270 The proof is in all the people reporting the 50% winrate and justifiably complaining about it. Are you really going to argue that Valve matchmaking is 100% accurate and everyone who gets placed the way they are is the exact MMR they should be in, with no errors or failure to account for certain other variables? We also know that it's not impossible for mmr to be manipulated as you know about Activision's CoD matchmaking fiasco. It's just too much of a coincidence for someone to play 20 games all in the same day, go on a long losing streak, then shortly thereafter, go on a long winning streak, returning them to around 50%. >Other players are irrelevant, Lol

>>1011293 >The proof is in all the people reporting the 50% winrate and justifiably complaining about it. So the proof that people are artificially getting a 50% win rate in a system that inevitably results in a 50% win rate at your MMR skill ceiling, is that they complain about it...? >Are you really going to argue that Valve matchmaking is 100% accurate and everyone who gets placed the way they are is the exact MMR they should be in, with no errors or failure to account for certain other variables? There are enough players on a game like Dota to reliably be matched with people within a reasonable MMR range, yes. And even if there weren't that wouldn't mean the games were being fixed to force a certain win rate. It would just mean the matchmaking wasn't consistently lining up team MMR. >It's just too much of a coincidence for someone to play 20 games all in the same day, go on a long losing streak, then shortly thereafter, go on a long winning streak, returning them to around 50%. Experiments and data showing examples of this would be actual evidence supporting your narrative. But somehow I doubt people have consistently demonstrated this phenomenon beyond random reddit comments asserting it as the case. I'm sure it happens in some games, but I doubt it happens in Valve's games. Why would Valve actively ban smurfs if they had a system that completely mitigates them already in place? <Other players are irrelevant, They're irrelevant to the claims you're making, yes.

>the sheer amount of dilation from people just completely unwilling to admit that they just fucking suck and need to git gud apex kek

>>1011298 Its fucking stupid honestly. I never got this argument. They whine like the game is completely fucking rigged but in that case why the fuck do people have different elo at all? Its only natural that you climb to a certain point where you simply meet your peers and stop until you improve enough to be able to climb higher. I like how these faggots never account for the 100 billions smurf accounts or how come confirmed "pros" climb the high-ranks in zero time with new accounts. And even if the rigging they whine about is actually happening, that fundamentally doesnt matter because unless Gaben personally flagged your account then you will eventually reach a level were the "rigging" balances out with your skill. Like, if you are a lower elo than your skill level that means you should be capable to OVERCOME the rigging until you reach a point where your skill balances out with what the "rigged" matchmaking throws at you.

>>1011326 The claim is that in order to force you to a 50% win rate the game will match you with extremely bad players to bring it back to 50% if it's at 60%. But it makes zero logical sense for an MMR system to do that in the first place because a 60% win rate will just result in you leapfrogging MMR until you reach a skill threshold that naturally brings your win rate back down. The conspiracy theory that LoL players post about is that Riot doesn't care about MMR and their matchmaking system is based around an AI neural network that calculates in real time whether or not you losing or winning will make you more likely to keep engaged with the game. Which doesn't really make much sense since I can't think of a scenario where losing in ASSFAGGOTs would ever make anyone want to keep playing the game.

>>1011384 Well, acktually, I fully believe that there is in fact an algorithm fucking with the games you get aside from pure mmr. This is a known fact. Valve has a "toxicity" rating as well which puts you with people in your behavioral bracket. It was actually a god-send back when I still played Dota because the quality of player massively improved. And it wasn't about skill, there were still shitters, including me, but magically everyone became a better sport about it. In LoL, I think, there is an algorithm that gives you easier games for a short while after not playing for like a month and coming back. But like I said, magical 50/50 shit is 100% not real. And the only way it would even work is if your account specifically gets blacklisted in some way. I think read that statistically, in LoL, you will auto-win 2 game, auto-lose 2 games and then 2 more will actually be determined by your own performance. But again, this is a statistic, and that data comes mostly from low mmr/elo players since they are the overwhelming majority.

>>1011402 >Valve has a "toxicity" rating as well which puts you with people in your behavioral bracket This is different from a hidden engagement farming neural network. It's not obfuscated information, it's publicly displayed.

>>1011402 Only thing I know is that a long time ago, some anon made a huge breakdown on matchmaking quality by controlling for amount spent in the micro-transaction shop, he ended up finding that buying new champions lead to way better games and bigger win-rate, so riot was rewarding players that spent money better by having them play matches with people worse than them. It was weird, but I lost those as time went on. As for Deadlock, I've been playing a lot solo, in duos, and with up to 5 other friends and something to note is that I always end up in the same lane as another friend of mine, we're both the best players in the group and it's usual (though not guaranteed) that our opposing lane has some equivalent players, whereas other lanes are according to their matchmaking, so I think the lane-MMR hypothesis is valid, but a bit iffy to prove because I play in large groups and it's known that usually matchmaking finds groups to mirror groups as well.

>>1011458 Pretty sure they've just stated that's how it works publicly, the lane MMR shit that is. Or at least I heard that information as if it was known public info.

>>1011458 >>1011460 I can confirm that isn't how the lanes work. I was asked on at least two occasions to swap lanes with someone because they were "in the same party together"

>>1011556 Why would that change whether or not the game matches you with an opponent that has similar MMR?

>>1011183 >In tf2 the characters had uniformity while still looking all unique from each-other, and it still holds up today if you remove hats despite having a black guy. Absolutely agreed, and that was on purpose Too many games these days make their characters look too unique, eye catching, and special for the purpose of selling skins/copies, which actually hurts the game in the long run When everyone's unique and super special, no one will be, better to blend as a team

I wish the game had more characters who showed no skin. That removes any issues of muh diversity/muh womyn/muh whatever Just have them all be knights/robots/fully covered with stylistic shadows It's classy and can be easily altered to fit the games style

>>1011622 >That removes any issues of muh diversity/muh womyn/muh whatever No it doesn't. See ultrakill

What's the appeal of ASSFAGGOTS anyway? I and a ton of other people were turned off from this game due to the DOTA elements of things, what's there to even like about this genre? I've even played the original DOTA mod on LAN parties and even with that I still don't see how this genre could be fun outside of typical group shenanigans that ensue during LAN parties.

>>1011635 >what's there to even like about this genre? Nothing

>>1011635 The real fun is how hackers will rape the matches or scammers sending all their bots in once the game's polygon crap becomes tradable. Not sure if Steam's platform is so exploitable to the point of getting your shit stolen by just adding into your friend-list those fucking sockpuppets.

>>1011635 Team based PvP with a large variety in match ups/heroes, making most games feel quite different from one another. There's something wonderful that happens when you're playing at higher ratings: every few games everyone on both teams just clicks and it just feels amazing.

>>1011384 The thing is they decouple the ranking and matchmaking progress from your actual visible rank, and then fucking boomerangs around so you have matches wildly outside of your skill range. I don't know about ASSFAGGOTS but I (unfortunately) played Apex Legends for ages, and the devs literally admitted this is how the system works. It always matched me with Predators when I was in Platinum. If I start doing bad (or throw a half-dozen matches) it puts you in a CPU lobby where you can easily get 30 kills. The game will suddenly decide "You play like a Master rank" because you got lucky for 3 games in a row and then suddenly you're in a lobby with esports streamers. I do not think that I deserve to be top ranked unless I put the work in, but being ranked against people who trounce all over me robs me of the opportunity to learn how to get better. And just wastes my time because team games take 20-40 minutes. Someone mentioned Street Fighter. Sure, fightgaems are only 1v1 but I don't see any way this process is much different than team games. Fightgames like SF and Tekken only take your rank into account when matching ranked. The only time you'll be at the extreme ends of matches is if you're at the extreme ends of the ranks, where it literally can't match you with higher or lower level players. You always fight at your rank plus-or-minus one. You get a mostly flat amount of points for a victory and a loss. Why aren't these other bigger games like that? For a populated game with hundreds of thousands of players like Apex or CoD or ASSFAGGOTS, why do they have to have an hidden algorithm that makes your displayed rank a mere suggestion? If I cream my local chess club three weeks in a row, I don't suddenly get invited to play against Magnus Carlsen. It's literally welfare for ranked games, it only benefits the complete noobs and the best of the best, leaving the middle-class players stuck in a proverbial Chinese finger trap where the harder you pull, the more it squeezes your dick. Or I don't know I could just be a salty scrub idk >>1011635 I think when games get super competitive, it's the draw of "oh shit I just did something that was really fucking amazing and against all the odds, and against another human being, too." Like acing another squad in a shooter, or coming back and winning while at one touch from death in a fighting game.

>>1011678 >If I cream my local chess club three weeks in a row, I don't suddenly get invited to play against Magnus Carlsen Bitch, please. Don't go talking to me about how the chess rankings are somehow fair. Everyone who gets who gets to master or above and/or participates in the CWC or WCC in some capacity is fully aware of the bias in favour of asian players. Once you get good enough at chess you start to understand that asians can't really get past a certain skill threshold. I don't know if it has to do with genetics or it's just cultural or educational I'd be curious to see if asian players educated in western countries have that same handicap, but they're just too damn predictable. Which in turn makes them extremely vulnerable to pre-game computer analysis. At the end of the day, asian players are predictable because they all rook the same.

>>1011678 >coming back and winning while at one touch from death in a fighting game ASSFAGGOTS doesn't allow stuff like this to happen because of its snowball design with items and hero power, or does it?

>>1011699 It does. There's plenty of counterplay available through proper warding and counterwarding. Ganking a carry and forcing a buy back or de-warding an area and forcing the enemy team to retreat is extremely effective. Of course, if the other team has an overwhelming early game advantage due to poor play on your team's part then a comeback is unlikely. And even then you have to factor in late game scaling heroes vs pushers and whatnot. It's far more nuanced than "the other team has X more gold and Y more exp, therefor we're guaranteed to lose".

>>1011685 >because they all rook the same.

>>1011718 There's a difference between something being theoretically possible and something being practically applicable. What you're describing doesn't even have the possibility of occurring in 98% of matches based on any number of variables. In a fighting game it is always practical to come back from the brink of losing. In Dota your skill is the last step of the equation, not the only step. MMR in Dota is a matter of skill represented over the course of thousands of games. Individual matches have very little room for skill expression once the enemy team starts to snowball because of a bad player on your team. It's an inherently flawed "competitive" genre that is only popular because it layers on a series of psychological traps that trigger peoples gambling addiction. Almost every single game in Dota is decided at the draft screen.

>>1011781 Jesus Christ stop talking out of your ass. You are the smelliest sore loser.

>>1011794 Not an argument

>>1011801 Nor is yours because what you say is blatantly untrue.

>>1012315 No it isn't.