BGs is getting annoying, Kabam, you have to change something, idk what, but something.

If nascar and professional sports teams allowed anybody to race or play those analogies would be accurate. They don't. Cars are regulated and have to be approved. You also have to have a license to be a nascar driver. Sports teams have criterias and separate divisions/leagues to bring integrity to their competition. And even within the same league, association, etc., those teams have guidelines that must be met.
I don't think you understand what analogies even are. When someone says X is like Y, in that these properties of X are similar to those properties of Y, and thus function similarly, that's how humans attempt to explain a position. This is not a mathematical proof that Y must function like X, such that any difference between X and Y invalidates the analogy.

I think most people reading my post understood the analogy, which is the purpose of the analogy. They might not agree with the position, but the analogy is only there to describe the position, not to prove the position is correct. So in what way does licensing NASCAR drivers invalidate my analogy? In what way does it confuses or otherwise mislead people reading the post and trying to understand what I am trying to express, at least for those making an honest attempt to do so?
This community use analogies as a position of fact. As for your licensing question, you have to be a licensed Nascar driver to race in Nascar. Nascar won't just give anyone a license to race and tell them good luck in the competition.

Again: how does this change the situation? NASCAR is also run on a circular track that must be itself certified. MCOC can be played anywhere there's internet connectivity. But how does this matter in the slightest?

Stature

I'm not disputing that it's a competition. In fact, I've grown to hate the word because of the amount of times it's been used in these discussions.
In any case, I'm talking about the Matches that have such a difference in Rosters that it means even if both sides play with perfect technique, one side will lose. It's just a certainty with the backdrop of how Champs interact with each other in combination of Nodes. So my question is, how is it a measure of performance when both performances are perfect, and one has no choice but to lose?

Why is this a specific concern. There is lot of content which is equally hard outside BG, nodes where you can play perfectly and still lose but someone else can cheese them with the right counter or an overpowered roster. Roster is part of the game, if some matches are guaranteed losses, that is just a pointer to strengthen one's roster.

The only way BGs can be 100% fair in all aspects is giving the same defaulted deck to everybody with the same set of masteries and making everyone face each other in a league structure.
Now try selling that proposal to a gacha gaming company.
That's common knowledge. It's why gachas only implement leaderboards for ranking purposes and not competitive. The competitive ways are usually a community effort to get that feeling. Whether its mobile fighting game, city builder, they walk the tight rope to not use term competitive because its misleading and incorrect. You already know my stance though. But there are players speaking on BGs as if its an actual ranked competitive mode. And they invalidate actual ranked competitive games when brought up for possible implementation for improvements.

I know of no one involved with game design that I believe would either take this position or even articulate it as if it was common knowledge.

The idea that games with gatcha elements avoid using the term "competitive" to describe game modes as a matter of religious observance or technical professional accuracy seems to me to be something someone made up on an internet discussion forum and no one challenged. This is no true Scotsman applied to competitions in an extreme and honestly weird edge case.

Stature

Clearly after reading the comments you guys are thinking about other things that Im not even mentioning, so Ill make it quick, fast and easy:

If you win vs a much bigger account, you should get more than 1 medal, maybe 1 and a half or 2, since its harder for you to win, so it means that you are way better than the player you are matching.

Nobody cares about matchmaking, Im okay with fighting BeroMan or Lagacy, the point is that right now, roster makes more difference than skill, at least at Diamond/Vibranium.
I'm still waiting on the answer of defining the bigger account. What makes the other account much bigger, "twice as much" as you have said.
Ill showcase my own, I have 9 R4s, 6 7*R1s, and the rest are R3s, 3 of the 6* and all the 7* being undupped, I usually play vs at least 4 to 6 R5s, a couple 7 R2s, 3 or 4 7*R1s and the rest R4 6*, this being the average ones Im getting match with at least the last 2 days on D1, those ARE NOT the ones im talking about, since vs this guys im still able to win maybe 60% of times, BUT, at least yesterday, which is why I posted this, I got vs some titans in a row, people with half R5s, only R2 7*, all dupped, even some from Titan Crystals, and obviously, R3 to R4 in most cases is already enough difference to make you lose with similar skills and in some cases maybe even being better depending on the champs, but R5s and R2s vs my roster is already a decent difference, maybe Im exagerating and that due to having to play vs 4 of those in a row, but I dont think a win vs this accounts with mine, has the same value as winning a similar one.
If you want a simple answer, the reason this won't happen is it will discourage people from ranking up champs. Better players will refrain from ranking champs knowing they can beat lesser skilled players with larger rosters and progress faster. That is a direct monetary loss of the game.

Even if there were no monetary conditions, it goes against the fundamentals of the game. If you can't beat content, you do easier content to gather resources and strengthen your roster. Then you tackle the harder content. In this setting you cannot have a game mode which actively discourages stronger rosters.
Not quite, if something like this were to be a thing in mcoc we wouldn't be talking about "oh this person has five r5s and this one has ten, the person with five won't r5 more champs so they can beat the one with ten who sucks and get two medals". The difference in prestige would have to be at the very least 5k, no person would stop ranking up champs completely just so they can try to beat someone with a huge roster advantage and get two medals cause 9 times out of 10 they won't be able to beat them.

Why 5K, why not 3K or 7K or 10K? Once you open that up for discussion, it is a slippery slope. You would be surprised to the extent some players will try to game the system. Anyone with the long term health of the game in mind, will not implement this type of system. The game relies on people ranking up champions. I don't think there will ever be a step with actively discourages this to any level.

KTPrimal

The only way BGs can be 100% fair in all aspects is giving the same defaulted deck to everybody with the same set of masteries and making everyone face each other in a league structure.
Now try selling that proposal to a gacha gaming company.
That's common knowledge. It's why gachas only implement leaderboards for ranking purposes and not competitive. The competitive ways are usually a community effort to get that feeling. Whether its mobile fighting game, city builder, they walk the tight rope to not use term competitive because its misleading and incorrect. You already know my stance though. But there are players speaking on BGs as if its an actual ranked competitive mode. And they invalidate actual ranked competitive games when brought up for possible implementation for improvements.
I know of no one involved with game design that I believe would either take this position or even articulate it as if it was common knowledge.

The idea that games with gatcha elements avoid using the term "competitive" to describe game modes as a matter of religious observance or technical professional accuracy seems to me to be something someone made up on an internet discussion forum and no one challenged. This is no true Scotsman applied to competitions in an extreme and honestly weird edge case.

It's because in spirit you can't have a true competitive game with P2W elements. It's why competitive games only sell skins. Because allowing P2W elements removes competitiveness.

Then how do you consider it a measure of performance if one of those Rosters ensures a Loss no matter how the other Player performs? That really removes the performance from the equation from my perspective.
1. Losses measure performance. It means you lost.

2. There is no such thing as a roster difference alone guaranteeing loss. You might have a very low chance of winning. But I will bet the best player with a UC roster beats the worst player with a top roster at least 10% of the time.

I have beaten players with rosters ten times stronger than me while playing on alt accounts. It doesn't happen often, but it happens. So there's no such thing as a match up determined only by roster. Even with a huge roster advantage, you still have to play the match. A good player with a great roster can beat a great player with a bad roster. But that is as it should be.

See, I'm going to have to disagree with that. There is a point where you're guaranteeing a Loss.

The only way BGs can be 100% fair in all aspects is giving the same defaulted deck to everybody with the same set of masteries and making everyone face each other in a league structure.
Now try selling that proposal to a gacha gaming company.
That's common knowledge. It's why gachas only implement leaderboards for ranking purposes and not competitive. The competitive ways are usually a community effort to get that feeling. Whether its mobile fighting game, city builder, they walk the tight rope to not use term competitive because its misleading and incorrect. You already know my stance though. But there are players speaking on BGs as if its an actual ranked competitive mode. And they invalidate actual ranked competitive games when brought up for possible implementation for improvements.
I know of no one involved with game design that I believe would either take this position or even articulate it as if it was common knowledge.

The idea that games with gatcha elements avoid using the term "competitive" to describe game modes as a matter of religious observance or technical professional accuracy seems to me to be something someone made up on an internet discussion forum and no one challenged. This is no true Scotsman applied to competitions in an extreme and honestly weird edge case.
It's because in spirit you can't have a true competitive game with P2W elements. It's why competitive games only sell skins. Because allowing P2W elements removes competitiveness.

I sympathize with your position to some degree, but that's basically redefining the word "competition" in a non-useful way. It might seem like simply calling BG "not a competition" gets some critical point across, but it doesn't. Most competitions in the world, or at least activities people call competitions, do not obey your requirements. It is completely worthless to have to invent all new terminology to describe competitions in all but the few disqualifiers you personally have.

All competitive activities have rules that determine what advantages are "fair" and which ones are not. "Pay to win" is highly subjective in that sense, because it requires buy-in from both the competitors and all other participants of the activity (for example, spectators in spectator sports). The NFL has a salary cap, the MLB does not. Does that make the MLB a pay to win activity, and thus not a true competition? I'm sure you will find some people who would say that, but the vast majority don't. And they are the ones who count: there's no objective perspective from which to judge them.

Even a game like Chess has pay to win elements. Until the very recent rise of online tournaments, classical chess tournaments happened in person all over the world. To be a legitimate world competitor of Chess, you actually needed to spend a ton of money. You had to be either rich (in relative terms) or have rich sponsors. We're talking tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. That's whale territory. And you can't just say that this is pay to play but not pay to win, because rating matters, and it is possible to farm rating by going to more tournaments. In other words, you can actually grind with money in Chess. Not to mention that these days, the very best competitors use supercomputers to train with. These are not free. In top tier play if you go up against a strong player who has worked out the opening with a supercomputer, and you are unfamiliar with that opening, you will likely operate at a very significant disadvantage. Even Chess is not immune from money.

Who decides what's fair and what's not? This isn't objective, and thus no objective definition of "competition" can have vague absolute criteria like "if there are pay to win elements it is not a true competition." Because who judges that statement decides subjectively what is and is not a competition. Which is why no one actually does this in any professional circle.

Then how do you consider it a measure of performance if one of those Rosters ensures a Loss no matter how the other Player performs? That really removes the performance from the equation from my perspective.
1. Losses measure performance. It means you lost.

2. There is no such thing as a roster difference alone guaranteeing loss. You might have a very low chance of winning. But I will bet the best player with a UC roster beats the worst player with a top roster at least 10% of the time.

I have beaten players with rosters ten times stronger than me while playing on alt accounts. It doesn't happen often, but it happens. So there's no such thing as a match up determined only by roster. Even with a huge roster advantage, you still have to play the match. A good player with a great roster can beat a great player with a bad roster. But that is as it should be.
See, I'm going to have to disagree with that. There is a point where you're guaranteeing a Loss.

I believe it is impossible for you to post a roster that guarantees a win, that I can't find a human with sufficiently poor skill that will still lose with that roster even if they try.

In any case, I'm talking about the Matches that have such a difference in Rosters that it means even if both sides play with perfect technique, one side will lose. It's just a certainty with the backdrop of how Champs interact with each other in combination of Nodes. So my question is, how is it a measure of performance when both performances are perfect, and one has no choice but to lose?

We call those matches "all the matches." Because in every match, if both players draft and play perfectly, the side with the stronger roster will win. Because outside of random chance generating a completely busted draft what else would decide who wins?

Then how do you consider it a measure of performance if one of those Rosters ensures a Loss no matter how the other Player performs? That really removes the performance from the equation from my perspective.
1. Losses measure performance. It means you lost.

2. There is no such thing as a roster difference alone guaranteeing loss. You might have a very low chance of winning. But I will bet the best player with a UC roster beats the worst player with a top roster at least 10% of the time.

I have beaten players with rosters ten times stronger than me while playing on alt accounts. It doesn't happen often, but it happens. So there's no such thing as a match up determined only by roster. Even with a huge roster advantage, you still have to play the match. A good player with a great roster can beat a great player with a bad roster. But that is as it should be.
See, I'm going to have to disagree with that. There is a point where you're guaranteeing a Loss.
I believe it is impossible for you to post a roster that guarantees a win, that I can't find a human with sufficiently poor skill that will still lose with that roster even if they try.

You're operating under the premise that the person would have a strong Roster and just stand there? I'm talking about two Players who are actually trying. People aren't generally playing with ascended R5s and R2 7*s without any skill.
The strengths of the Champs on each side absolutely has an effect on how the Match will play out, and when you're talking about being a measure of skill, even at the highest measure (both sides performing perfectly), one side is guaranteed to lose. Through no fault of their performance. So it's not only a measure of performance. It's also a measure of what they're putting up.

In any case, I'm talking about the Matches that have such a difference in Rosters that it means even if both sides play with perfect technique, one side will lose. It's just a certainty with the backdrop of how Champs interact with each other in combination of Nodes. So my question is, how is it a measure of performance when both performances are perfect, and one has no choice but to lose?
We call those matches "all the matches." Because in every match, if both players draft and play perfectly, the side with the stronger roster will win. Because outside of random chance generating a completely busted draft what else would decide who wins?

Right. My point is, you can't claim that Roster size has no bearing at all with that fact.

You're operating under the premise that the person would have a strong Roster and just stand there?

No.

It does, that's exactly how MMR works. Both Dead by Daylight and Overwatch have MMR and that's how it works, go look it up instead of replying with "it's not true because I said so".
If I understand it correctly, Death by Daylight's SMMR functions more like simplified hidden ELO than roster strength scoring. This isn't just a quibble of detail, because SMMR and ELO are both affected by actual competitive performance, while roster strength is not. To put it another way, someone with a strong roster who loses a lot, which implies that their overall competitive strength is low compared to peers, would retain the same roster strength score and continue to be matched against stronger players, while an MCOC player under ELO matching or a Dead by Daylight player matching with SMMR that kept losing would lose rating and thus lower their matched opponents.

To put it another way, the difference is feedback. Both SMMR and ELO attempt, in different ways, to determine the "true" performance of the player by measuring their wins and losses. Roster matching does not. And so in game theory terms, ELO is self-correcting, SMMR is a correction factor, and roster matching is putting your thumbs on the scales permanently.

Back when it was announced no, the developers themselves presented it as "matchmaking rating" and based on my own experience, I can say it is definitely MMR even though it is hidden. How do I know this? Well, if you die in a sweaty match you almost always get a relatively easier match after that, if you die again next one will be even easier. However, if you manage to clutch it and escape you're gonna have an even tougher match after that and this pattern is quite consistent. Sometimes when there aren't enough players for one of the roles it won't follow the same pattern and instead it'll expand the search but 9 times out of 10 it does follow that same pattern depending on whether you won or lost. Sure one could say that's just a coincidence but I'm leaning more towards it being the MMR because that's what the developers said.
I've no idea how they could even make this work in BGs or if it's even possible but saying that no video game gives you more points for defeating a stronger player (which is what Demonzfyre was saying) is simply not true cause a lot do and it just so happens I play two of them.

In any case, I'm talking about the Matches that have such a difference in Rosters that it means even if both sides play with perfect technique, one side will lose. It's just a certainty with the backdrop of how Champs interact with each other in combination of Nodes. So my question is, how is it a measure of performance when both performances are perfect, and one has no choice but to lose?
We call those matches "all the matches." Because in every match, if both players draft and play perfectly, the side with the stronger roster will win. Because outside of random chance generating a completely busted draft what else would decide who wins?
Right. My point is, you can't claim that Roster size has no bearing at all with that fact.

No one claims roster has no bearing on who wins. So if that is your point, that point is conceded. Roster has an effect. Now may I ask why, if that is the point you wish to make, you would say "I'm talking about the Matches that have such a difference in Rosters that it means even if both sides play with perfect technique, one side will lose" which is demonstrably false. This seems to be an inefficient way to attempt to make an obvious point.

Clearly after reading the comments you guys are thinking about other things that Im not even mentioning, so Ill make it quick, fast and easy:

If you win vs a much bigger account, you should get more than 1 medal, maybe 1 and a half or 2, since its harder for you to win, so it means that you are way better than the player you are matching.

Nobody cares about matchmaking, Im okay with fighting BeroMan or Lagacy, the point is that right now, roster makes more difference than skill, at least at Diamond/Vibranium.
I'm still waiting on the answer of defining the bigger account. What makes the other account much bigger, "twice as much" as you have said.
Ill showcase my own, I have 9 R4s, 6 7*R1s, and the rest are R3s, 3 of the 6* and all the 7* being undupped, I usually play vs at least 4 to 6 R5s, a couple 7 R2s, 3 or 4 7*R1s and the rest R4 6*, this being the average ones Im getting match with at least the last 2 days on D1, those ARE NOT the ones im talking about, since vs this guys im still able to win maybe 60% of times, BUT, at least yesterday, which is why I posted this, I got vs some titans in a row, people with half R5s, only R2 7*, all dupped, even some from Titan Crystals, and obviously, R3 to R4 in most cases is already enough difference to make you lose with similar skills and in some cases maybe even being better depending on the champs, but R5s and R2s vs my roster is already a decent difference, maybe Im exagerating and that due to having to play vs 4 of those in a row, but I dont think a win vs this accounts with mine, has the same value as winning a similar one.
If you want a simple answer, the reason this won't happen is it will discourage people from ranking up champs. Better players will refrain from ranking champs knowing they can beat lesser skilled players with larger rosters and progress faster. That is a direct monetary loss of the game.

Even if there were no monetary conditions, it goes against the fundamentals of the game. If you can't beat content, you do easier content to gather resources and strengthen your roster. Then you tackle the harder content. In this setting you cannot have a game mode which actively discourages stronger rosters.
Not quite, if something like this were to be a thing in mcoc we wouldn't be talking about "oh this person has five r5s and this one has ten, the person with five won't r5 more champs so they can beat the one with ten who sucks and get two medals". The difference in prestige would have to be at the very least 5k, no person would stop ranking up champs completely just so they can try to beat someone with a huge roster advantage and get two medals cause 9 times out of 10 they won't be able to beat them.
Why 5K, why not 3K or 7K or 10K? Once you open that up for discussion, it is a slippery slope. You would be surprised to the extent some players will try to game the system. Anyone with the long term health of the game in mind, will not implement this type of system. The game relies on people ranking up champions. I don't think there will ever be a step with actively discourages this to any level.

Cause 5k would be the only way to implement something like this in a way that it isn't exploitable like sandbagging was.

It does, that's exactly how MMR works. Both Dead by Daylight and Overwatch have MMR and that's how it works, go look it up instead of replying with "it's not true because I said so".
If I understand it correctly, Death by Daylight's SMMR functions more like simplified hidden ELO than roster strength scoring. This isn't just a quibble of detail, because SMMR and ELO are both affected by actual competitive performance, while roster strength is not. To put it another way, someone with a strong roster who loses a lot, which implies that their overall competitive strength is low compared to peers, would retain the same roster strength score and continue to be matched against stronger players, while an MCOC player under ELO matching or a Dead by Daylight player matching with SMMR that kept losing would lose rating and thus lower their matched opponents.

To put it another way, the difference is feedback. Both SMMR and ELO attempt, in different ways, to determine the "true" performance of the player by measuring their wins and losses. Roster matching does not. And so in game theory terms, ELO is self-correcting, SMMR is a correction factor, and roster matching is putting your thumbs on the scales permanently.
Back when it was announced no, the developers themselves presented it as "matchmaking rating" and based on my own experience, I can say it is definitely MMR even though it is hidden. How do I know this? Well, if you die in a sweaty match you almost always get a relatively easier match after that, if you die again next one will be even easier. However, if you manage to clutch it and escape you're gonna have an even tougher match after that and this pattern is quite consistent.

1. When people thought this was the case I tracked my matches carefully. No such effect showed up in the data. To widen my search I randomly picked some BG streams and checked their match ups. No such effect showed up in the data there either.

2. I've been told directly that the match system does not use invisible ratings such as what you're describing. There's (their version of) ELO, which is used in GC, there's a roster/progress metric that is used in lower tiers, there's an unspecified transition mechanism between the two that hands off between them, and there's random selection.

It does, that's exactly how MMR works. Both Dead by Daylight and Overwatch have MMR and that's how it works, go look it up instead of replying with "it's not true because I said so".
If I understand it correctly, Death by Daylight's SMMR functions more like simplified hidden ELO than roster strength scoring. This isn't just a quibble of detail, because SMMR and ELO are both affected by actual competitive performance, while roster strength is not. To put it another way, someone with a strong roster who loses a lot, which implies that their overall competitive strength is low compared to peers, would retain the same roster strength score and continue to be matched against stronger players, while an MCOC player under ELO matching or a Dead by Daylight player matching with SMMR that kept losing would lose rating and thus lower their matched opponents.

To put it another way, the difference is feedback. Both SMMR and ELO attempt, in different ways, to determine the "true" performance of the player by measuring their wins and losses. Roster matching does not. And so in game theory terms, ELO is self-correcting, SMMR is a correction factor, and roster matching is putting your thumbs on the scales permanently.
Back when it was announced no, the developers themselves presented it as "matchmaking rating" and based on my own experience, I can say it is definitely MMR even though it is hidden. How do I know this? Well, if you die in a sweaty match you almost always get a relatively easier match after that, if you die again next one will be even easier. However, if you manage to clutch it and escape you're gonna have an even tougher match after that and this pattern is quite consistent.
1. When people thought this was the case I tracked my matches carefully. No such effect showed up in the data. To widen my search I randomly picked some BG streams and checked their match ups. No such effect showed up in the data there either.

2. I've been told directly that the match system does not use invisible ratings such as what you're describing. There's (their version of) ELO, which is used in GC, there's a roster/progress metric that is used in lower tiers, there's an unspecified transition mechanism between the two that hands off between them, and there's random selection.

I was talking about DBD not MCOC.

It does, that's exactly how MMR works. Both Dead by Daylight and Overwatch have MMR and that's how it works, go look it up instead of replying with "it's not true because I said so".
If I understand it correctly, Death by Daylight's SMMR functions more like simplified hidden ELO than roster strength scoring. This isn't just a quibble of detail, because SMMR and ELO are both affected by actual competitive performance, while roster strength is not. To put it another way, someone with a strong roster who loses a lot, which implies that their overall competitive strength is low compared to peers, would retain the same roster strength score and continue to be matched against stronger players, while an MCOC player under ELO matching or a Dead by Daylight player matching with SMMR that kept losing would lose rating and thus lower their matched opponents.

To put it another way, the difference is feedback. Both SMMR and ELO attempt, in different ways, to determine the "true" performance of the player by measuring their wins and losses. Roster matching does not. And so in game theory terms, ELO is self-correcting, SMMR is a correction factor, and roster matching is putting your thumbs on the scales permanently.
Back when it was announced no, the developers themselves presented it as "matchmaking rating" and based on my own experience, I can say it is definitely MMR even though it is hidden. How do I know this? Well, if you die in a sweaty match you almost always get a relatively easier match after that, if you die again next one will be even easier. However, if you manage to clutch it and escape you're gonna have an even tougher match after that and this pattern is quite consistent.
1. When people thought this was the case I tracked my matches carefully. No such effect showed up in the data. To widen my search I randomly picked some BG streams and checked their match ups. No such effect showed up in the data there either.

2. I've been told directly that the match system does not use invisible ratings such as what you're describing. There's (their version of) ELO, which is used in GC, there's a roster/progress metric that is used in lower tiers, there's an unspecified transition mechanism between the two that hands off between them, and there's random selection.
I was talking about DBD not MCOC.

If you are talking about Death by Daylight itself, I'm referencing the DBD wiki and the official DBD FAQ which specify the existence and basic mechanics of the Skill based match making rating. The key description from both the wiki and the offiicial FAQ is: This rating increases when you do well and decreases when you do poorly.. This makes SMMR a performance based ratings adjustment, and not a strength based ratings adjustment.

It does, that's exactly how MMR works. Both Dead by Daylight and Overwatch have MMR and that's how it works, go look it up instead of replying with "it's not true because I said so".
If I understand it correctly, Death by Daylight's SMMR functions more like simplified hidden ELO than roster strength scoring. This isn't just a quibble of detail, because SMMR and ELO are both affected by actual competitive performance, while roster strength is not. To put it another way, someone with a strong roster who loses a lot, which implies that their overall competitive strength is low compared to peers, would retain the same roster strength score and continue to be matched against stronger players, while an MCOC player under ELO matching or a Dead by Daylight player matching with SMMR that kept losing would lose rating and thus lower their matched opponents.

To put it another way, the difference is feedback. Both SMMR and ELO attempt, in different ways, to determine the "true" performance of the player by measuring their wins and losses. Roster matching does not. And so in game theory terms, ELO is self-correcting, SMMR is a correction factor, and roster matching is putting your thumbs on the scales permanently.
Back when it was announced no, the developers themselves presented it as "matchmaking rating" and based on my own experience, I can say it is definitely MMR even though it is hidden. How do I know this? Well, if you die in a sweaty match you almost always get a relatively easier match after that, if you die again next one will be even easier. However, if you manage to clutch it and escape you're gonna have an even tougher match after that and this pattern is quite consistent.
1. When people thought this was the case I tracked my matches carefully. No such effect showed up in the data. To widen my search I randomly picked some BG streams and checked their match ups. No such effect showed up in the data there either.

2. I've been told directly that the match system does not use invisible ratings such as what you're describing. There's (their version of) ELO, which is used in GC, there's a roster/progress metric that is used in lower tiers, there's an unspecified transition mechanism between the two that hands off between them, and there's random selection.
I was talking about DBD not MCOC.
If you are talking about Death by Daylight itself, I'm referencing the DBD wiki and the official DBD FAQ which specify the existence and basic mechanics of the Skill based match making rating. The key description from both the wiki and the offiicial FAQ is: This rating increases when you do well and decreases when you do poorly.. This makes SMMR a performance based ratings adjustment, and not a strength based ratings adjustment.

I know, I'm not arguing against that, there's obviously a difference and I've been saying since the beginning they wouldn't be exactly the same.
You replied to my reply to Demonzfyre who claims and I quote "giving extra for beating a stronger team doesn't exist anywhere" which is not true cause both Overwatch and Dead by Daylight give you more points for beating a stronger opponent so I don't get what exactly we're arguing about here lol.

In any case, I'm talking about the Matches that have such a difference in Rosters that it means even if both sides play with perfect technique, one side will lose. It's just a certainty with the backdrop of how Champs interact with each other in combination of Nodes. So my question is, how is it a measure of performance when both performances are perfect, and one has no choice but to lose?
We call those matches "all the matches." Because in every match, if both players draft and play perfectly, the side with the stronger roster will win. Because outside of random chance generating a completely busted draft what else would decide who wins?
Right. My point is, you can't claim that Roster size has no bearing at all with that fact.
No one claims roster has no bearing on who wins. So if that is your point, that point is conceded. Roster has an effect. Now may I ask why, if that is the point you wish to make, you would say "I'm talking about the Matches that have such a difference in Rosters that it means even if both sides play with perfect technique, one side will lose" which is demonstrably false. This seems to be an inefficient way to attempt to make an obvious point.
Frankly, I'm still trying to understand why this thought was even put to paper (virtual internet paper).

@GroundedWisdom You say "I'm talking about the Matches that have such a difference in Rosters that it means even if both sides play with perfect technique, one side will lose".

Keep me honest here, but even in a scenario where in the fights, each person used the exact same attacker (right down to the masteries) against the exact same defender (right down to the masteries), and both players play perfectly, there will still be a lower.

One person wins, the other person loses. There's no middle ground there even if roster size was eliminated as a factor.

Would you like to see every fight end as a draw and no one ever advances?

More like 2 winners, and both of them get the rewards. The idea of 1 person losing is unfair.

It does, that's exactly how MMR works. Both Dead by Daylight and Overwatch have MMR and that's how it works, go look it up instead of replying with "it's not true because I said so".
If I understand it correctly, Death by Daylight's SMMR functions more like simplified hidden ELO than roster strength scoring. This isn't just a quibble of detail, because SMMR and ELO are both affected by actual competitive performance, while roster strength is not. To put it another way, someone with a strong roster who loses a lot, which implies that their overall competitive strength is low compared to peers, would retain the same roster strength score and continue to be matched against stronger players, while an MCOC player under ELO matching or a Dead by Daylight player matching with SMMR that kept losing would lose rating and thus lower their matched opponents.

To put it another way, the difference is feedback. Both SMMR and ELO attempt, in different ways, to determine the "true" performance of the player by measuring their wins and losses. Roster matching does not. And so in game theory terms, ELO is self-correcting, SMMR is a correction factor, and roster matching is putting your thumbs on the scales permanently.
Back when it was announced no, the developers themselves presented it as "matchmaking rating" and based on my own experience, I can say it is definitely MMR even though it is hidden. How do I know this? Well, if you die in a sweaty match you almost always get a relatively easier match after that, if you die again next one will be even easier. However, if you manage to clutch it and escape you're gonna have an even tougher match after that and this pattern is quite consistent.
1. When people thought this was the case I tracked my matches carefully. No such effect showed up in the data. To widen my search I randomly picked some BG streams and checked their match ups. No such effect showed up in the data there either.

2. I've been told directly that the match system does not use invisible ratings such as what you're describing. There's (their version of) ELO, which is used in GC, there's a roster/progress metric that is used in lower tiers, there's an unspecified transition mechanism between the two that hands off between them, and there's random selection.
I was talking about DBD not MCOC.
If you are talking about Death by Daylight itself, I'm referencing the DBD wiki and the official DBD FAQ which specify the existence and basic mechanics of the Skill based match making rating. The key description from both the wiki and the offiicial FAQ is: This rating increases when you do well and decreases when you do poorly.. This makes SMMR a performance based ratings adjustment, and not a strength based ratings adjustment.
I know, I'm not arguing against that, there's obviously a difference and I've been saying since the beginning they wouldn't be exactly the same.
You replied to my reply to Demonzfyre who claims and I quote "giving extra for beating a stronger team doesn't exist anywhere" which is not true cause both Overwatch and Dead by Daylight give you more points for beating a stronger opponent so I don't get what exactly we're arguing about here lol.

Depends on your definition of "stronger." In the context of this thread, I interpreted "stronger" to mean "stronger roster" but in DBD you get more points for beating someone who wins more often, regardless of inherent strength.

There are other circumstances, however, where a competition might award more "advancement" (in some sense of the word) for beating opponents of higher intrinsic strength. I wouldn't say it "doesn't exist anywhere" because I honestly don't know that. As with all such competitive structures, whether they are comparable or not depends on the situation. Game modes and game rules only work within the context of their surrounding game infrastructure, and I can imagine game structures where this would be reasonable. But I am pretty sure it is in fact rare to handicap a competitor using a metric that will not change if they lose, because that is highly problematic.

unknown

This content has been removed.

In any case, I'm talking about the Matches that have such a difference in Rosters that it means even if both sides play with perfect technique, one side will lose. It's just a certainty with the backdrop of how Champs interact with each other in combination of Nodes. So my question is, how is it a measure of performance when both performances are perfect, and one has no choice but to lose?
We call those matches "all the matches." Because in every match, if both players draft and play perfectly, the side with the stronger roster will win. Because outside of random chance generating a completely busted draft what else would decide who wins?
Right. My point is, you can't claim that Roster size has no bearing at all with that fact.
No one claims roster has no bearing on who wins. So if that is your point, that point is conceded. Roster has an effect. Now may I ask why, if that is the point you wish to make, you would say "I'm talking about the Matches that have such a difference in Rosters that it means even if both sides play with perfect technique, one side will lose" which is demonstrably false. This seems to be an inefficient way to attempt to make an obvious point.

That's what I disagree with. You're claiming any Match can be won within BGs by either side. I think that's misguiding. We all know there are Matches that can't be won. The difference is, you're arguing that it's acceptable because it's a competition. I think that's not a justifiable reason to make Matches like that possible, in whatever system. Adjust the Rewards accordingly, gate progress if needed, but having a system that places the highest Accounts against the lowest Accounts is quite honestly, a setup. Not in the intentional sense, as in trying to set Players up. Just a setup because the outcome is already determined before the Match is played out.
And that, my friend, is what discourages people from trying at all.

ReignkingTW

BG threads is getting annoying, Kabam, you have to change something, idk what, but something.

You can keep reposting that all you want. I'm still going to make my points.

Dang it post the same thing 2x

My points
-BGs is a competition that searches for the best players within MCoC possibilities.
-Non competitive casual players don't have a saying on how the competition should be
-Skill is important is not just about the roster
-All players play under the same rules such as coin gain/loss, HP&Atk % increases, and nodes.
-There can't be 2 winners no matter how you perform.
-Matchmaking shelter created a barrel full of small accounts that can be taken advantage of.
-Be satisfied by the rewards you can get, not everyone will get them all.
-Rewards are the same for everyone, no one stops you from progressing and having access to better ones.
-If you don't like it don't play it, competitive players will play regardless. I don't like incursions and I made my peace with it and don't play it unless there are objectives outside.

So much I could respond to in that, but I believe we've been over this already because you've made those points a number of times before, so I'm not taking the bait.