Win Rate fluctuations, if win rates were random

If value 50 is a loss, and value 1 is a loss, your win % won't change, and vice versa.

So, we're only keeping track of the last 50 here. If game 50 (oldest game) was a loss, and it gets bumped off the last 50 list by a loss, your win rate won't change, the loss bumps a loss, you're last 50 didn't change.

If your newest game is a win, and your oldest was a loss, you'll gain win %.
If your newest game is a loss, and your oldest game was a win, you'll lose win%.

So on and so forth.

Basically the newest game replaces the oldest game, and whatever those 2 values were will inform the change to your win%.

This is why  you can go on a win streak, but your win % doesn't change. Your wins were replacing wins at the other end.

Thanks. I see what you're saying. Half the time, on average, your win rate will change. But you won't know if you're repeating the pattern from 50 games ago if it doesn't.

All the win rates I can remember from recent inspections are even. I guess I'll pay more attention to it. I bet someone on here has recorded the outcome of their last 50+ and could tell us going forward if their win rate matches up. I could track it but the payoff isn't until 50 games from now and I don't have that level of commitment.

Thanks for the confirmation.

My win rate has at times remained very stable. At other times, it has soared or dipped. This could be due to Pixonic having a complicated "correction" mechanism to force win rates to 50%. It could also be a random walk around 50% due to the MM using only League Points as described. So which should we believe?

Sounds like that is the biggest factor.

My problem with that is the "seems like" part. I don't think there's code to do that kind of "thinking" in a timely fashion. No, sadly i think that most players really just are 50% or less. Look at how many see canyon or yam and get all excited and drop the worst first bot imaginable (long range) and then do the worst thing possible; stay in it all game. I'm sure they think they're doing a helluva stroke of business and blame the rest of the team for the loss, when in reality, the fault lies squarely with them.

And there's THOUSANDS of people with this mindset. You see em all the time. Canyon? Yay treb time! 

Ummmm no. 

But this is the players base and mindset we're stuck with when we go with randos. They never fail to disappoint. Many times my squad will be down one and I'll joke "let's roll 5, how bad can the randos be?"

And then they show me.

I agree with Thunderkiss and ᎶƦ℮℮ƊᎽ ƤΛƝƊΛ on this one. The whole point of this thread is that the behavior is indistinguishable from random chance.

Matchmaker can't adjust for player skill and experience.

What I used to see was this:

Against equally leveled or slightly superior gear, I win 70% of the time. Or more. Back before the new MM was introduced, I had a win rate upwards of 75% and climbing. My gear was L8-9 with a few 10's mixed in. Routinely faced enemies with gear L7-11. Could hold my own and then some. Had the occasional match against L12 squads, which would result in generally brutal defeats, but it was the exception and not the rule.

New MM and Leagues system introduced, and my win rate suddenly plummets. Why? Not because I got a lot worse, or the opposition got a lot better. Because the opposition became much more highly leveled. I went from facing L7-11 enemies, stuff in my league, to facing maxed hangars. When I lost bad, I'd face easier enemies at or below my own gear levels. So I'd start winning again. But, two or three matches later, the MM would suddenly start pitting me against those same maxed hangars I'd been losing to.

So, was my skill level fluctuating? Was I playing worse against some enemies and better against others?

Against gear equal to or slightly better than my own, I routinely finished in the top two or three. Even on losses.

Against maxed gear, it didn't matter what I did - their gear was at a minimum 24% stronger than mine, and usually much more than that - I'd regularly finish in the bottom two or three on either team. I had only two L10 items at this point; the rest were 7's, 8's, and 9's.

Conclusion: I was "only" good enough to kick the snot out of stuff that was equal to my own, but not good enough to stand a fighting chance against equipment vastly superior to mine.

Bear in mind that my own teams fluctuated at the same time. I'd get better teammates and win after a bunch of losses, and I'd get worse teammates and lose after a number of wins.

Did I ever track any of this? A couple times, but I got bored and gave it up. Because the pattern was too familiar. Win some games, suddenly run into a stone wall. Get buried under that stone wall, and suddenly it's lifted and I can play as normal. "Normal" being matched with enemies who do NOT possess gear that I cannot overcome with any amount of skill.

Coincidence? Can't prove it isn't without seeing the actual MM algorithm...but it certainly didn't look like it.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, chances are it's a duck.

I'll be frank, the MM is really Match Manipulator.

It is using your league score (and I suspect it's velocity) as well as how you finish (1-6) to determine how you get mixed in with opponents. 

Stop chasing damage for a few games and go for beacons or run a capping hanger. It will frequently make you the strongest player league score wise in your matches. 

MM doesn't factor in your win rate, it is a byproduct of the system not a stat it uses. 

Could not agree more. 

Yes, this is exactly it. 

No guarantees that Pixo is not up to something, but the logic supports what they state and there is no factual evidence to the contrary that would stand up to even the most basic statistical analysis so not worth wasting any more time over. 

%70 is "league score stable" if your going to finish last. 

Your experience is my experience -- capping hangers will let you fall down till you have a very high win rate. Our sorting system leans into damage so heavily that this is a fairly predictable outcome.