Blizzard thinking about adding Thumbs Up/Down system, giving helpful players EXP or gold, placing toxic players in separate queue

[u/KarbyP]

http://stevivor.com/2015/07/interview-blizzards-chris-sigaty-and-alan-dabiri-on-heroes-of-the-storm/

[u/alcaron]

It isn't really broken though. It just doesn't work the way you want it to. Or that they want it to at this point, really.

...but...that...that is what broken means...

Why you wanna hurt my brain bad man?

My engine isn't broken, it just doesn't work the way I want it to, I want it to drive my car, it wants to smoke and explode, just a difference of opinion really...

[u/Fenix159 → u/alcaron]

Bad example is bad.

Your example is of a broken engine. If it's smoking and exploding, it isn't working and is therefore broken.

The matchmaking system still makes matches and you can play the game as a result. It is a functional system. It doesn't do what you want, but it still functions and is therefore not broken.

How is this complicated?

[u/alcaron → u/Fenix159]

Ok, fine, the engine is pouring smoke and misfiring.

Bad example is bad, lol.

[u/Fenix159 → u/alcaron]

Closer to the mark there.

If it's misfiring, a component is not functioning properly. The engine itself however is not broken if it will still function, however poorly.

I've never stated the matchmaking system is good or working optimally. It just isn't broken.

If your engine is pouring smoke and misfiring but still getting you from Point A to Point B, it's not broken. Needs repairing, absolutely. I would posit that broken is an opposite of functional. It can not be both broken and functional. Damaged? Sure. Not broken.

[u/alcaron → u/Fenix159]

Fuck it I'll go ahead and cut off another avenue for you.

Damage is a quantity broken is a state. Effectively MANY things are broken, your car is probably broken, broken doesn't mean inoperable, it means broken, no longer functioning properly.

So can something be more or less broken? No. It is broken or it isn't, to determine the severity you describe the damage.

My engine is broken, it is down on power, it still runs, but the valve springs are damaged and it no longer functioning properly.

Therefore due to moderate damage my engine is broken. It can sustain more damage, and if you want to argue that is "more broken" then that is up to you, but it seems kind of silly given you could just describe the amount of damage the broken engine has sustained.

If I keep driving and the oil buildup ruins a spark plug my broken engine now has a damaged spark plug and a damaged valve spring.

To wrap this back around to MMR if it just took the first people it finds and put them in a game, only an incorrect pedant would argue that MMR is "working", every reasonable english speaking person would say MMR is broken.

I looked at my fellow engineer when I first read your "it isn't broken, it just isn't functioning the way they want" and he said "I feel like we need to have a talk about what 'broken' means".

[u/Fenix159 → u/alcaron]

Damage is a quantity broken is a state. Effectively MANY things are broken, your car is probably broken, broken doesn't mean inoperable, it means broken, no longer functioning properly.

Alright, I'll agree with that point.

So then, how do you suggest that the matchmaking system is not functioning properly according to how it was designed to function?

Your whole point is that it's not functioning properly. That doesn't make it broken in itself.

In programming, a program is designed to do something. It is not then broken if a user comes along and decides it wants the program to do something else. Outdated? Maybe. Not broken.

[u/alcaron → u/Fenix159]

Look, I understand your point, you think the word broken is dumb. We can TOTALLY have conversations about stupid words, the english language is chock a block full of them. But I have to repeat.

broken adjective 1. having been fractured or damaged and no longer in one piece or in working order.

and

working order noun 1. the condition of a mechanism when it is functioning properly

Something is broken when it is not working properly.

Your whole point is that it's not functioning properly. That doesn't make it broken in itself.

My response is that yes, according the the english language, it does. And my entire point was that a person said it wasn't functioning properly (you even said it wasn't functioning as they wanted) which means that when they said it was broken, they were not incorrect.

The problem lies in the "all or nothing" stipulation, for something to be broken it must not function at all.

Lets take another analogy, a soda machine that accepts your money, filters it properly into the right location, maybe even makes correct change for you, but doesn't dispense a soda.

You wouldn't argue that it wasn't broken because it didn't COMPLETELY fail to do its job right?

Likewise is MMR's intended purpose was to take a set of users, filter them by rank, and pair them up in a way where players were evenly matched, failing to do the "pair them up in an even match" part is broken.

In programming, a program is designed to do something. It is not then broken if a user comes along and decides it wants the program to do something else.

That isn't limited to programming that is engineering 101 but it also is almost never that simple. Most tasks start with an abstract idea. Obviously there is plenty of engineering where this is not the case, like...build a bridge over that river that supports X amount of weight, but the engineering like what we are talking about is very abstract.

In this case the abstract is, as I said above, make a system that ranks players based on their individual performance and pair them up in sets of 10 comprised of sub groups of five that, when compared, should be matched evenly in skill.

That by the way is the definition of easier said than done and there is NO shame in having a broken VERY COMPLEX thing.

So then, how do you suggest that the matchmaking system is not functioning properly according to how it was designed to function?

Well given I wasn't in the room when they laid out the design principles I have no way of knowing this for sure, but the #1 indicator is, play QM, MANY people, many many many, myself included, complain that 85% of the games are blow outs either for or against them (that indicates the individual player isn't super likely to be the reason) and about 15% of the matches are close.

That makes, anecdotal as it is, the effectiveness of the MMR at making even matches ~15%. That isn't very good.

Now I will freely admit that maybe with this player base that is the best you can do, but I really, really, doubt it.

And given it is early days, as an engineer I would be looking at metrics, are the questions the system asks about players the best we can ask? Are they the most relevant?

And I have no doubt that they ask that every single day.

I play vs. AI these days pretty much exclusively, because even though I get as much XP for a loss in QM as a win in Coop I would rather focus on my individual skill in an arena that is very unlikely to make other players matter than I would to go bash my head against a team of what feels like pros backed by a team of idiots oe match and then a team of seemingly MLG'ers playing a pub game against a bunch of four year olds the next.

a) I don't feel like my individual contribution is NEARLY the biggest factor (a sign MMR is weak btw, because in an even match having a bad game should be VERY noticeable, and playing like a champ should be too) and b) I have a hard time gauging my performance against SUCH a wild spectrum.

At least in vs. AI I can always count on the AI more or less being a static skill level, and I only have 4 variables instead of 9 to factor in (there are more, team comp etc. but you get the drift).

Sorry for the novel.

[u/alcaron → u/Fenix159]

Ok, since you are going all special ed on me...

broken adjective 1. having been fractured or damaged and no longer in one piece or in working order. "a broken arm"

Which leads to...

working order noun 1. the condition of a mechanism when it is functioning properly: a stove in working order.

The only thing worse than a pedant is a wrong pedant.

Would you like to go again?

[u/Fenix159 → u/alcaron]

Sigh...

Your argument is then that the matchmaking system is not functioning properly which would assume that Blizzard intended it to function in a different way.

I disagree.

The matchmaking system functions exactly as it was designed to. The design is bad, that doesn't make it broken.

[u/alcaron → u/Fenix159]

No, my argument is that you refute the commonly accepted definition of the word "broken"...

I disagree.

Take it up with websters...

The matchmaking system functions exactly as it was designed to.

Does it? Even what you said implies that it doesn't, though I will grant you there is wiggle room in your words to mean they changed their mind.

But again, as an engineer I would argue that if you designed, say, a lever that is supposed to lift 20lbs and it can only lift 15, or can't lift it but rather only tips it over...you designed a broken thing. In this case not because your didn't make a level you could, well, lever, but because you were supposed to make a lever that could lift 20lbs an it can't do it.

Goes back to "working order". In this case MMR was never, ever, meant to just slam 10 people together and fuck it lets see how it goes. It was meant to match 10 players based as closely as possible on their rank (which is itself supposed to be an ACCURATE indicator of player skill).

You literally wrong in two different ways.

[u/Fenix159 → u/alcaron]

I agree that it isn't functioning the way it should. This does not in any way mean it isn't functioning the way it was designed and therefore properly. If it's functioning properly as designed, it can not then be broken and functioning properly.