Okay, now you've lost me. If it is a 'poor predictor', isn't that equivalent with a 50/50 chance for either party and isn't that your professed goal is, i.e. making games fairer instead of skewed?
Oh I know I lost you... you were lost long ago on the Steam forums. Unpredictable based on us having NO information is not balance, it's ignorance. Unpredictable based on as much information as possible is the elimination of bias. That this has to be explained to you tells me you're going to remain lost.
If TVPlus can already predict that a game favours one party over another, why would you allow choosing a match that is clearly in favour of/biased towards one party?
We have matchmaking create matches with the lowest rating difference based on a rating that can best predict the outcome of the match... that creates the least predictable matches based on the most information. I'm not sure how this confuses you, or anyone.
Lets use boxing as an example. If we see from past fights that higher body weight tends to result in wins, then to create a more balanced match we try to pair up fighters of similar body weight. If we see from past fights that longer reach tends to result in wins, we try to pair up fighters of similar reach to create balanced matches. Through the miracle of math we can take that data and find how much weight a superior reach is worth, or how much reach a higher weight is worth, and we can create balance through a combination of the two, and so on.
What doesn't create balance at the match level is picking people completely at random.
It might also be a psychological problem of acceptance.
I think that IS one of your major problems, which is why you're forever arguing from incredulity. People's ignorance is not an argument against facts, it's an argument for people to shut up and learn the facts until they stop being ignorant.
I mean, I wasn't suggesting to use games-played-difference solely, but using it as an additional (weighted) criterion to minimize. How can that be worse than TVPlus only? It would just mean that if you have a choice between two similar TVPlus differences, you would look at the games-played-difference as well, so when you have two bad matchups, at least choose the one that people can accept more easily.
Cool, go do the math and come back with the results from the existing data supporting your belief. I've done the statistical regression and it says games played is not a significant contributor.
Can you give me an example how a concession can cause a bad matchmaking? I can imagine the other way, but not that. Or maybe you could elaborate how a correlation between something that can only happen after another thing can be confused with a 'causation'. Or is it that a lot of concessions can lead to worse matchmakings? How?
Ice cream sales correlate with murder rates. According to your usual garbage logic, one must cause the other... so tell me, which one do you think is the cause and which one is the effect?
What I did point out is that differences in performance rates more strongly correlate with concession rates, meaning that people were conceding more often when faced with better performing coaches than them, than they were when facing teams with higher TVs than them. You seem to have completely ignored that part of the story in favour of something you imagine you CAN argue.
Two statements that have no correlation/connection to me at all. You have no control now and you wouldn't have control then either. You would just exclude more unfair matchups, both for you and for others. In a competitive environment, isn't that what you strive for?
How do you not have more control over your matches if you can refuse them or if you can limit the types of matches you get?