Not necessarily. I can think of valid reasons it could be better to match players against a spread of competition. Some games where they’re favored to win by a bit, some where they’re unfavored by a bit and some where it’s very close to 50/50.
One reason would be to provide more checks and balances to ensure a player belongs where they are ranked. You would not only see performance in “balanced” matches but also against competition a bit below or above this rank.
Seeing how a player performs against competition a bit above their rank would be especially valuable. Simply because the best way to ensure a player can handle the competition at the next rank, and should be moved up to it, is to observe their performance against it.
I am sure someone will come along and say, using arbitrary ranks, beating diamond 3’s with enough consistency shows you deserve diamond 4. Alas, this is a flawed assumption. Beating D3’s says you can beat D3’s. It does not say you can beat D4’s enough to warrant a D4 ranking.
Even if we do assume beating D3’s enough means you can hang with D4’s what happens if you’re moved up to D4 and can’t? You’d end up getting slapped right back down to D3. Conversely, if you must show you can beat D4’s with enough consistency before being moved up it’s based on observed data instead of a flawed assumption.
Yes, this would mean the matches aren’t perfectly balanced all of the time. To this I would respond by pointing out it’s a competitive shooter. Players donning their carebear suit and screaming at the moon about the tiniest inequality seems like a “if you can’t handle the heat get out of the kitchen” moment.
It’s not a conspiracy to suggest pulling the Microsoft Windows Azure Clown Servers: Powered by Linux short straw is going to present… challenges. Lower your odds of winning.
It is entering tin foil hat land to suggest the matchmaker is deliberately placing you into this position until you can prove otherwise though. This applies to win rate, teammate quality, the way the matches are balanced and everything else.
A game here or there where something happens proves absolutely nothing. This is just as likely to be caused by randomness or other factors as deliberate intent. The only definitive way to “prove” the MM is rigged would be to look directly at the system as it’s been applied into the game and be able to understand it.
Since this is probably not a realistic goal the next best option would be to look at a large number of past matches and identify suspicious patterns of repeating behavior. Curiously, the barometer for proof always seems to revolve around isolated, handpicked games and “I said so”.
Yet, over the span of about 50 ranked crossplay games you had a platinum teammate like twice and a gold teammate once, maybe twice.
One would think if this behavior was not coincidental it would pop up more frequently. If it happens rarely and with no apparent rhyme or reason then… it kind of seems like a coincidence.
Have you tried giving performance above the expectations a whirl?
If the game expects a certain game result and performance out of a player, they are ranked based upon this and consistently hit those expectations right on the money it’s reasonable to believe they’ve been placed correctly.
On the other hand, if the player deviated from these expectations it makes sense to reevaluate their placement. Deviating from these expectations with enough consistency suggests improvement or regression.
In short, you help the team win by outperforming the expectations.