5 Key Takeaways From The Marvel Rivals EOMM Video: Unpacking NetEase’s Matchmaking Denial

The "Marvel Rivals Eomm video" has become the epicenter of a major community debate, with the game's developer, NetEase, directly confronting one of the most persistent and controversial allegations in modern gaming: the use of Engagement Optimized Matchmaking (EOMM). As of the current date, December 15, 2025, the video—spearheaded by Lead Combat Designer Zhiyong—serves as the definitive official statement, aiming to demystify the game's competitive structure and put an end to the widespread speculation that the system is designed to manipulate player engagement rather than ensure fair competition. This deep dive unpacks the developer’s specific claims, the community's divided reaction, and the technical details of the *Marvel Rivals* ranking system.

The Marvel Rivals EOMM Controversy: A Briefing

The arrival of *Marvel Rivals*, a free-to-play 6v6 team-based hero shooter, was met with immediate enthusiasm but was quickly followed by a storm of controversy surrounding its matchmaking. Many players, particularly those experiencing dramatic win and loss streaks, began to suspect that the system was not simply Skill-Based Matchmaking (SBMM)—which aims to match players of similar skill levels—but rather Engagement Optimized Matchmaking (EOMM). The core allegation of EOMM is that the algorithm prioritizes keeping players online and engaged, often by deliberately placing them in "rigged" matches. This is achieved by creating a calculated win/loss cycle: giving a player an easy win streak to boost their confidence and engagement, followed by a frustrating loss streak (by matching them with lower-skilled teammates or against higher-skilled opponents) to prevent them from quitting the game entirely. For a live-service game like *Marvel Rivals*, which relies on an active player base and potential microtransaction purchases, the suspicion of EOMM quickly became a toxic point of contention. In response to this mounting pressure and player frustration, the *Marvel Rivals* development team at NetEase released a comprehensive video featuring Lead Combat Designer Zhiyong. The video, which has been widely discussed across social media and gaming forums, was intended to be a transparent explanation of the game’s matchmaking and ranking mechanics.

5 Critical Points from NetEase's Official Matchmaking Denial

The developer video, often referred to as the "EOMM video" by the community, was an almost 20-minute lecture diving deep into the technical aspects of competitive play. The following are the five most crucial points Zhiyong and NetEase made to deny the EOMM allegations and explain their actual system.

1. Absolute Denial of EOMM

The most direct and unequivocal point made was the flat-out denial of using EOMM. Zhiyong explicitly stated that the *Marvel Rivals* matchmaking algorithm does not track or factor in a player's engagement metrics, such as time spent in-game, recent purchases, or anticipated playtime, to deliberately manipulate the outcome of a match. The developers emphasized that the system's sole purpose is to create fair and balanced matches based purely on competitive skill.

2. The Role of Competitive Score and Base Points

The video detailed the two main components that determine a player's rank and matchmaking eligibility in Ranked lobbies: Competitive Score and Base Points. * Competitive Score: This is the primary metric, representing a player's rank (e.g., Diamond, Platinum). It is the most significant factor in matchmaking, aiming to pair players with similar scores. * Base Points: These are points gained or lost based on the match's outcome (win/loss). A win grants a set number of Base Points, while a loss deducts them. The system is designed to keep players within their appropriate rank bracket by matching them based on this quantifiable Competitive Score.

3. Performance Point Calculations (The "Not-EOMM" Factor)

One of the most complex parts of the explanation was the introduction of Performance Points. These points are awarded or deducted based on a player's individual in-game performance, independent of the match's final result. This is a key differentiator from a purely win/loss-based system. * Performance Metrics: The game tracks various metrics, such as damage dealt, healing provided, objectives secured, and overall contribution to the team's success. * Mitigation: The Performance Point system is designed to mitigate the loss of Base Points for players who perform exceptionally well even in a losing match. Conversely, a player who is carried to a win may receive fewer Performance Points. This mechanism is intended to reward individual skill and prevent players from dropping ranks too quickly due to poor team composition or unlucky streaks, a point the developers likely used to counter the feeling of "rigged" matches.

4. Team Matchmaking and Rank Disparity

Zhiyong also addressed the common complaint about uneven team compositions. The developers explained that the system attempts to balance the average Competitive Score of both teams. This means that while a team might have a high-ranked player (e.g., Diamond) and a low-ranked player (e.g., Gold), the opposing team's distribution of ranks will, on average, equal out to a similar total Competitive Score. The challenge, as acknowledged, is balancing the speed of matchmaking with the precision of rank matching.

5. The Stance on Role Queue

While not directly related to EOMM, the video also touched on why a system like an Overwatch-style Role Queue is not currently in place. Zhiyong suggested that the game's current roster of Tank and Support heroes might not be "interesting enough" to sustain a dedicated role queue system, implying that the player base might not be large enough or diverse enough in their hero choices to make it feasible without significantly increasing queue times. This point highlighted the unique challenges of *Marvel Rivals*' hero shooter design.

Community Reaction and the Lingering Skepticism

Despite the detailed, nearly 20-minute explanation from the Lead Combat Designer, the community's reaction to the "EOMM video" remains highly polarized. The response highlights the deep-seated distrust many players have for competitive matchmaking systems in modern free-to-play titles.

The Believers and the Skeptics

A significant portion of the player base accepted the developer's explanation, seeing the video as a good-faith effort to be transparent. These players often point out that the feeling of "rigged" matches is a common phenomenon in team-based games, often stemming from the volatility of individual performance and the inherent difficulty of balancing a team-based game. Some even apologized to Zhiyong and the team for their initial accusations. However, a strong contingent of skeptics remains. Their arguments often center on the idea that the system, even as described, still exhibits behaviors consistent with EOMM, even if the developers do not explicitly call it that. * Win/Loss Cycle Persistence: Many still report experiencing long, punishing loss streaks immediately following a successful win streak, arguing that the system is too effective at creating parity and preventing sustained climbing. * The Power of Performance Points: Some critics argue that the Performance Point system, while intended to reward individual play, could be a subtle mechanism for EOMM. By giving high-performing losers a small point boost, the system might keep them engaged for "just one more match" in the hope of a breakthrough win. * The Burden of Proof: For many, the only definitive proof would be a full, unedited leak of the matchmaking algorithm's source code, an unrealistic demand. Until then, the developer's denial, while official, is viewed through a lens of corporate skepticism. In summary, the *Marvel Rivals* EOMM video successfully provided clarity on the game's competitive system, confirming that NetEase uses a form of Skill-Based Matchmaking supplemented by Performance Points to determine rank and match quality. While the official denial has satisfied some, the debate over the true nature of the game's competitive balance and ranking system continues to rage, proving that in the world of online gaming, trust is as valuable—and as difficult to earn—as a high competitive score.