If 10% of my games were against teams and therefore 'unbeatable' my win % would be way below 50%

I still don't see why this is an assumption or why you immediately go there.

I don't think anyone is saying teams are unbeatable, just that they have an undeniable advantage. Plus, I struggle to understand the concept you're bringing up.

If 10 percent of your games were against teams and it's a guaranteed loss, wouldn't that make up 10 percent of 50, meaning it should be factored into that 50 percent, thus you could lose 40 percent of the time and win 60 percent of the time against randoms and come out with a 100 percent ratio? So, unless I'm missing something important or fail to understand what you're saying, I don't see how 10 percent would instantly mean your percent would be "way below 50."

People are reporting the system is not working because teams have unfair advantage.

How many people are you pulling from? I checked one of the best players on my friends list and he has a 69 percent win average for quick and 84 percent on competitive, with his overall being 78 percent across 237 games. Of his last six games, which was with a team score being 1400+, they only lost one game and that was to, shockingly, a team that had one person at 1300 and the rest being above 1900.

The system is supposed to give us a 50% win rate, it is delivering a 50% win rate.

When you check the people he played with, one guy has a 97 percent win average across 2537 competitive matches and an overall of 93 percent, with another having 78 and the last one having 74. When checking another group he plays with you have two at 76 percent overall, with the remainder pulling 67 percent.

Even if you claim all these people are outliers, something that is undoubtedly true for the 93 percent average player, these are the players people typically think of when they mention teams. You can also see the algorithm fall apart when you examine the outliers games.

Most of the games that player plays is against far less skilled players. There are some games where his rating is about on par with three of the four other players combined score and it goes without saying three 900 - 1100 players are not going to beat a 3000 player, much less a 3000 player and their buddy at 2260. In fact, the only recent games I can see that they loss were games that had better balance.

One was against a team with a combined score of 6675 to their 7530 and the other was 9722 versus 7872.

If the game was really trying to balance for a 50 percent win rate they would face a lot more 1500+ score people than the 1000 range they normally get, but I digress.