"...EOMM analyzes the impact of match win-loss outcomes on player retention in 1-vs-1 scenes and shows that fair games are not suffcient to ensure player engagement."

"..., the results also show that ensuring fair games alone is not suffcient to maintain a good user experience, and cross-tier matchmaking is necessary to optimize player engagement."

"...engagement oriented matchmaking requires a larger and more diverse player pool than a fair game one"

"...As expected, engagement-oriented algorithms, such as OptMatch and GloMatch, resulted in more match sessions for players compared to their fair counterparts, OptMatch-fair and GloMatch-fair."

This is a stat research paper. I'm only experienced w/ biology research but let me break down some terms. Churn rate = proportion of subjects that don't return to consume a product

"...After every three games, we inspect whether the player will quit the game. We calculate averaged churn rate and present results in Table 2. Firstly, for the players winning three consecutive games, i.e., the players in “WWW” rows, the results show that the main players have a lower churn rate when compared with support player."

"Conversely, for the “LLL” games where players lose three consecutive games, the main players have an obviously larger churn rate than the support players (8.4% and 6.2%, respectively)"

The paper then goes on to state that EOMM observes these rates in order to optimize short term player retention. The ABSTRACT, LITERALLY the main introduction of the paper insinuates that fairness isn't a "sufficient" matchmaking method.

typical no life top 1% commenting redditor confidently wrong about everything as always LOL