I drop to 3200. Imagine 9 first 25 top 4 in 30 games and I only gain 1.1k points. That ridiculous. Low elo usually climb way faster in a normal elo system.
Nope, I would think thatâs a terrible system and would definitely complain.
Is that how Battlegrounds works ?
Itâs not how it works, but youâll never convince anyone.
Streamers are complaining that they are 7k or whatever on their main and then shoot to 7k easily on their smurf. And itâs like, uhm, thatâs how MMR is supposed to work.
For what itâs worth, I tried it out, have about 70 games played on my main at around 5300 at the moment.
I started a new account and was above 5k in like 13 games, and Iâm sure since this is about how âgoodâ I am, Iâll start gaining less for my wins and loss less for my losses.
People need to stop thinking off MMR as a ladderâitâs a matchmaking system, not a ladder to climb.
Yes, this is how it works in some instances.
Thatâs because youâre still playing in your âwindow of assessmentâ that the game is trying to place you in. Once you hit a certain number of games for the game to place you into a rating then you will start to be throttled.
Thereâs no other way you can justify winning 150 per match and then suddenly getting throttled down to 40.
So, for example, letâs say that trial window is 50 games. You reach 6000 rating after 30 matches. Youâre still gaining 150 a win for the next 20 games.
Another player hits their 50 games and finishes at a rating of 4800. Now, they start only getting 50 points a win whereas you, at 6000, are still gaining 150.
You two could face each other and the lower rating person can win and still gain 50 whereas you could beat them and still gain 150.
Thatâs how it works.
using the same system as in heroes of the storm by the sounds of it,
really badly designed, easily exploitable system (smurfs inc).
in such a high rng game mode basing a players MMR (for the rest of the BG season?) on the first 10-20 games is ridiculous.
I dont understand why a points based MMR system, lets say +80 for first place, -80 for last and even denominations between them from 1st-8th wouldnt work. It would be a far more transparent system that doesnât reward/ punish streaks of variance in the early stages of ranking.
I still dont completely understand how the ranking works⌠ive played 55 hours, 132 games (roughly 28-30 minutes per game) and placed top 4 out of 89 of those. Out of that 89, 15 were first place wins. Thats a roughly a 67-68 percent top 4 win rate and an 11 percent 1st place win rate. My rating is 4447. Ive topped 5k a few times but fall a lot when i lose and I barely gain any elo when i win.
Edit: Im aware this is a few months late but having read the thread, i figured having the outcome of a ânewâ player put their experience may be of use in figuring it out or proving someoneâs point.
3 months laterâŚ
@above:i dont know about that,it does seem a bit odd. Not to crititize you but 11% 1st place is very slightly below what is expected,which is made up by your higher then expected top 4 finishes. Then it also depends on the lobbys you play in,if you are the strongest player in the lobby you will gain a bit less and lose a bit more.
Anyway:rating still doesnt seem to be completely fair/accurate in adjusting. Playing in lobbys with people who are 2k higher and then gaining 103 points for a win,90 for a loss and 10-20 points for rank 4. At that pace it takes forever to catch up even if you score 50% in those lobbys.
But about rating i dont really care anymore so it doesnt really bother me that much. Still it would be nice to have rating fixed one day and make it truly accurate.
The players with 11k-12k they need to score better then 3rd in 8k-9k lobbys just to maintain there rating.
But that is not unfair imo. They are supposed to be 2k-3k stronger then the rest of the lobby,that has to mean more then simply having played more games.
It should mean a higher average finish then the other players.
It does so to some extend,specially when you get really high like 12k+ you have to score very well. But from what i can see it still is not completely how it should be. Despite the complaints the system still benefits high ranked players who play a lot of games,this when compared to for example a chess elo system (correct me if i am wrong btw,blizzard doesnt tell anything about how it works so i have to go by the results)
When carlsen scored 7 out of 12 in tata steel he lost rating,he didnt complain âhey i scored 50%+ i should not lose ratingâ
For people with background in chess the rating complaints from higher ranked players seem very silly,no offense intended by the way.
But ya,about this i dont care that much anymore as i dont care for the highscore list that much anymore (one reason for that beeing precisely the elo system they have) so if blizzard wants keep it like this its fine with me but a high lvl game like BG deserves a high lvl and accurate ranking system.
1 Like
Im fully aware that an 11 percent 1st place isnt great, but the thing that confuses me is being in a limbo around 5k when i can consistently place top 4. Eventually, yes, i imagine it would balance out with the point gain (much like in leagues tft, where i placed diamond 1 before plateauing), and require top 3âs or higher. I understand where youâre coming from when you say you donât play for rank anymore. Eventually, i wager Iâll be at that point as well. At this point in time however, being relatively new to the game, it annoys me that climbing the ranks is as cumbersome as it is.
1 Like
11% is very good i think,it probably is better then mine lol. (i have trouble closing out games). It wasnt meant to critizize,just trying to find an explanation.
it annoys me that climbing the ranks is as cumbersome as it is.
This i think is the root of everything. Players are accustomed to constructed play where everyone climbs all the time till they reach legend. Also many other games like MMORPG, the xp always goes up. People are used to this ever lasting âprogressâ
But the classic rating system is not meant to be like that. Its not meant for players to always go up.
Its meant to rank players in relation to other players (and it is off course impossible for everyone to get better in relation to all other players). It is meant to balance out and become stale at one point (when a person reaches their skill cap).
But this seem to deter many players (contrary to chess where there is people who have been 1800 for 20 years and who still happily play every week. Taking their enjoyment from the game and not so much from the elo points they have).
But yes most players they dont have this background,they have background in other pc games where score always goes up all the time. I can see where they are coming from and i can understand it as well.
The above is not critizism towards any type of players,only trying to find why this is an issue for some players and not an issue for some other players.
1 Like
Itâs hard to say for example recently I am stuck at 8.3 8.4 with at least 80% top 4 rate. But itâs just 3 4 4 4 3 4 7. One 7 and I am back to square one since each win give me like 5 to 10 rating and o E lose is 60 to 70.
I feel closing a game out is where i too fall short. There are so many instances where its come down to the final 2 minions on both sides and rng just doesnt allow my unit to attack the proper target. Which, i get. Its mostly rng. Its just such a feelsbadman moment. My last range of games is 2 2 4 5 2 5 5 3 1 3. The first place gave me like 45 points towards my rank iirc. -shrug- im sure ill probably see a steady increase in rank but its definitely annoying in the meantime
1 Like
1st should never give 45 only though. Any MMR below 6.5k should have an upward factor in them meaning you should get at least 100 per 1st place.
I could absolutely be confusing it with one of my 2nd or 3rd places. Its super late and thereâs tons of numbers involved, so I wouldnt put it past me to have accidnetally looked at a different number near my last 1st place win and just mindlessly type it. Anyways, as I said in my initial reply to the thread, I figured id add my personal experience with the system so far, being one of the new players that the OP brought up in the thread 
1 Like
9k on eu,finally made it. Am so happy now lol.
2 Likes
Gratz aim for top 200 soon!!
I am pleased to announce my win percent ratings have gone up. I am now at a 70% top 4 and 12% 1st place. My last 5 games were 12124. Im not sure how, if possible, i can share screenshots in this thread. But 100 games in top 4, 17 of which are 1st place, with 59 hours played, roughly 25 minutes a game means 141 games total⌠i need a life. Mmr is 4910 currently⌠almost back to the 5ks⌠lolâŚ
I just wonder if these rating are used for more than just determining pts gained/lost. Used for pairing matching? Perhaps used to influence battle RNG? Seems like a very elaborate calculation system just for determining how many points a players gains or loses.
I dont know,i am probably not the best person to ask that,i quiet like my tinfoil hat lol.
Those thoughts i left behind me,or at least i try. It can only make you more frustrated.
Thatâs not too bad. Iâm at 400 hours played, lol. 657 top 4 - 119 1st place. Been up as high as 8300, but currently around 7k.
Everyone has downswings,my biggest thus far was around 700 points (which was very frustrating) but 1k is not exceptional from what i have seen on stream.
You have to keep playing to get through it and you should be able to slowly get higher with ups and downs.
I dont think its only bad luck,though that definitely plays a big role. Other players also get better and BG is very competitive.
7k is good though and 8k is very good,if you can hit it once you should be able to get it again.