I can see this topic getting in the spotlight somewhat once again, which is good but here’s the problem
IMO, the very way they approached the solution was kinda too much of a “universal dreamwork” at best… It was too much of an overstretch and would’ve consumed (or at least require invested) immense amount of time and money (or at least that’s what I deem to be true)
What they wanted to implement is/was a one and only FULLY CENTRALIZED quality-of-play evaluation system where gameplay of your current game would've been compared to what the best-in-the-business-ATM people on the ladder do, and practically every gameplay, every game would get a grade (% sucess or otherwise) compared to the current/best players on the leaderboard
Why I dislike and why do I think was a bad idea to begin with ?
1 = the game is too complex in order for it to justify doing such a thing like that, like, put one different player with different preferance/playstyle and you might get a completely different per-gameplay success ratio overall
2 = the mechanic implemented that way would furthermore increase toxicity as it would force newcomers (and overall players in general) to “follow the rules”, i.e. = pick IDK Falstad, and then get compared to Mene’s Falstad and get success-measured by amount of things you’d do the same (or whatever)
SURE, fine, let it be that way in Master league or GM, but already not gonna work for lower ranks as there are different “rules” for each level, it’s not just “mimic X” and you’ll succeed like “X”… Certainly doesn’t resemble real life IMO, if that was the case we’d all be self-expert surgeon physicians and do operation interventions to ourselves on our own :P…
Yes, the current system of PRA is even worse = adjusting MMR exclusively on WR%, but the “leap of faith” that should’ve been done otherwise in order to implement that-way imagined PBMMR system was collosal in every shape or form tbh
IF ANYTHING I think the problem isn't the MMR-evaluation system (although it is), IMO the biggest problem is the fact that the Matchmaker is affected (and therefore fully dependent) by the MMR system itself
IF ANYTHING = would've liked to see (before the game died somewhat) an attempt to "revolutionize" the Ranked gameplay without changing such a fundamental (for other gameplay types ?) and attempting at creation of the "biggest leviathan of leviathans centralized systems ever" approach
Here’s what I think should’ve been attempted at a point when the game’s “peak” passed and the course of going down was already established/inevitable
Make ranked different, more real-life team-sports resembling whilest not necessarily making it a team-only thing and HERE’s HOW:
Split the whole gamebase in divisions, 200 (or 400, whatever suits better) players per division, one season lasts 1 month (for start, might wanna adjust later on), at the end of the season top 15% go up a division, bottom 15% go down a division
THAT is what the Ranked system should’ve been like, every rank resemble like a mini Master/GM “leaderboard race” tournament of it’s own
WHY would’ve this approach performed better ? (or at least hope would’ve done so), well, mainly 2 reasons:
1 = No more MMR-based bull, you can literally climb a notch higher than you’ve ever been and you have like a month in order to adapt (instead of just 2 games after a bunch exhausting to-the-end “super extra effort” of subtle winning series), it’s like = noone wants to play 50 games (about 10 of which will resemble a total smackdown and forced loss after failure to stay higher in the first 2)
SO THAT is one problem = the “skepticism” of MMR of letting people try-out games higher
2 = HIGH TRANSPARENCY (or at least the ability to do so) = when having a thing/mechanic like leaderboard/s, you can have a surplus of “extra information” at grasp, like, every player within a division would have had super easy data to access to, therefore when paired with a “Murky main” you’d sort of already know in advance if that’s gonna happen to you
Having each of these pieces of data attached to a player’s name within a division would help IMMENSELY for everyone
Leaderboard data (example)
1 = (was already kinda implemented but would go further) = Primary and Secondary roles.. Should probably even force people pick from those 2 roles alone during a season, players pick/adjust these at the start of each season (simply prevents "unpleasant surprises" and dumb losses happen, or at least draft-wise it should help so)
2 = Winning/Losing streaks, along with W/L of last X games (somewhere between 5 and 10 would do).. Just enough so you know the "momentum" of your teammates (and/or opponents), further more can "spice it up" with a bit of extra mechanics such as streak achievements/rewards
3 = Player's best (highest WR% * games played) hero.. Perhaps best hero not just lifetime but also last season (and even during the last couple of weeks within a season, best hero per player for current season)
4 = Best/Worst map WR% per player (both lifetime, last, and in 2nd half during season current season), and so on
Ofcourse = this would require high/er activity of gameplay from basically everyone involved, but, BUT if there were indeed well-implemented achievement/rewarding system = might’ve worked
Some extra hypotheses I based that opinion upon
Overall = had a 25 page word document talking about these things before but it comes down to "secularisation is a must" (at least in my view) of MMR and Ranked gameplay
The game's simply not designed in a way where MMR-based matchmaker would've worked (maybe in high leagues, like Master/GM, but in lower leagues often the winner is determined by the team that does less mistakes overall).. And again - instead of forcing everyone else do less mistakes even further or die trying (by ab/using a "X player trainer" "invisible bot" that you might "catch a grip of how it works" if you watch what those do somewhat), there should be more/higher transparency and more of a "family membership" mechanic/system like the "leaderboard" mentioned above
SURE = it may be boring to get stuck more than a few seasons in the same spot but again, if they made it "interesting enough" (and they could've) for those "native members" to feel a new season like something new, would've worked
It would've had MUCH LESS toxicity, cause players would've had higher control of the situation (or at least those that would be aware of what's going on), HIGHER TRANSPARENCY (therefore making matching teams much less of a shock) and lastly but not the least = would've provided really nice chance, not just awarding system but CHANCE to "practise higher" for a good amount of time instead of having a "universal-evaulation" system decide it having another try was a thing for you or not
No ofense, but after all these 4+ (almost 5 ?) years of literally almost nothing but struggle if you defend the current/MMR-system, then something’s really wrong…
CONCLUSION:
(IMO) the only, THE ONLY really revolutionizing thing they could've done/implemented/tried-out IMO was to forego the MMR system completely and try make a system that would've worked without.. After all these years of "defending" it and having it produce worse and worse by the time goes on, about time to get rid of it and "start all over"
Ofcourse, might be a bit too little too late (considering/provided-that the playerbase is relatively small for that particular "division-based" system to feel "alive" overall), but point being:
Think that dividing the playerbase into divisions, each having a number of 200 (400 if/when low activity) players would've (much better and fairer) worked, if anything the toxicity would've/should've been lower by having a more sustainable/predictable matchmaker instead of "you've been trhown into fire, survive" (i.e. survival of the fitting) kind of approach
![:stuck_out_tongue:](https://d3rakab8gpdsa3.cloudfront.net/en/heroes/images/emoji/twitter/stuck_out_tongue.png?v=6" ":stuck_out_tongue:")