Alt accounts means there is no correlation between level and experience.
That new account could be a gold player, a GM, or the rare new player.
2 Likes
Except that situation almost never occurs without at least 2 or 3 of the level 100s being smurfs. In 2021 it is much more common for a low level account to be someone’s alt account than their main account.
In fact, when I queue tank in a diamond game and see a level 25 Ashe or Zarya on the enemy team, that scares me much more than if I see they have a platinum border Ashe or Zarya.
3 Likes
Quite indeed.
It used to happen when the game was at its beginnings where low accounts actually did equal new players, but man even in Gold, low border accounts 90% are either alts (who are the same elo as their main) or smurfs. Very, very low chance for it to be a completely new player.
I always modify my pick or my playstyle depending on how much low lvl accounts the enemy has. It is almost most certainly a smurf.
1 Like
Correct. There is a complacency, burn-out, or washed/pastprime factor. But initially there is a correlation as hours lead to gains. And this correlation holds for quite a while.
There is almost no way a day1 recruit is out-competing a battle hardened vet in complex tasks. If the tasks were some kind of cardio test or coding hackathon, sure the punk teen might twitch out more. Does that make that intern better than Jeff at developing games? Idk let’s put them at the same pay grade, send them to the cafeteria with their laptops, and see.
But OW is reasonably complicated. It draws on so much muscle memory, meta/map/macro/micro, etc. It would be ranking and assessing entirely the wrong stuff if you let some CoD player launch the client, pop off on widow for a few levels and just place them Masters.
Oh wait that’s how it works? haha ok no wonder SR is a joke indicator of overall OW skill. Stop putting new accounts with old ones, thanks. They’re clearly alts ~9/10 times.
1 Like
They DO somewhat equate to knowledge in the game.
They don’t equate to skill though, since that is a different beast.
1 Like
This is a great question with a clear, yet widely ignored and misunderstood answer.
Experience and skill are measured by Match Making Rating, which is a set of metrics used to handicap every competitive match algorithmically. Even though it undermines the ranking system completely, it makes competitive Overwatch more addictive and profitable for Blizzard as a product.
More information in my thread on the subject:
Gamesense isn’t a skill? Positioning, map geometry, meta awareness - not a skill? Hundreds of hours rehearsing ult combos, econonmies, rollouts - aren’t a skill?
You can’t just have those with 20 hours played. The only things you transfer in for free are reaction and aim. And even then there is no substitute for actual in-game targets, movement, timings, etc.
Stop putting >800hrs with <100 hrs.
It’s like 4 lines of code just do the work please.
1 Like
I know, but, I’d say the people are skilled in different places.
500 hour person is MUCH more likely to know which heroes go with which etc.
The person with 20 hours, and at the same rank is much more likely to be good at aiming.
Why? they are as good as each other, but at different things.
hours tell you which mix of skill they have, but not how skilled they are.
sr tells you how skilled they are, just not which mix they have.
1 Like
Then the scoring evaluation is too narrow banded. One set of things is more rare, valuable, and less readily aquired. I want to see Jeff making the same as an intern on their laptop in the cafeteria. Since they’re the same skill level - just good at different things.
1 Like
Honestly sure. I’d STILL do development over flipping burgers if they paid the same.
And that doesn’t change how much they effect your win rate. winning games doesn’t care about how rare the skill you used to do so with.
1 Like
But it’s a no-reset winrate. Big difference. You learn and develop a lot more from failures and losses. The SR isn’t fit-for-purpose in that case. I’m all for going hands off and paying out on your ability to win games - agnostic of skill level or type of skill. But you need resets and no-rigging for that.
1 Like
We all would. I’d lead their team for free. In fact I’d pay to show up into those board room meetings and drop my $0.02. Cook their architects alive.
1 Like
I like you. I’m guessing you are sick of software architects who don’t code and have become out of touch?
2 Likes
I don’t code much anymore either. I’m R&D. Reading academic journals and papers all day and run models/simulations to test proof of concept stuff. Corporate-scale production code is burnout code.
2 Likes
I would put that in the category of a bought account
I mean time has never equaled more knowledge of anything. If you do something wrong for 1000 hours it doesnt magically become right.
1 Like
True that’s why that 19 y.o. new hire is taking over for Jeff next week. Clearly more skilled in game development. She headshot a few interview questions. So, we’re placing her above 80% of our current team’s responsibilities and salaries.
Because experience and exposure (learning) doesn’t correlate at all with skill.
Man dont you have a book to write on your conspiracy theories?
1 Like
Hero knowledge is a massive factor. Ultimate voice lines, which heroes have which abilities that need baiting, which heroes combo well together and which don’t, which heroes counter which other heroes, what animations indicate which incoming ability…
What about Tetris?