If what were only based on win rate?
Because then it isn’t tracking any of my performance, winrate is decided fully by a loss or not.
Factors like players on your team can affect your win, hence why SBMM is useful for lower rankings that are still improving individual wise instead of fully team based.
Possible is that ranks will even be further split apart.
1 Like
I mean… maybe if this was OWL the devs would care… but it isnt.
1 Like
It doesn’t matter if they care or not, the current system is giving me matches based on my performance.
I find this fair, and it helps against having all players from Bronze-Platinum dropping to Bronze-Silver whilst the Diamond+'s will stay exactly there creating some empty ranks in the middle.
2 Likes
You can’t have two seperate ways to count in the same ranking system. That in and of itself makes it questionable integrity. I don’t care if it’s performance based or win based of your ranking. It just needs to be one. The cream will always rise to the top.
2 Likes
Winrate is technically all you need to ship a match since it’s basically what the ladder already does (no-reset per-account winrate).
SBMM is garbage. I think you’re referring to PBSR, which is all you would ever need. You can have a system that ships 12 random people by SR band, plays out a match, and rewards your standard +/- SR. You are then judged on your ability to convert wins for/against others who are supposedly at the same ability. You can add in some PBSR in the lower ranks to help kick people out if they truly don’t belong.
But it isn’t labelling you properly. Which is entirely unfair. You’re equating the “closeness” of the match as your performance reward, when it ought to be an accurate and precise label (payout by SR, chevrons, and pixels).
This is on the right track. If SR is fit-for-purpose in terms of scoring and ranking and paying people out - why is it not used for matchmaking? Because they don’t know how to build ladders at this company. They build amazing worlds, do great artwork, and make things engaging and replayable. But competitive integrity just wasn’t hired on.
1 Like
Even so i find it more balanced.
System is fine as is and anyone who blames it is just bad 
1 Like
What you find doesn’t matter. You’re really not important compared to a large population backdrop.
The only objectivity we have atm is examining the math behind their model. And the math says it is NOT proper and CANT be working. You can 100% blame the system if it is using math that errodes rank integrity and is anti-competitive.
2 Likes
I never say I’m not where I belong in my ranks, so if you were trying to take a parting shot… you didn’t. I’m saying you essentially have two sets of rules, in one competitive arena, which for integrity of the game… would be like saying the NCAA Mens, and NBA are competing for the same title with their current rules.
They play the same game, but it isn’t the same rules and regs. so… you either make it all the same rules so we can all play the same game, or seperate them completely.
2 Likes
You aren’t either, lets make that clear to start with, I’m not important either.
Once again, you DO NOT have the math needed for this, you can claim you do all day long, but the bottom line is, you don’t, you don’t have the inside works for this game, stop lying.
The only reason you blame the system is because it’s not working the way “you” want it too, other players, I would say the majority, have no issue with the current system, these forums do not paint a true picture, since 99% of the active players do not use them. Sure you might get 100 players here on the forums that agree, but there is still tens of thousands of players that do not share this idea.
2 Likes
This makes it different games, not the same, once you change the rules and regulations you change the entire aspect of the game, they might be similar, but not the same.
No, we have one set, SR is a visual representation on your MMR, SR’s basically a meaningless number that players flaunt because theirs is higher.
1 Like
It’s amazing what flat earthers will go through to deny the science.
Less gaming, more math. Knowledge is power. We know it’s trash, because it has to be, from first principles and public facts. That’s without leveraging the existence of patents or dev statements btw.
Things like time-since-last-reset, alt disruption rates per-alt, normal pdf error rates, entropy and signal/noise growth rates for various N levels, etc. They are all useful information for the models. These things let us algebraically bound what the ladder can and can’t be. You don’t need detailed data or inner workings for this.
It’s rather basic, and comes up all the time in systems identification topics. An undergrad is already qualified enough to talk shop on these issues.
1 Like
It took you 20 minutes to type that?
If you actually have the math, prove it, post the actual algorithm Activision/Blizzard are using, if you can’t provide this, you do not have the math, and need to stop lying.
1 Like
Figures, you don’t have the math, but you do have this:
Great math. this is the best.
1 Like
Precisely. It has to be, because of things like “no resets in 5 years” and “alt disruption rates”, and how % players by skill works (normal pdf). Please see my thread “every alt disrupts the ladder”. You can use your own math to counter the points laid out there. Until then it holds, because no one has shown how it does not.
2 Likes
That still isn’t math, it’s you’re perspective on the overall, while I do agree with most of that’s said in that thread, it does not provide any math, nor what I’m asking for in this thread, solid proof, is it really that hard to understand?
1 Like
That thread provides a cursory basis for bounding what kind of integrity is possible after 5+ years of no-reset. Again, you can solve algebraically for all levels of alting and rigging. The result is the same. It’s trash after you playout more than a season’s worth of games. This is because of how things scale. No data needed. Since we’re clearly beyond that, our solve can stop. No need to plow into data-driven detail when the ladder fails a basic combinatorial smoketest.
Now again I beckon thee: If you think our math is bad, please provide your own that refutes it. That’s the beauty of objective language. The prevaling theory holds until someone can counter-factualize. You don’t get to sit back and say “nope”, unless you produce something concrete that defeats our math that says “yep”.
2 Likes
And yet it has nearly nothing to do with this one, at this point you are pretty much advertising you’re own thread. What I asked you for here, if the actual numbers being used in this game, since you claim to have them, and know how this MMR system is actually working.
1 Like
You absolutely do need to actual numbers to claim knowledge on this, you have nothing to back your argument without it.
1 Like
You know nothing at all, stop trying to claim you do, you have no math to back it up (since that seems to be your go to), you have no official statements other than things taken out of context from something multiple years ago, player experience means nothing, and if it did, you would also consider the other side of this argument. Maybe it’s time for you to drop the numbers you don’t have, and actually play the game.
I do however, fully agree this game is alt-infested, and would greatly enjoy a reset, just for more salty people to complain about “MMR is broken this GM just stomped my gold game.”
2 Likes