I know, its what i implied, but still its quite important and should have been mentioned or clarified, not just sweeped under the rug with the sole example of a team composed of all 2800 sr players(or w/e sr was the example) because more likely than not there is going to be variations in the group SR that would lead to examples like mine and if they read scott posts they are going to feel cheated/lied to and with reason because they were manipulated.
It sounds like im one of those blizz detractors, i really support the ow dev team in most of their decisions, just think this should be handled better or they are giving the excuse to have the forums filled with the usual whiner stuff while could have easily been avoided.
I have a question. If SR is such an accurate measurement of skill as you claim, why do I keep getting matched in quick play against a bunch of masters and gms with plats and golds on my team?
I might see team queue (2, 3, 4, or 6 stack grouping only) and solo queue separation in Competitive one day, just like they do in Heroes of the Storm ranked play, however the reality is that the more they separate the modes the longer time it takes for players to find any match in any game mode.
There has been no official release date, it is my personal hope these features will release next Tuesday sometime.
You must understand that your Competitive MMR/SR is not used in any other game mode. Each game mode has its own MMR/SR, and with casual modes, players will take the game less seriously or play differently than they do in Competitive. This is nothing to worry about and I personally like it when it happens as it gives me a chance to really test my skills against superior players.
Thatâs not what I meant. I meant that you get to choose which SR you want to play on in the main menu. I was just using examples. You could use all 5 SR accounts for 6 stacks if you wanted. But I read someone elseâs post and I think they had a better idea.
Separate SRâs for each hero. And if you only have a 750 SR on widow, but you got into the match with your average SR of 1800, you canât play widow that game. These ideas are all very far in the future though.
The foundation of the issue is we are CALCULATING skill.
That is inherently flawed.
We need a Competitive system that is less speculative (probabilistic), and more deterministic. A system that removes âblizzard speculation SRâ and gives us some hard number to acknowledge. Soccer leagues teams use relegation and promotion. Use something like that instead of SR.
Week 1: Everyone starts at Bronze.
At the end of the week you take a percentage of the best players, and make a ânew rankâ (silver) which the best players compete on. Everyone else stays at Bronze.
Week 2: Silver rank is created.
The best silver players become âGoldâ players. A percentage of the worst silver players are swapped with a equal percentage of the best bronze players.
Repeat until the end of season.
Placement:
You can place people in the relegation bracket of each Tier to see where they âfloatâ if they join the ladder late in the season. Additional players in each Tier shouldnât change the dynamics of the system.
Position:
All players face two alternating match types: Upranks, and downranks. If you win your up rank match, you swap up the ladder. If you lose your down rank, you swap down the ladder. Otherwise nothing happens. You always have a position in your tier, you never have an SR value. Your position decays if you donât participate.
Successfully DEFENDING your rank should never yield a gain in SR. Defending against #3 and #4 shouldnât make you #1 imho.
Here is what i mean:
Assume #2 and #1 are on the same team vs #3 and #4.
From what i understand #2 is going to GAIN more SR than #1 does.
He is farther from 5000, thus more SR.
If you keep repeating this, eventually #2 becomes #1.
That is why is seems broken to me.
Smurfs would have to be sorted by the placement mechanism i described, or reported.
Perhaps if you get reported as a smurf the system will trigger an Auto-placement?
The mechanism i described works like this:
A new, or âplacingâ player is put at the bottom of each existing tier to see where they should start. It would be easy to recognize a skilled player, and you could sort the placements in an unranked match before Tiering them for testing. They would than fight âout ofâ Relegation. So a smurf would be âreplacedâ based on that assessment, or a truly awesome player might get magically âUp Tieredâ.
I would swap a large portion each week during relegation, maybe 15% or so. That will prevent smurfs from âgatekeepingâ, or camping around the relegation zone of each specific tiers. Might be a problem at the highest tier, but it SHOULD be a problem their anyway. That is ladder play.
Not a perfect solution I admit. A player might be forced to do placement two or three times in a season if the system flags you as an oddity. Might be rewarding for people âstuck in bronzeâ though. A double Edge?
Iâd still like the groupâs average SR to be displayed when Iâm browsing. I enjoy using LFG but the matches have actually been quite consistently bad in terms of balance for me so far. Of course, the low population of PTR is a factor, definitely, but still.
Garison, the ideas you propose unfortunately is showing one glaring problem. You are proposing MMR resets. Overwatch does not reset this in order to make sure all players have consistant battles especially at the start of a season. If the entire player pool could be matched together, it would very like result in a long extended period of low quality battles.
If your position is predetermined by your MMR, before the tournament even begins, you arenât even playing in a ranked environment. The more you improve the more you are held back by your history. Growth speed becomes more important then growth ceiling. Hence Smurfs, and new accounts.
I am not debating the need for some probabilistic sorting mechanism for the beginning of the season, or even during the season for late joiners. I am debating the need to carry this mechanism into the ladder where actual winning and losing move your position instead of the current system that takes your âchance of winningâ and modifies your result.
I believe the deterministic nature of the system would sort the players within a day or two. Have a âwarm-upâ period that pre-sorts the players would lessen the âshockâ. Maybe pre-season ?
If you challenge up and win, you swap with the loser.
If you are challenged from below, and you lose, swap with the winner.
This creates a simple sorting algorithm, a bubble sort , it is very effective at placing things where they belong. In this case by an abstract value that is never computed. Your ability to win.
If you increase the âchallenge up to positions Xâ limit as a player increases their win streak you help prevent the streaks of bad quality games, and increase the âDefend against Postion >Xâ as a person failed challenges against them.
Having that data clearly displayed for the player would help with transparency. âYou can be challenged by teams of rank 300+, You can challenge teams with players up to rank 200â.
May be the real deal breaker is that predicted win chance of 50%. If this rules works as intended, people wonât be able to climb up, because the more u win games, more dificult matches will be imposed to u. Even if the SR points lost has a discount due to the predicted win chance, u still gonna loose points.
I think that ranks division should be used to make people compet with each other and gain points enought to climb to a next division and so on.
There is Fifaâs soccer world cup happening right now and I just wonder if how would it looks like if the matchmaking rule enforcing the teams to have a predicted win chance of 50%? I donât recall any rule in competitive sports which enforces people to have a 50% predicted win chance. Thatâs sounds like a big manipulation of results.
I really didnât understand the logical reason for predicted win chance of 50%. Anyone, if u do understand why we need this, enlight me!
I understand, allow me to explain. First, the only mistakes that can happen is your SR. The SR may not be a good indication of your actual skill. Athough Jeff said it was a good indication, and I believe him.
Secondly, wouldnât you agree that if 12 people played each other 6v6, and they all had 2800 SR. That the match would be 50/50? And if one team had 2799SR and the other team had 2801 SR, wouldnât you agree that it would now be 49.995/50.005?
Wouldnât you agree that that make sense. When you say forced 50/50, this is what you are describing and it makes perfect sense to me.
You could have 10,000 people sitting at rank 2800 all with different skillsets. The different combinations of people result in unique synergy that pushes a certain combination of players to higher levels. Iâll use the extreme example of 6 mercy mains @ 2800 SR vs a regular team @ 2800 SR. I doubt matchmaking can see that this isnât a 50/50 win rate.
Unfortunately you need to separate the solo, groups, and full-stacks to solve that issue.
It all gets really cluttered, which is why they donât have all the separation.
I still think at minimum you have a full-stack only comp mode. Solves the above problem.
sorry Wyoming, this is just to get your attention.
I remember quite a while ago Jeff said that figuring out the SR of a group is not as simple as adding up the SRs and dividing by the amount of players.
So, how is group SR calculated. Because if group SR is different from the average SR of all the group members, that just seems wrong, thank you.
Garison,
If group SR is calculated the correct way, I disagree with you. If not, I see your point.
I do think there should be a separate SR for 6 stack vs 6 stack. And they should call it Mini OWL
![:slight_smile:](https://d74zh8edaijub.cloudfront.net/en/overwatch/images/emoji/twitter/slight_smile.png?v=5" ":slight_smile:")