Matchmaking is a complex matter and in the end you have to put together what is available - just in a meaningful timespan. All the complaining is of no use - there are many groups of players and different ranks mixed together.
There are, however, some interesting aspects:
the time of day or weekends or working days (perhaps more casual players play on weekends)
the fact that the higher the rank, the faster the game becomes (not necessarily due to the length of the game but due to the haste of the actions)
the more heroes there are, the more likely small and large imbalances become
Suggestion “beginner rank bonus” or “rank bonus”:
The lower the rank, the higher the bonus.
For example, you could imagine a percentage increase in the life points of the heroes depending on the player’s rank. 17% increase on the lowest bronze level, decreasing linearly to 0% increase for the master level. Other parameters are certainly conceivable.
That would
slow down the game towards the lower ranks
In matchmaking, for example, gold players with lower health points would play alongside bronze players with higher health points.
And a request if you would like to respond to this. Be objective and present comprehensible arguments. Also remember that casual players are the main source of funding for the game.
This type of thing simply trains lower rank players to play in a way that won’t work when they rank up. You just need to work on your understanding of the game and you’ll rank up.
Understanding human learning can significantly benefit game development. Learning through practice, gradual skill acquisition, and performance improvement via repetition are well-established principles.
By adjusting game mechanics to provide a slower pace in lower ranks, players can progressively build their skills. As their competence increases, the game can incrementally reduce these aids.
This method aligns with educational theories that suggest learners benefit from scaffolding, which is gradually removed as they become more proficient. Thus, the proposed system supports scientific learning models, fostering long-term improvement and better player retention.
From my experience with mechanical-visual learning, this approach helps players internalize game mechanics and visual cues effectively. When the game introduces complexity gradually, it allows players to focus on mastering one aspect at a time. This step-by-step learning process not only improves their immediate gameplay but also prepares them for higher levels of play where these skills need to be applied more fluidly.
It bridges the gap between understanding game theory and executing strategies under pressure, ultimately creating more well-rounded and competent players.
It keeps you motivated and ultimately enjoying the game.
What are your experiences regarding learning? Where is your frustration point and what do you think could help avoid it?
The games at lower ranks are already slower, because the players play slow due to their skill.
It’s one of the most obvious tells immediately what skill level a particular lobby is.
Whenever a low level player has been thrown into a higher rated game, in SVB’s “i belong in higher rank” tests, they almost always say: “the game is much more fast paced in GM than in plat”.
This would make differentiating the skill level of bronze and gold players harder if you would level their skill level by outside factors.
Do you think many people would enjoy getting nerfed when they play better?
And also being put into games against players who have buffs on them?
Additionally, as breakpoints matter a lot, suddenly every player would need to consider: “does the ana now die in 2 or 4 headshots?” It would make no sense.
It would completely destroy the interest for many players to improve in the game if the reward is you are weaker against worse players by default.
Matchmaking exists for the reason to put similarily skilled players together. And then they play in the way the players of that particular skill play.
And also as stated above, smurfing & minmaxing would be completely out of control.
I understand the appeal of a 205 HP Tracer for smurfing, but let’s think one step further. While it might amplify the smurfing effect initially, it would also make smurfs more visible, enabling better technical detection.
Additionally, smurfing would become less enjoyable as such players would quickly be called out by teammates. This change could bring it into the spotlight, potentially reducing its prevalence and impact on the overall gaming experience.
To draw a parallel from the medical field, consider the use of contrast agents in MRI scans. These agents highlight specific cells, making them detectable and, consequently, treatable. Similarly, only what can be measured can be improved. By making smurfs more detectable, the gaming environment can be improved, ensuring a fairer and more enjoyable experience for all players.
Let’s think a few steps further here too…
What do you think?
Ok, so as someone who smurfs, anyone that doesn’t know I’m a smurf is willfully ignorant or downright stupid. This change wouldn’t make me obvious when I already was running lobbies on those accounts to begin with.
All you would do is create more smurfs. Why would the number decrease?
I used to work in education tech so i know exactly what you’re talking about. Unfortunately, when it comes to competitive settings where no two interactions will be exactly the same, increasing the margin of error makes high-risk plays seem less high risk and leads to poor behaviors in the long run.
The subject we looked at was basketball. While there was some carry-over between taking shots without defense and field goal % in games, the % was far better when the individual spent more time practicing with realistic opponents.
A handicapped opponent is not a realistic opponent.
Thank you for your response. You argue from a logical standpoint, which is commendable. Let’s first define what makes sense in the context of the game. I’d like to propose an antithesis: What is the worst possible scenario in a gaming experience? It’s not simply losing a match. The worst scenario is feeling powerless and hopeless in a match, where it feels like a massacre, and you just want it to end. This feeling is likely a primary cause of players leaving matches and/or smurfing.
To answer your questions:
1. Yes, I believe players might accept a nerf if it prevents the aforementioned scenario and applies fairly to everyone, resulting in a more enjoyable gaming experience.
2. Similarly, regarding buffs, if it helps avoid unbalanced massacres, the overall player experience will be positive.
3. In the Ana example, needing more headshots provides a chance to react, which doesn’t exist in unbalanced matches.
i dont think they would. I would not and i would stop playing altogether.
Why should you be punished for being the better player?
There is absolutely no good reason to do that, everyone would stop playing if the reward is getting nerfed.
This would be a very efficient way of killing the playerbase.
What you are suggesting may work in a pve game, like the level scaling in diablo 4, but it will not work in a competitive pvp game.
If you want to make a fully non competitive environment, like you are suggesting, then do that as a completely separate thing.
And it breaks game balance and makes the game completely unpredictable for players.
It would be a horrible gaming experience when people have random hp thresholds every game.
Getting better at the game means knowing these thresholds. Now you’ve made even that aspect harder.
Additionally, how would you rate players against one another?
Imagine two players who begin from same rating. One is better than the other, and they win more games.
They then end up being handicapped against the other.
Then they lose games against that other player.
Were the losses because of:
the handicap
the player playing badly
the other player getting better
How would you differentiate this? How could you tell?
How would you rate the wins/losses of these players against another with the handicaps?
And lastly, giving smurfs more hp will only make smurfing a more enjoyable and relaxed experience. It would not lessen smurfing in any way. It would make it stronger, and minmaxxers would have a field day.
