…have your skill rating and ranking go up. Then the system is designed by cretins.
Plain and simple.
It is possible to play perfectly and be sabotaged. It’s possible to play incredibly better than your rank for a streak and consistently lose during that same streak in open queue.
If the system is incapable of EVER capturing that fact. Those designing it have no ability to design systems.
So tell me. Can rank go up on a loss or not. Is this ranking system managed by people incompetent in basic systems design or not?
The people who came up with this idea for matchmaking are exactly like the matchmaker they created, not equipped to do the job it has been set out to do. I literally played this game for ONE MONTH when it came out and instantly knew something was screwed about the matchmaker, yet it’s been over six years (lost count) and they’re just now acknowledging it. You think the streaks are bad now? When it first came out you could go on 30 game loss streaks and 30 game win streaks, then they tweaked it to be less awful so you just go on fake 10 game streaks. I’ve seen it since the start, this is what happens when people with bad ideas are allowed to follow through.
There is no such thing as playing perfectly. There is no such thing as perfection. But you can come close to it.
Open queue or Role queue have nothing to do with consistently losing. You might think you’re playing way better than your rank, but the reality is, you’re not playing well enough or doing what you’re actually supposed to be doing to win.
The system isn’t basic and rightfully so. Making this system basic would lead to more outrage than we already have(yet, regardless of the system people would most likely still complain). The system is complex and has many factors taken into account when matchmaking and ranking up and down; time of the day/night, your MMR swings(afected by win/losses), consistency of playing well(which is more or less frequent depending on the rank you’re currently—reminder that you’re not the only one who is taken into account, but all the other 9 players), the average rank matches you play affect how much SR you gain/lose and a few more I’m not mentioning right now.
Furthermore, what takes place in the actual game can’t be controlled by the matchmaker itself—team composition, team synergy, individual skill and play making amongst you and the other 4 players on your team and the 5 on the enemy team, communication, each individual’s mental, intentionally feeding players.
The matchmaker isn’t picking players on purpose for you to lose matches—rigging.
This claim is absolutely ludicrous, yet understandable since the lack of self-accountability is very common amongst noy only the gaming community, but the actual world population. It is much easier to blame a system or someone else, than yourself.
Back to the consistency argument: the matchmaker tries to make the most balanced matches on paper. It is MMR based, so the players you’re facing have the same or nearly the same as yours. The lack of consistency is what you’re experiencing—one player might be underperforming in your match, but the next one he might overperform. This happens even at the highest of tiers at Top500/even tournaments, though it is less common. Of course, it is extremely common at ranks such as Bronze-Masters, where performance peaks are very iffy.
Thus, it is entirely up to the individual to make up for all these issues and perform enough to overcome them. You are the only factor you can control. All the external things are beyond your power.
As far as I am aware it’s based on wins/losses + individual performance… So the question I would say in response is would a good system ‘boost’ people for being on the winning team while not contributing fully?
Consider the passive Mercy players out there. The ones that just barnacle onto a tank and let themselves get dragged through the map. They are doing basically nothing, but their team might win. And that mercy gets what, +5 SR or something. Yes it’s gain but being a hard-carried do-nothing isn’t getting them anywhere fast.
Similarly the player who plays at a higher-than-rank peak but just can’t squeeze a win out, is probably losing far less SR on hte loss than their teammates who are running 1:12 KD ratios and can’t land a single javelin.
Basically, bad players only pick up the “you won a game” points, and good players only drop the “you lost a game” points; the performance is still considered.
Who cares. They would play better. Deaths are the biggest issue. Just make the punishment for dying severe. Like 10 second respawn but also your sr is subtracted based on this by more than elims gain.
They also track a bunch of stats that arent on the scoreboard for individual heroes. They could design individual hero skill this way where you are ranked by how well you do compared to other players on the same hero ONLY wins and losses could have their number affect the other number we hate.
Then you know, #1 ana player is in platinum so they dont have good teammates. #9million Mercy is in Masters, So they are being hard carried by great teammates. But that all still requires blizzard to give a crap about us
You’re thinking in absolutes. On a win where you personally performed fantastically and way above norms lets say that gave you 100 whateverpoints, then in the case where you played incredibly but you had a leaver and lost you still gain 25 points.
Playing deathmatch style and allowing losses would make you lose 75 points every game versus playing for the team.
Simple.
Actually those are pretty strongly related.
Sorry, I meant solo queue with random people versus playing with people you know on mics. It’s night and day and practically not comparable.
My bad. Miscommunicated there.
I’m not talking about me. I’m talking about anyone. My point is that it’s possible to do exactly what you’re supposed to do and do it better than your current rank and still lose.
Not saying I am. (though I do have a consistently low silver account and a consistently high gold one in the same role based on who I play with) I’m talking about specifically the idea not a specific person.
It’s possible. Period.
I’m a software engineer. I’m not asking for increased basicness, I’m talking about increased complexity. For instance the Trueskill system designed by microsoft is an example of a system that does regression analysis and therefore captures what an elo system in incapable of.
A elo-based system used on a team game for individual ranking, for instance, is scientifically proven to be almost indistinguishable from random with a high enough number of independent variable (players)
Obviously and also an important attitude for advancement. The people stuck forever bronze and the ones that blame others or the system as their coping strategy. I’m not talking about that.
I’m talking about objective measurable problems that can be proven via playing on different accounts with different teammates of widely diverging skill levels.
There is a fundamental problem with having rank go up or down consistently with regard to win or loss with 5 people on a team. That’s an elo-like ranking strategy that is hyper-oversimplified and only works on stable groups like basketball teams that can be treated as one collective entity.
Yeah that’s the thing. I think it’s impossible to go up ward with a loss. There is always a loss to your rank no matter what. That’s just bad design.
It should also be possible that you don’t go up after 5 wins in a row too because the system should be subtle enough to know you’re an anchor getting carried.
That would be fair and I’m pretty sure that is NOT how the system works.
How you will play incredibly well when your team only cares about their stats?
Your supports will heal only tank and do dmg bc thats best way to get better stats
You on dps will be always dead.
So system will rank up trash supports and you will lose 175 yeach game.
There will be no way for you to do anything on dps unless you have insane aim. But then again… where is team work to win?
There is powerfull thing as consensus.
When everyone does it then everyone starts doing it. You will win games by playing DM just bc enemy will be doing same.
And to balance every hero for stats… like should you get same gain for Soldier dmg as for Mei dmg?
Sounds like mission imposible.
On one hero you will be climbing with 40% win rate while on other droping with 60% win rate.
Yes, it’s a demonstration of a principle not a specific implementation…
You missed the point and didn’t understand the demonstration.
You have a certain possible number of points you would gain based on individual performance.
On a game where you win (with good performance metrics) you get 100% of these. In a game where you lose (with good performance metrics) you get only 25% of these possible points.
Of course not. Keeping up with complex interconnected metrics is the only way to create fair systems of individual ranking, It’s the only way to separate out one person from 5 when a single missing person (very bad play) guarantees a loss whereas a single person well ranked should never be worth double another player.
Just programming a game of this complexity is already far beyond the difficulty of keeping up with complex character based things. They already need to improve play of the game, but in OW1 they used to keep up with more than just kills for play of the game before they just gave up on any performance monitoring in OW2.
If you assume the developers are utterly and completely incompetent.
I can’t blame you for making the assumption but there are tons of things like time on point, damage mitigated, survival during 1v3 situations, clutch eliminations and ult usage near game end points. Most if not all of these are already kept up with, but used for only simply POTG selection at most.
Sorry I know they are capable of doing it as developers. It’s more about moronic managers holding to absurd ideals of fairness that cause unfairness in practice.
They have an overarching culture of wanting to suppress individuality at this company. I’m sure every manager there hates the story of Harrison Bergeron. Yes, it’s overblown and every dork thinks this exceptional idea is them, but there’s still truth in it.
Exceptional personal individual performance is generally hated and punished by the masses. Period. Exceptions are a minority and suffer the same treatment all minorities do.
I have had a “you are ranked higher than 98% people…” and a 97% on two different accounts and still been in the same rank. As well as a 34% and moved up a rank. Its as the Rock said, “cooky-dooks”.
