With all this hate and disdain towards the matchmaker and ranked, you’d think someone would come on the official OW forums and defend/explain more about it. Instead, they’d rather hide on reddit behind cool play of the game montages and pats on the head via upvotes. This is what let’s me know that the system is broken at least in OW1 with no way to correct it. Lets cross our fingers and hope OW2 does more with it.
We can only hope, with the introduction of 5v5 and a lot of the heroes being reworked to fit with that. I really do hope we get a new more balanced and fair rating system.
Maybe Blizzard can keep players engaged with a battle pass and sell skins to make money, rather than making comp such a grind.
Today I’ve had tie, loss, loss, win, win, loss, win, tie, win, win. So I’ve gained a grand total of approx 50SR.
I fully expect I’ll have loss, loss after those last two wins if I continue to play…
My “skill” was about the same in each game, so I should have been awarded the relevant skill rating for each game with a little added for a win and a little taken off for a loss. But nope, it’s actually the other way around 
. Crazy…
I know what rank I am. Thanks for the tip.
Using 2400 as an example. Using 1700 as an example.
So why can’t a 2400, or a 1700, or an 1100 climb using SR alone?
If I am at some SR level, I want to climb against people around that same SR level. The whole ladder climbing should be around SR alone, right? Why is there an MMR?
And why is this MMR thing rigged and hidden? It makes everyone good nervous and turns off a bunch of my mates. They literally feel it and have seen the threads and posts and patents. If you’re supposed to climb, why are you not climbing for and against people of your shown rank? Why isn’t actual SR rank used to make a match? Jeff said they dont use SR at all…only use hidden mmr and rig for 50/50.
Please defend “climbing” - visual SR changes - when everything that matters is hidden MMR, and then defend why hidden MMR is there to matchmake. After that your post might have some cred.
Its in the name, Matchmaking rating. Its for making matches because SR can be influenced by things which are not realted to your skill. Thats why is MMR used. MMR is like failsave in many cases when you have some unlacky event like losing connection. It makes you lose SR but not MMR.
Lets say you have very close match and you played great but you still lost, you will lose SR, but your MMR will stay almost not affected. Its good to have it. I see MMR more like true skill rating.
Weird question. I never said they cant? They absolutly can. This is info from few of my games i played last few days. Watch the SR gain/loss:
| 140 | 1652 | -20 | LOSS | 0:2 | Nepal | Mercy | X | US |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 141 | 1635 | -17 | LOSS | 1:2 | Numbani | Mercy | L | US |
| 142 | 1614 | -21 | LOSS | 1:2 | Nepal | Mercy | X | US |
| 143 | 1639 | +25 | WIN | 4:3 | Rialto | Mercy | X | US |
| 144 | 1617 | -22 | LOSS | 0:2 | Busan | Mercy | X | US |
| 145 | 1639 | +22 | WIN | 5:4 | King´s Row | Mercy | X | US |
| 146 | 1616 | -23 | LOSS | 0:1 | Hollywood | Mercy | X | US |
| 147 | 1645 | +29 | WIN | 2:0 | Temple of Anubis | Mercy | X | US |
| 148 | 1665 | +21 | WIN | 6:5 | Watchpoint: Gibraltar | Mercy | E.S. | US |
| 149 | 1693 | +28 | WIN | 2:0 | Oais | Mercy | L | US |
| 150 | 1717 | +24 | WIN | 3:2 | Mercy | X | US | |
| 151 | 1694 | -24 | LOSS | 2:3 | Blizzard World | Mercy | E.S.+S | US |
| 152 | 1720 | +26 | WIN | 2:1 | Hanamura | Mercy/Zen | X | US |
| 153 | 1745 | +25 | WIN | 3:1 | Eichwnwalde | Zenyatta | X | US |
| 154 | 1771 | +26 | WIN | 3:2 | Route 66 | Zenyatta | X | US |
| 155 | 1799 | +28 | WIN | 2:1 | Busan | Zenyatta | X | US |
Please show evidence it is, nobody did that in 5 years. Its just a myth used to excuse bad gameplay. People like to blame system or team mates insted trying to improve and fix their bad gameplay.
So they believe bunch of nonsense post by delusional people. There patents dont even have Overwatch term used anywhere. It was explained many times that they are used for Destiny and CoD. Because if you compare certain things from the patents vs OW it doesnt add up at. Your friend and possibly you were just easily fooled by it, because you did alreadythinks its the system, not you.
Majortiy of games you will play are very close to your elo.
Do you know what is 50/50 chance? its example of fair 50% chance.
we already have that, they might just make it more accurate. Currently it might not be so good but thats only because player base is smaller.
It doesnt help to have mindset like this when you play comp. You are already expecting loss lol.
You say this fine, can you show me those games you played, tell me your rank and i will tell you honest opinion if you should be higher, if you belong higher based on the play. Just post few replay codes.
Because you are playing freaking TEAM GAME. Do you understand concept of team games? Do you thzink that football player are going to higher leage when they lose? Of course not, because THEY LOST AS TEAM.
You are playing team game, not solo deathmatch …
So is every proffesional team sport broken then? Because I didnt see those who lost matches go up and making new teams from those who were better but lost.
3 Likes
just saying. PBSR started after the game was already going. Originally it was win based. A lot of us want it to go back to that. OR all PBSR.
And everybody should decay if they don’t play. Lets get the real competitors in there.
but withthat you’d have to start at bronze instead of the average for new accounts., Or make placements matter more.
I still say that Wins should be based off the Hockey system. 3 points for a win, 1 point for a tie, 0 for a loss.
Plus one point individual for a card, or POTG. (POTG IS optional to me, because sometimes… it doesn’t really seem worth it but I still like the idea of it.)
Wasn’t here in the very beginning so I can’t comment on that. I will say though that PBSR/MMR is actually a positive and I’d rather have it based off of this as opposed to pure w/l.
I’m debated on win streak/loss streak bonus as well simply because some players may go on a 10 game win streak one night, wake up the next day or take 2-3 days off and come back to an Elo they probably aren’t prepared for.
I was never in high Elo for SR Decay but I think if all high Elo players decayed down to 3500 that might be an interesting twist.
But I do know that SR decay actually generates an undesirable experience for high Elo players as it forces them to always be grinding even if they need to step away for irl stuff.
I would find that very annoying tbh….
There’s NO reason to start platinum/Diamond/Masters/GM peak players in Bronze every season. That’s not logical at all.
Having placements matter more for new accounts or for aged accounts would be a nice addition though.
Interesting proposal. I think though for this to be correct, it would have to be “0” for a tie, and -3 for a loss. And you get points for after action cards and/or POTG, plus the PBSR could determine some of this as it currently does.
The whole point of going down in SR for a loss is the ladder system. In an evenly matched game:
If you’re against an adversary and you win, you move up the ladder and they move down the ladder.
If you lose, you move down the ladder and they move up the ladder. I don’t see the issue tbh.
(honestly most matches are pretty balanced it’s team composition that tends to determine steamrolls vs. even matches)
Honestly POTG is kinda just a “high five bro.” But SOMETIMES it really does display plays made by an individual that legitimately changes the outcome of the game.
1 Like
Well I think -3 is too harsh, because if you’re going to literallycarry a team, you should get points. Maybe -1
Well again…. That’s what PBSR/MMR is for. If you drop 60 kills in a game and only die 10 times while the rest of your team feeds their nuts off, you’ll receive slightly less loss penalty (just like the current system).
And if you get an after action card, that’ll add to your reduced penalty.
1 Like
yeah, I get it. I’m not against PBSR. I’m against the full ladder being counted in two ways.
It should be one way. Imagine the East Conference of OWL… playing by PBSR… while the West played by W/L. It’s not a fair metric. And I get what your saying with PBSR… but the thing that I’m sayijng if you play phenomenal and still lose… you shouldn’t lose points. BUT I DON’T THINK THAT APPLIES to me. I am hardstuck, but not sore about it. I don’t think it’s going to magically raise me in the ranks. But I do think that phenomenal players would still rise no matter what.
The problem is that the game’s balance does not allow a player to perform well past a certain team Diff. Even a good player is reduced down to the worst player of his team. The ideal of the ‘better team should always win & dominate at the cost of any inidivudal’ was a critical mistake.
So this argument fails under poor matchmaking which i dont entirely blame as it got shot in the foot by the bad balance & never had a fair chance to do its job as individual ratings will never be accurate enough with such an overly team dependent for performance balance.
The whole competitive ladder is relying on the initial luck of the matchmaker which obviously cannot be close enough its impossible unless you are delusional enough to consider winning lotteries every time a possibility.
SR is just a representation of your current position in a broader skill range. It does not mean much.
MMR, on the other hand, can be a fairly accurate estimate of your “actual” skill. But it’s more like a table or array of various statistics like K/D, healing, blocked damage, etc.
If you want to get an overview of your performance or general skill, open your profile and use sites like Overbuff to compare your stats with those of other players.
Remember: the SR system is not a true ranking system with fixed ranks. Multiple people can have the same SR - until T500, I believe.
For Blizzard, the SR system is very convenient. You will always be “chasing” your next career high. Your SR will never be completely accurate and will fluctuate wildly in a range of 200-500 SR. This creates the illusion of progress and tries to keep you hooked.
And this “customer journey” fits their “from zero to hero” narrative. The game could just give you raw stats like overbuff from the start. That way you could directly see your performance compared to the player base. But that wouldn’t make you want to keep playing, and the more you played, the more boring and stale those stats would become.
It’s not like Overwatch invented this rating system.
Since we have the European Football Championship going on right now, I’ll try to explain it this way:
You could have all teams play 15 games and crown the winner based on the statistics. Who scored the most goals in total? Who played the most successful passes? Who has committed or received the fewest fouls? You could easily crown a winner without seeing an exciting finale.
(Our national league actually works more with statistics and differences than the knockout tournament of the European Championship or World Cup.)
But even I have to admit that the evaluation of pure statistics is much more boring than a dramatically constructed tournament with a “hero’s journey” and a clear winner who fought his way through without compromise.
It’s all about emotions. You can easily see your SR rise or fall with your performance. It’s very easy to understand.
Much less emotional is the change in accuracy from 45% to 46.1%…
2 Likes
If every team sport consisted of teams of random people who have never played together before, and who often quit the game half way through or hinder their own team because they happen to be down 1 at half time… Then yes, they would all be broken.
Your personal skill rating should not be effected by the actions of other people on your team. I really can’t see how you think it should?
Now I know you say the hidden MMR is your true skill rating. But that doesn’t make any sense either. Surely your SR is your skill rating? The clue is in the name 
On another note. If MMR was a fair system like you say, then why hide it at all? I suspect its because if it was visible you would be able to see the massive skill difference between teams, which is plainly obvious in the majority of games I play, be they win or a loss.
I seem to have an opposite experience.
If I do well for more than two or three games in a row - not just “winning” but winning with good personal stats each game - the next few games are almost ALWAYS much more difficult, pitting me against players that are playing much better than myself or the players on my team.
It’s like the game is trying to humble me for having a few good games and not letting it go to my head.
“Oh you want to tryhard do ya? Let’s see how you do against THIS!” - and I feel like a piece of meat that’s been thrown into a lion cage.
3 Likes
Yeah thats the typical situation most of us face. no one knows how it happens, but probably your good short-term performance has affected your MMR rating in some way.
And / or the system suddenly becomes more uncertain about your skill and cautiously tests whether you just had a short win streak or whether you have really improved noticeably, to possibly put you in “more suitable” games.
conspiracy theorists sometimes call it the smurf check.
What’s interesting about it is not necessarily that your opponents get stronger little by little. That’s to be expected when you get better. In fact, the more perplexing observation is that your team members get significantly worse at the same time. It’s like double hard-mode.
They get so bad, in fact, that you wonder why they play in the same SR range. Most of the time they don’t do it for long, but still drag you down on their way.
1 Like
He. My 5 dps games yesterday: 2x times captured point 1 in good time. Half of the enemys leave the game. Okeeeey… clear win. 
Next 3 games: BOOM! Enemy in your face. 
2x times rolled, 1x close defeat.
(Today tank games, balanced so far.)
1 Like
You still didn’t explain why we aren’t being matched and climbing around SR only? You typed a wall that says we’re being matched around MMR into games rigged for 50% win chance and expected to climb around that. You said MMR is the real skill rating. The win/loss points you showed doesn’t explain why MMR is necessary.
So SR isn’t a skill rating afterall, it’s just a bank account of collected wins and losses?
No wonder games are a joke at any SR.
I did. You are being most of the times placed with players around your SR.
4 Likes
At this point he’s arguing for the sake of arguing. I think your time is better spent elsewhere.
3 Likes
But either way… if MMR is what matches you… it should be the number shown. and the whole thing should be performance based… because if you do well, you should go up… even if you lose.
Right?
The point people bring up is simple: if SR is sufficient for ranking and climbing why is there MMR? Why is the matchmaking kept separate from the ranking and climbing? Can you answer that please.