Lying or boosted
Or both 
1 Like
Nah, no karma if you agreed to the terms by which you will be treated. At the very least not as much. They’ve disclosed they are not transparent, but keep a hidden metric by which matches are made, MMR.
1 Like
I somewhat agree with this, especially in gold/plat.
You are only a sixth of your team. You cannot control what the 5 other players do or change their playstyle.
An overly aggressive Rein might have threw your Diamond game.
All you can do for now is just try and hope for the best, even though the matchmaking is weird (I’ve seen golds with diamonds, solo-queueing btw)
I don’t know who told you they stop at 4.3
1 Like
If you think somebody working hard daily to improve isn’t at a higher skill level than they were 4 years ago and that their rank falling rather than climbing isn’t an issue with the system, I don’t think it shows that I’m the delusional one here.
2 Likes
-
Skill level in terms of rank is relative. You got better? Cool so did everyone else and even more so if you’re dropping.
-
Just because you played a lot doesn’t inherently mean you got better. I can go and swing a golf club for hours without having a real clue what I’m doing but it’d be “practice”, still wouldn’t get me anywhere and if anything it’d just reinforce bad habits.
Can you get better over time? Absolutely. But people who say things that boil down to “I play a lot so give me higher rank” are really just not looking at anything deeper than surface level and their fallacies show.
Say whatever you want but that won’t change that raw time played ≠ skill or improvement on its own. Especially if you’re mentality isn’t in the right place to actually look at your own play and matches objectively, not just saying “I did good here and my teammates made me lose.”
Gonna give this thread a nice big “mute” either way. It’s nothing more than the same old “system hates me and is keeping me from being the higher rank I deserve” vs “nah you’re trash and aren’t improving” when in reality both camps are not 100% right as much as they want to be. People do get better but you don’t inherently “deserve” a higher rank just by playing a lot or even just by spending a lot of effort/time on improving. There needs to be actual results, you know the improvement itself that outpaces how your peers are improving.
Realistically pretty much all players are bad judges of what they “deserve” as they’re inherently going to be biased to over or underestimate themselves depending on how optimistic or pessimistic they are. And even coaches aren’t always objective as chances are some will try to “butter up” their client in order to get more money/get them to buy more coaching sessions.
I mean look, its been shown repeatedly the impact all these alts (and true Smurfs) have. It’s also definable empirically that the matchmaker is 1) too broad under RQ, and 2) has a tendency to have loss streaks that are far more punishing than make statistical sense. Sure, If I am “GM”, I will naturally walk past most problems. That doesn’t mean that problems don’t exist for the average player that go beyond just a “git gud” response. I agree, if you are under rank you can climb, but the problem now is the factors that go into what determines your “true rank” are skewed.
3 Likes
Look. I don’t disagree that there could be some changes made to improve the matchmaker because it’s not perfect. What drives me crazy is the threads that overflow the problem. They’re just as bad if not worse than the ones that try to make the problem seem completely nonexistent.
Realistically a lot of the people that “recommend” large wholesale changes to the game’s systems as if they’re advisors for the team (real easy to be an armchair dev for them isn’t it?) often just use the reasoning of “I deserve a higher rank because a play a lot!”
I honestly think the changes that would need to/could reasonably happen to make games more consistent would be more just adjustments to how things are weighted and structured numerically. Like putting importance on different stats and levels slightly different than they are currently. Add that to a shrinking of the group range to 500 at the mid ranks and you’d already be potentially having a more consistent experience (since the “wide range” a lot of people see in player ranks on either team is usually due to the outliers being in a group together and meeting in the middle). Anything under 500 wouldn’t feel right since two players in the same bracket should be able to group together (otherwise the rank groupings feel more pointless if two gold players can be too far to group) and you can’t just say “within your current rank only” since then you have the issue of two people who are duoing suddenly being unable to play together because one of them hit 2502 while the other is at 2498.
The big thing is not only can we only speculate so far without knowing the major details of the system itself but there will always be some group that is unhappy. For every person who says “I’d sacrifice time in queue for a ‘fair game’” there’s another who just wants a game as quick as possible. Not to mention the fact that everyone’s wait thresholds are different and nothing but “fair” games can’t be guaranteed even with unlimited wait times as people’s performance can vary wildly between two matches. Especially since what someone calls “fair” is extremely subjective. Two people in the same match on the same team could call it fair or unfair based on their own criteria. And beyond that, there will always be a game or two that feels unfair. Now we can talk about frequency all we want, and of course the ideal frequency is never for games like that, but since humans are biased to remember negative events more vividly and people are inherently more likely to write posts and talk about/react to negative experiences there will always be a greater percentage of people who have a bad game that decide to say something about it compared to those that have a normal or good game and decide to post about it. The people who have an average or good game just keep playing, no reason to stop to them, let alone tell the world that doesn’t care. But the person who had a bad game? Well the world needs to hear about how they were wronged right now!
The question really is just how the numbers should be adjusted both in weight and what is tracked to different extents. And even then there will be different camps on how far to adjust scores given for wins and losses and how heavily to weight statistics of any kind, often based on how it would effect them or their play style. After all, can you really imagine a player who plays a very aggressive/higher than average death style of play to advocate for deaths being weighted heavily at all? They’d be much more likely to advocate for a stat they feel they excel in being the “weighted stat”.
3 Likes
I can’t 100% disagree. I think the problem is when it is perceived to not be fair, it really sticks in the craw of people. Couple that with the problems of rampant alting and Smurfing, and a matchmaker that is bit whack, it leads otherwise earnest players to get frustrated. I am also a strong proponent of 2-2-2, but then I am more patient than most players and also flex across all three roles equally. I have little patience for pure DPS players that get on about queue times, but I do think Blizz needs to overhaul comp, its just not working well these days.
1 Like
Ideally if I had my way I’d just see comp be a mode that pushes groups only. Put in a strong social feature/clan system that encourages similar people to play together consistently to form strategy and chemistry based on the specific map and matchup they are in and let them play in a fully open queue system so they can move past being a “tank” “support” or “damage” player. Have it be more “im the zen for our team and Fred is out sigma but if we need a rein I’m on that and Fred plays Lucio for me” or “I’m usually the off tank on our team but if we need to shut someone down with Sombra I swap to her and we decide if we want to go without an off tank, have our projectile player Nick swap to Hog or Sigma, or have our off support swap to Zarya and sacrifice healing for sustain and damage consistency.” Get rid of “I’m a plat player but my teammate is a diamond” and rank your team/clan (since you’d need a clan to be able to be bigger than 6, imagine having to only play comp with the exact 6 you started with outside of maybe weekend tournaments or something) as a unit. Really would push the strategic/tactical elements of the game to the extreme and the most flexible teams would fair the best overall as I believe they should. Let the people who just want to play alone stay in the “casual/fun” mode and make it clear that the ranked/competition mode is meant for teams committed to building a strategy that is deeper than “press w” and want to grow as a group.
Now of course do I realize that there’s a lot of details and parts to that system redesign that would have to be made as well as a lot of time invested into it? Yes but I think it would put the game in the best state it could reasonably be in if people actually bought into the team play aspect of the game that much. At the same time I also recognize that that is just my ideal version of the game and is extremely unlike to even be considered let alone implemented and because of that have largely moved on to different games that have at least slightly better social features to encourage chemistry amongst squads/teams as well as games where it’s just one on one.
3 Likes
Another problem with all the smurfs and alts are that they are largely a response to the problems with the matchmaking systems. Why have just one account when you’re basically rolling a dice each time as to where you’ll place and therefore be biased as belonging in that rank or less. For many players, it’s basically required. How, exactly, is that not a major issue, either?
1 Like
Sue: check this account and the bob accout, all different levels.
Even my dps jump 500 points when we played last. Support on bob might still be plat, got my tank out of silver finally.
It’s a mess, and again now my support is stuck in bronze on this account and it’s a mind trip when I do flex cause I can sense the difference.
Well thank heavens we appear to be getting Clans very shortly (finally) which should have been end of year one…
2 Likes
I think the Ranks are way to granular and the skill in each rank can vary massively between the low side of the sr and the high side. if each rank was split into 2 more ranks maybe the skill gap will tighten in each rank.
1 Like
True.
Hopefully they’ll declare, and go public about the rigging. Just like the cigaratte companies MUST show pictures of lung disease on the carton. As an entertainment company, they should be legally obligated to do so. And the esports marketing should go. You can’t label it an esport if ANY rigging is in-game. It’s not good for the kids and it’s not good for the adults. It’s good for no1 but ATVI.
The CoD devs went public about the SMBB rigging, so it’s time for Aaron and his team to follow suite. I suspect rigging may have been one of the keypoints that made Jeff bow out.
Show me one patent or one piece of IP that enforces this. Right now there are 10+ patents hard dedicated to rigging. Not a single attempt made to ensure unperverted matches.
The sooner you realize any pixels you get out of this game are the byproducts of rigging, the sooner you can join our class action to C&D the gambling house.
Correct. Interfering with match formation with anything but the ranked structure (SR payout) constitutes rigging and is tampering with the natural contest machinery.
3 Likes
the solo que slide…classic lol
Not a bad suggestion.
1 Like
Valorant does this. Its okay. It would probably not be a bad idea…
1 Like
As said before…the matchmaker is “working as intended” 
In what sense does the matchmaker keep you where you are?
Does it depend on the role you play? The time of the day you play? Whether you are on a losing streak or a winning streak?
What parameters does the matchmaking use to hinder you in your gameplay?
How come I do not notice that in my own games?
1 Like