Give us the option to force a SR interval of a specified amount for matchmaking.
In other words, you can choose for every other player to be within 100 SR, 200, 300, and so on.
Obviously if you choose lower, your queue time will likely be longer. But that’s personally a sacrifice i’d be happy to take so I never get another game like the one I just got, where we had both GM’s and Diamonds in the same game. The game is just played differently between a 500+ SR difference, and the Diamond can’t be blamed for not being able to keep up.
This would remove a lot of unnecessary frustration from grinding ladder.
deciding who you play with is the first step one has to make in a team game, blizz don’t let you though (LFG doesn’t solve this problem entirely)
another idea is to show the MMR formula, if you a 40% chance to win, you can take comfort in the fact that when you do lose, you’ll lose less SR than normal
What about being able to choose how much SR to stake after seeing the percentages? So you could stake more if you see a low chance of winning in the hopes of gaining even more. Or stake the minimum if you know someone on your team is a thrower/rager etc.
well yeah that would be totally awesome, but here’s what would happen. The computer would already display what it thinks is a fare amount of SR to wager and you only might get a 1 point difference of a wager.
technically you are correct, but in practice, it’s not worth it.
you don’t get to wager how many rating points you stake in a chess game, yeah?
(like technically, you should be able to decline matches. but then the NFL, you don’t to pick your opponent. Team sports are meant to be played in seasonal structure like NFL. So when you try to use a ladder, it’s pure chaos and you’re just trying to fix a problem that was solved by organized play since the dawn of time.)
this is my solution for the least obtrusive ladder I can think of:
Could you elaborate on your thought process behind some of those decisions? Like what’s the point in removing 2/2/2 and “avoid teammates”? I personally don’t want to go back to another GOATS meta.
well here’s my idea on balance, the meta would be ever evolving if they balanced this way
remove this because in the system I described there is no way to manipulate the matchmaking. it’s not for good or bad, it’s just to make a 100% level playing ground.
because with “avoid teammates” currently, who ever is better at choosing which teammates to avoid will have a naturally higher SR (even if by a small amount)
so my solution is to have a super decked out LFG and no “avoid teammates” in ladder
it’s just for a level playing field in soloqueue, kinda, ya know?
I appreciate and agree with the sentiment, but I don’t think that’s the right solution. It might be moving in the right direction though. Anything that gives the player more control and removes RNG is a good thing. Up until being able to win-trade, of course.
It sounds great on passer but the fact is your choice would affect everyone. If I, a masters tank in this account, decided to limit myself to only playing with people within 100sr I have just made dps queue even longer and potentially making rank queue longer too.
say we’re in GOATs and then they implemented my idea. So Dva, Rein and Lucio all get that nerf because they were the most played.
now they will keep getting buffed until people start picking the next most powerful heroes. and the heros that are in 7th through 12th place, will not be totally even. So the meta will continuously evolve.
you’re assuming that the 7-12 heroes on deck are equally likely to get pick, there will be variation
I’m not assuming anything. There is always going to be 6-8 hero’s that are objectively better than everything else. Those would get mirrored. Yes, the meta would evolve but what is to say the new meta would be enjoyable? What if that meta Is practically unbeatable on defence without a Lucio but he is unplayable. You risk creating a horrible game climate that would eventually just alternate between 6v6 mirrors
Do I want to talk over voice comms? No. Why would I? It just sounds like you’re using voice as a threat of some kind, ultimately making me care even less about what you could ever have to say.