No, they’re right. The better players win more often over time.
Leavers don’t lead to any given player winning more games over time. Everyone experiences leavers.
Guess what? If you’re fighting against a team with a leaver, you’re gonna get more kills against them.
No, it’s literally true.
That’s why nearly every single successful sporting league and cup in the world are decided by who has the best random arbitrary statistic, right? It would be foolish to decide these things by which team actually won the match. Winning doesn’t matter and has no correlation to skill or talent after all…
I am better at padding my stats than you could ever hope to imagine.
It feels weird that you’re here saying all this when just yesterday I was looking at the MR steam talks and they are saying the same thing about the MM over there as here.
“EOMM is why this is all falling apart”
So is their MM better or worse?
Or the same? It’s this one
It’s way better. But only because the playerbase is better. That’s the “problem” with matchmaking to begin with. The human element.
You can win 10 games in a row 1 day then lose 10 in a row the next.
Just because you won 10 games does not mean you had more skill on that day vs the day you lost 10 games lol
Winning and losing does not equal skill
If you looked at that players performance across those 20 games that is a more accurate reflection of what that players skill is
Did he win 10 and lose 10 because the players performance is inconsistent between the 2 days or were the 10 he won because the enemy had trolls etc and the 10 he lost he had throwers and 1 tricks. Basing solely on wins and losses you dont see any of that
With solely wins and losses that player has a net 0% rank differential after those 20 games
By using performance based ranking you would be able to see actually in 8 of those losses he actually performed the best on the team. In 6 of the wins he was the main contributor. And from using performance based ranking that player actually has climbed +2 divisions because 6 of those wins he was recognised as being the mvp and won more than average and 8 of the losses were not his fault so he lost less
That is a more fair reflection of that players skill than just saying he won 10, he lost 10 so he deserves his rank. That is too surface level thinking for an accurate ranked system
Wins and losses are a 1 dimensional binary measurement that dont accurately show why a player won or lost. They are just the end result. It is performance that dictates a players skill. Good players lose to bad players everyday. Wins and losses should not be the sole deciding of rank when many factors out of your control effect the outcome of a game. Looking at performance is a much more accurate reflection of a players rank
Period. The match quality in its current state is abysmal. You go multiple games of back to back losses and wins because of throwers and leavers. Performance mmr fixes everything wrong with the current matchmaking issues
If they were more skilled, they would have won 11 the first day and 9 the second day. If they were less skilled, they would have won 9 the first day and 11 the second day.
But the performance you would see would be more than what the game can track. The game can’t track call outs, zoning or target prioritization.
Probably both. People’s performance absolutely does vary from day to day.
Your personal performance is the one common denominator across those end results.
The game can’t measure performance outside of stats. And stats have nothing to do with performance.
You can go 7-15 and still play perfectly and win a match. If I die every fight as tank but do my job that’s all that matters. You “performed” even though the game has no way of knowing that this was the case. This is just not a good hill to die on.
No lol. Skill is irrelevant to wins and losses
What are you not getting?
It doesnt matter how skilled you are there are games you cant win and games you cant lose.
Just sounds like you are assuming that because that has never been proven to be the case.
Funny how other games, even games of the same genre are able to do it perfectly fine lol. Any excuse to dodge the solution i guess
It is going to screw me as an Iron Fist main. I am winning a lot, but the scoreboard makes me look like a bum compared to that Punisher that just sat in the back and tickled everyone all game. It’s whatever, I can always just pick a hero that slays if I want bonus SR. But I don’t.
Exactly my point lol
THE FACT YOU CAN GO 7-15 AND STILL WIN IS WHY WINS AND LOSSES AS A MEASUREMENT OF SKILL ARE IRRELEVANT
Literally just arguing against yourself for me at this point lol.
YES you can go 7-15 and still win. Thats the problem. You going 7-15 and winning should not win the same as the dps who went 32/3 and carried you
PROVING 
MY POINT PERFECTLY
What exactly are you doing all game then lol. If youre doing so much why are you contributing less than someone supposedly tickling ppl
Surely if you are better than said punisher you should have more solo kills and elim % than a punisher just spraying
Mostly just pressure and trying to help my teammates. You walk with the tanks, you come back and peel your supports. Distract the enemies to condition them. Once they believe you aren’t a threat, you hard commit. That sort of thing.
Iron Fist struggles to kill because they gutted his damage, but you can still bait a lot of their resource while remaining relatively independent yourself. It’s a net gain. Also my existence can just buff my Sistah Spice while she is on Luna because the Chilling Chi helps her stay alive if I am busy diverting their focus.
I can get those same stats on Punisher, I just lose when I do it. Probably I ain’t got a Gangsta Iron Fist to back me up when I am using him. ROFL.
That actually brings me to the next point. I probably wouldn’t win as Punisher anyways. No bonus SR for me because I would lose too much. I would need to play Mister Fantastic instead. He can bend an entire lobby over and farm Ace like nobody’s business and I win plenty with him. Less than Iron Fist, but the performance based SR might actually be relevant there.
So clearly you don’t seem to understand how overwatch works. I can play sojourn tickle the whole enemy team and do nothing while my mauga forces every CD under the sun and stuns 4 with charge every fight but dies for it. One farms scoreboard but does nothing and the other dies a bunch but carries the game.
Fortunately the devs aren’t insane.
LOVE THIS. This game absolutely needs this. Its kinda bs that you can get assumed to be bad just cause you had a team that all threw the game. Like?? The whole it only matters whether you win or lose structure to use to find your true rank is and always has been a stupid system. Its exploitable. Teams can stack or use ways to climb that makes it easier to beat other teams and mm is horrible on top of that. Wins or losses shouldnt be as important as individual play , gamesense and skill
The game doesn’t know how to judge performance.
People are really bad at judging if they did well or not.
I do agree in theory. If you put the best player in the worst team they will lose against other top players. Their winrate would be like 1% even though they are just as good as (or even better than) the enemy.
Measuring individual performance is very difficult to do correctly but not automatically “bad” or “dumb”. Just using damage from the scoreboard is dumb.
That’s a complaint in general. It adjusts very slowly unless you have the calibration modifier and are hard smurfing.
(With a winrate of 60% you win 6 in 10 matches, so just one more than expected. So in 10 matches you get +20% rank division progress. So you need 50 matches with a consistent 60% winrate to climb just one division. With the amount of noise I consider 60% reasonable for someone that is definitely better but not stomping every enemy.)
Some “hint” from the performance would most likely help that.
There is this argument that it doesn’t matter how you win as long as you do. So anything is possible and the only truth is the ending, very noble.
In the end it’s a shooter though. There are strong signals for things that work that usually result in a win or loss, e.g. killing or dying.
If you take into account teammate performance into consideration for the player (hanzo) performance, then congratulation, you just invented a system that tracks win !
And good news: that’s exactly what we have now.
The truth is that if ranked was rewarding player for their stats, you will not climb because you win, you will climb because you farm stats, but farming stats is not the thing that will make you win, so you end up with meta in Marvel Rivals with triple support, a bad comp that still win MMR because they have a lot of stats
So the stuff I’ve heard about people climbing in MR with a negative winrate didn’t even had to do something with performance??
Thats just straight up horrible design then.
Skill isn’t determined by just a few matches.
It’s your long term ability to win games what is important.
Your mistake is thinking the principle Winning = Sklll applies to every individual match, but thats not true.
Winning a game in Bronze doesn’t make you good.
Winning 1000 games and climbing from Bronze to GM makes you good.
Then why abuse ranks to make that “fun and rewarding experience”?
The point of ranks is to show a person’s skill as objectively as possible, which is done by traditional W/L based MMR systems. If a game doesn’t feel fun and rewarding, ranks are not why.
You can certainly fake it for a bit and make players feel like they are great, but once they realize they are being duped the fun is done with. Just like with MR when people realized literally everyone can rank up just by playing, not even by playing well. It’s very short-term thinking because in the long run you’re destroying what that rank even means.