Except that’s what the rigging does. You’ll have team averages being close (and they don’t use harmonic means here, shame on them). Meaning if you’re overperforming, your mmr goes up but because you’re confined to a particular SR range, it’ll ship your match with lower mmr players. And on both sides of the fence, you’ll have these mmrs all over the place to keep things approx ‘equal’ (i.e. 50/50 +/- error estimates).
So someone with high mmr is being ‘balanced out’ by low mmr players, and playing against potentially other high mmr players. People are getting harder/easier matches than they otherwise should be getting for their SR label.
The only thing it keeps in check is your ladder mobility. Climbers face backpressure and derankers get forced wins.
That is how a competetive scene work thou, one player is better and advances another is worse and stays in place. That is how tournamnets are set up as well, the best players do not face each other until the finals for OW that would translate to GM, but with the current system in the holy name of balancing games in diamond, plat, gold levels they still apply MMR to essentially handicap players or have sweets playing each other. Makes no sense at all and it completely lacks competitive integrity.
I get that competitive games are still fairly young stuff and sports been around for a while, so maybe it is time games learn from sports a bit, not everything is translatable, but some basic stuff actually is like how you rank players.
Correct. Shillers deny this thou, or they simply missed out on basic school and can not understand the system. On the side the games keep bleeding players
I think ranks are kind of something different really.
You have multiple rankings and you have multiple categories within those rankings.
You have Low-Mid-High or however you want to explain it, and to get to the next ranking you have to get over the obstacle by climbing from Low up through High.
It’s in my opinion a challenge that’s fair, this way we can prevent boosting too.
We have Skill Based MMR systems under Diamong, hence why it’s hard to go from Plat to Diamond since to cross that barrier you have to switch from individual skill to team-skill.
I think it should work in a way like this, makes sure each ranking poses a challenge for every person.
Except it should not, the ladder should not represent the individuals skill curve, but the community as a whole, it should be a static curve evolving as the game and its community evolves not be something personalised were you again can glide in the lower tiers of a rank and still advance to the highest tier of achievable rating points. Its like the fiasco of people with less than 50% winrate getting to GM on sombra and torbjörn.
It is because of the nature of trying to make 50/50 games that this isnt correct. If the game is able to make a 50/50 game its just a coin flip. Otherwise you must become DRAMATICALLY better than your rank to such a degree that mmr can not compensate.
Well, at start, if everyone should agree that there should be only one of either SR or MMR as measure of skill, but not both. Using both is rigging. In fact, the best measure right now is MMR, because it dictates SR through PBSR, MMR is the most important value and it is hidden, what makes OW a non competitive game in ladder.
Matching by same MMR and MMR defining your ladder placement without SR ranges would be very strange, but a lot more fair. It would then just show how biaised is the algorithm behind to compute “skill”. Skill cannot be computed fairly, wins matter more than any computed metric but OW thinks otherwise, it is discrimination against some game styles that are not well represented by MMR and should not be part of the game in a competitive setting.
This already exists it’s called Quickplay. If you can get a proper team there it can be more fun than ranked. Unfortunately it doesn’t work because people need a place to casually play or try new things wich makes for some wierd games sometimes.
Wierd thing is I play QP sometimes to warm up and my teammates and enemies that have open profiles are generally Platinum and Diamond in ranked with the occational outlier in Silver and Master. On that account i was low gold in ranked and was still losing games there frequently.
I’ve recently been diagnosed with ADD and starting taking medicine for it and as it should it calms my restlessnes and a consequence of this is better aim (woohoo my hands actually do what i want them to now) and a more calm mind in game. So my skill here has gone up.
The game, though, “balances” my games by giving me harder enemies or WORSE teammates making for even more chaos in an allready chaotic low gold. Highly infuriating. It’s a bad system that could be fixed by just deleting MMR from the ranked games matchmaking and using it only for placements and extreme cases like derankers and trolls…
There is an official statement from Scott Mercer of Blizzard in my thread. It is not an assumption that competitive play is handicapped, it is disclosed by the company.
Well by removing MMR it would somewhat just make it harder to climb solo.
Having SR go by 25 -/+ depending on loss/win will just require the team to win rather than make well an impact stat wise.
Bronze - Platinum, again is mostly individual based.
The team that can play the most as a team will win, though then again i’m unsure if people will go ahead and do that in those rankings.
It could become a clown fiesta.
Apart from that in the long term boosting is also likely, rankings will also shift massively so the Platinum - Diamond gap will be gone.
I think it would rather do more harm to the community really.
I think you are right, but this is probably a massive understatement. Putting hundreds of thousands of players on a real ranked ladder would require players to move through the ranks much more slowly, especially if rank was based on win/loss record (as it should be).
Technically, MMR is not part of your ranking at all, and the ranks where it applies are not really on the competitive ladder. MMR is just a collection of skill metrics that the system uses to handicap your matches in the lower levels.
The question is a hypothetical and cannot be answered. Gee I wish there could more experiments more to find out.
Love this whole thread. Glad they got a “peek” into some inner workings.
It definitely confirms my time of day theory. More people does make it harder because the pool is bigger to choose from (better and worse). and if people are waiting long enough they’ll just stick you with some idiots.
Dying is a big indicator as the devs have always indicated, but I would fear “k:d” is big factor for OW compared COD - a shooter. I do believe OW is slightly different animal because of roles.
Overall this type of thought is exactly what we need, not a blind faith into some system that people cling onto.
