Incorrect. IF said player actually DID have higher mechanical skill AND higher gamesense ESPECIALLY with higher teamskills, then said player would not be in gold, or if said player was in gold for some reason, that player would screw up games until that player got to a more appropriate, higher rank.
I think what people fail to realize is that Competitive is almost basically a zero-sum game, and it’s by design because the entire playerbase are human players. Unless you insert actual bots into the game, people rank up by TAKING other people’s ranks. So the unfortunate fact of the matter is, you gain rank by taking OTHER players ranks.
That’s why Comp feels cruel and that is why people feel like Blizzard INTENTIONALLY puts “bad” players in with “good” players. Unfortunately for those “good” players, that just isn’t the truth. Yes, there are people that are higher or lower ranked than they deserve, but that also disproves the “rigged” theory, as said players wouldn’t have gotten higher or lower than they deserve in the first place. If they currently hold whatever rank they have for whatever reason, then they’re simply matched by whatever rank they have, deserved or not.
This goes back to the “subjective experiences” line. YOU DO NOT GET TO BE THE JUDGE of others. Instead, work with them, because human differences are a thing.
i very specifically said “RELATIVE TO HIS POSITION”. meaning, you’re wrong. there are gold players that are RELATIVELY higher skill than other gold players.
my example is sound, your understanding of simple language needs work.
I’ll take responsibility for overlooking the “relative to his position line” but even then, that does not matter AND that does not mean you are correct. The actual fact of the matter is that you’re simply matched based on what your current rank is, no matter how you got to that rank.
Firstly, a lot of people that post on this forum will claim that they’re “factually better” than their own rank suggests (therefore, your “example”), and that they lose because the matchmaker intentionally gives them “factually worse” teammates to “balance” the game out. I know that you probably believe that too, because in that very same post, you replied with:
the simple example is this. let’s use a gold player. this gold player has high mechanical skill and high game sense relative to his position in gold. the match maker will constantly be filling this player’s games with below average gold players to come up with an average that can be more easily matched by 6 other people. that opposing team will likely have the same high mechanical skill high game sense player anchoring that team, and also be filled with 5 players of a lower average skill/sense.
And as I said before, you’re matched with humans and you’re taking on a team of other humans. Sure, you can get “balanced” matches where it just so happens that you have 3 smurfs and 3 normal accounts vs 3 smurfs vs 3 normal accounts, but you can also get any other combination of that, including 6 smurfs vs 6 normal accounts. And that’s because you’re not matched by “what your real skill is”, but simply by what the account’s rank is, NO MATTER HOW THAT ACCOUNT GOT TO THAT RANK. That’s why people complain about smurfing and boosted accounts in the first place, and that’s not even factoring in incorrect perceptions about a player just because of one “good” or “bad” game, because let’s face it, there’s a reason why there’s a stigma that people that play video games are immature.
no, you’re matched by your MMR AND SR to create two ‘evenly’ matched teams.
my suggestion is the team’s highest MMR needs to be mirrored across teams because tanks and supports with relatively high mmr are more likely to be paired off against opposing DPS of similarly and relatively high mmr which produces horrible games.
i believe what the devs post. the devs have outlined at a high level (as in without verbose detail not at the higher SR levels) that there is in fact a handicap system by way of MMR and this MMR is used to form teams within a preferably small SR range when optimal and a larger SR range when not optimal.
this means at all SR ranks, MMR is being utilized to ‘form even teams’ at all SR ranges there are relatively higher skilled players than the rest. in every SR bracket this exists, not just at the high levels.
when the match maker itself fails to account for role lock, it will produce ineffective teams when it pairs off relative MMR outliers on opposing roles.
if you don’t get this, you’re not worth arguing with. BECAUSE of the human factor and absolute lower over all skill in the middle brackets, roles are objectively more or less capable of carrying the team to victory despite the individual 16.7% participation of the individual.
ergo - in the middle brackets where bad DPS play cutesy heroes that bring nothing to the team’s total synergy, and opposing DPS (be it smurf or just relatively higher skilled DPS for the position) playing reaper, maie, hanzo, etc will generally get picks in each and every team fight where his opposing equal who might be a support player who is occupying the same right end of the relative MMR bell curve (for the general SR rank) will be struggling to out heal that DPS’ damage let alone get picks.
this is why the matches feel so un-winnable. it isn’t the system ‘cheating you’ or me or anyone its that the system itself is F****** flawed as it DOES NOT account for any of this despite the game being updated to force role lock.
Incorrect. You’re SOLELY matched by MMR and SR isn’t even used at all. I know that you’re probably one of those people that thinks that you have an SR, but your MMR is a differentiator between “good” and “bad” players at the same SR. I say that view is incorrect, but you’re free to believe what you want. However, Jeff straight up said that SR isn’t used at all, only MMR:
This has been stated long before as well by Bill Warnecke from Blizzard:
Anyways, see the below topic. It has what I say is the correct interpretation of what Blizzard has been saying. That being said, Blizzard nuked their old forums, so Kaawumba could only recreate what they previously posted on their old forums:
This goes off the assumption that MMR is a differentiator between “good” and “bad” players at the same SR, but that isn’t what MMR was in the first place.
Once again, that goes with the assumption that MMR is there to be a differentiator between “good” and “bad” players at the same SR. And no, that’s not what MMR was in the first place.
There’s this video of Seagull and Jeff Kaplan, where Jeff Kaplan revealed that MMR is a value between -3 and 3, which presumably meant standard deviations from a mean. +3 (and slightly above) is the highest of the ranks (GM and above) and -3 (and slightly below) is the lowest of the ranks (low Bronze and below).
Matches could feel “unwinnable” because as you said, the human element. That’s the sole thing I agree with you at: there’s a human element where not only humans are inconsistent at whether they perform well or poorly, humans might just work well with certain humans and not work as well with other certain humans. That’s human volatility AND human differences at work.
Jeff is wrong here. groups are assembled WITHIN a SR range. otherwise +3 smurfs in gold would be thrown into masters games.
within a SR range, MMR will differ between players so again, it IS used to differentiate between good and bad players within a given SR range.
edit ML7’s bronze to GM series are proof of this. he would never stay within bronze, silver, gold etc if the match maker DID NOT also use SR. Within a few games the ‘perfect system’ would realize “oh crap this guy is +3” and immediately throw him into GM games despite his silver SR if in fact the system DID NOT use SR.
MMR is a system intended to handicap that player that’s just how it is.
At the same time it’s not rigged.
It’s a very garbage matchmaker and you could throw six plats together against six plats with no mmr in a minute but the game is trying to use stats to determine a fair match.
It’s not rigged; it’s just not designed with climbing in mind. It’s designed to try to create fair matches, and that’s it. To climb, you have to get really good faster than everybody around you, which takes a lot of effort and is very frustrating.
Prove what exactly? Ok go to Tesla stream , he did bronze to gm with moira. Proof how is climbing is possible if you have skill. One of many runs from streamers as example.
Or prood that matchmaker is not rigged? Developers explained how is matchmaker working. If you have different opinion about it, burden of proof is on you. Otherwise its just crazy theories.
this really only proves that the system works well with the highest skill level. it doesn’t prove that the system is delivering an ideal game to game consistent experience for the player-base at large.
meaning you’re pointing to an absolute example and saying “see, everything works fine” which completely over looks everything that the system could be doing a better job of - while still working just fine for +3 players.
I know, they will use anything to avoid proving it because its nonsense and it cannot be proven.
Like how hard would it be? Record one rigged forced loss streak and post it here, done. Its super easy as these people have this constantly as they say. Yet nobody in 4 years didnt post anything like it. Interesting.
And at the opposing side we had countless climbing runs from bronze to high ranks, recorded on stream, video as hard evidence.
I’ve shown this like 18 times. Others as well. No evidence will matter you’ll just keep denying it.
I just wrapped up another 15 straight losses in the bottom 500. Same screenshots every night. 1-2 wins trigger a cancel or two, into unwinnable chain losses. Almost like mmr shoots way up above what someone can manage. Or it could be some sort of punishment/prison system for ‘smurfing’ (how can I be a smurf if my career high is like 900sr gold border).
And we know it’s not just being bad. In a fair system, there would be some regression towards the mean. At such a low rank, the system should be making it extremely difficult to lose, over and over until you’re balanced out. Those ‘unlosable’ matches should be a dime-a-dozen in the lowest ranks. A loss should be almost no -sr, and a single win should skyrocket +sr. My losses are -40sr and my wins are like +12.
