Okay, awesome.
So the reason I went to length in attaining that response from you is because many ‘discussions’ on this forum amount to back and forth squabbling, if you would. I don’t want to have an argument more than I would prefer to discuss ideas, and experiences in game. All we have to go on about the matchmaker and the way it functions are our own first hand experiences and observations. And they are neither wrong nor right.
So that said. What I believe Cuthbert was trying to say
First, we ought to establish how smurfs are able to, well, ‘smurf.’ They typically throw down to a lower rank that is rife with unskilled/newer players or purchase an account that is ranked lower than that of their ‘main’ account. This has been my observation in my time playing Overwatch of how some players ‘smurf,’ and if you feel I’m wrong or there is another way or I didn’t explain it very well, please feel free to quote me on where you think I went wrong. Now, to my second point.
If we can agree that is how smurfing occurs, by being a highly skilled player in a rank far below your ‘true’ rank, it posits another question: what is the criteria used to gauge a smurf playing in gold versus just a regular ‘gold’ player? I think the answer to that question would be matchmaking rating but then again, none of us knows how the MMR works, so it’s sort of a deadend to go down that street.
But to answer the question, ‘how would removing MMR solve the smurfing issue?’ we need to revisit what Scott Mercer said about MMR: "When the matchmaker creates a match, it determines the % chance for each team to win based on the match it made. The VAST majority of matches are usually near to 50% (especially if you’re a player closer to median skill rating and you’re not in a group).
So hypothetically, if I’m a grandmaster Widow main in bronze queuing for competitive, how do you think the match will be balanced so that each team stands a 50% chance of winning? (if that is even possible with a GM smurf)
MMR by design and its purpose means that there are varying degrees of skill in any given rank and that it will actively try and counterbalance these varying degrees of skill so that each match is as close to 50% for either team. One might even argue that the matchmaker by design alone can create the illusion of smurfs in games where there are none. What do I mean by this? How many folk can attest to being called a ‘smurf’ when they’re really not? That’s simply an observation made by a player to an opposing player they deem far more skilled than they are, and possibly their team, through no fault of their own. It’s simply how the match was ‘balanced’ by the matchmaker.
So by ‘removing’ matchmaking rating and letting the pieces fall where they might, every game would be up to chance, and not crafted in a way where the stand out players in any given match are made to fight opposing smurfs/other stand out players. And you might argue for the sake of this discussion “well, if you’re solo queuing, isn’t fighting one doppleganger better than fighting three?” to which I’d respond with ‘absolutely.’ However, one might prefer fighting three juggernauts due to chance every few games than to be forced to face a mirror player every other game on the opposing team. (as an aside, I don’t know if you’ve ever played OoT, but remember having to fight Dark Link in the Water Temple?)
Hopefully I elaborated well enough and didn’t justify my opinions as factual or ramble too much LOL it’s been a while since I’ve written any persuasive pieces. And Cuthbert, I didn’t mean to insinuate that you were ignoring Brett, I apologize.
