All it sees is mmr numbers and creates lobbies based on that.
There really are not “specific types of players” besides higher and lower rated players.
And if you’re higher rated, you have the same challenges than any other higher rated, and visa versa.
I disagree. I think there are quite a lot of players who don’t necessarily have general aim/movement skills, and are rather only good at playing 1/2 specific heroes. This makes it harder for the matchmaker to throw them in a rank as they can go from 1 game where they played their main and were at 2500 mmr to the next where their main is banned and they perform like a bronze 5 player.
And your excuse is more personal anecdotes that are easy to deal with and work around. Not expecting anything more at this point other than you giving more reasons why it is impossible for YOU.
And an irrelevant anecdote too because it has nothing to do with ranking up and you arent getting matched with GM players as a Gold in ranked.
I’d say try again but then you’ll just post something that is just another personal struggle and has nothing to do with ranking up or climbing
Well that’s on the player. The matchmaker only sees anyones mmr and that’s all it works on. I wouldnt want the matchmaker to accomodate on “what heroes” someone play most likely.
It cant know if someone is drunk, tired, etc either. There always are external factors.
But the main point is: the matchmaking itself is not treating anyone any different than others. So, by definition it is equally fair to everyone.
If you one trick junkrat, its up to you to make up for your lack of flexibility. Not for the matchmaking to accomodate for you in some way.
And then the better JR players will rank up more than the worse junkrats. + who are better at flexing if their main is banned.
If there was a hero lock queue or something, then it would be a different matter again.
There are a few issues with the argument you are making above. You have 2 premises here. Your first premise is: I was in a match with players ranking from Silver 2 to Plat 3. Your second premise is: I lost that match horribly. From this, you conclude that the randomness of the matchmaker can negatively impact players’ ability to rank up.
The holes in your argument are many. First, you cite one match. That is not enough to support your argument. Second, you miss the fact that other players are also dealing with similar issues. Third, though you admit that you don’t know the rankings on the other team, you elide the fact that the other team may well have also had a couple of silver players with a plat player, which would have made for an even match. Fourth, you persist in citing the fantasy that high ranking players get stuck in metal ranks while offering zero support for your fantastic claim.
One thing that is worth noting though, is that your belief that the matchmaker holds you back by making matches that are unfair to you is almost certainly negatively impacting your ability to win those matches. There are lots of studies that demonstrate this. One of my favorites is that if you tell a group that people like them are good at math they will perform better on a math test than they do when you tell them that people like them struggle with math. So, if you want to improve your ability to climb one thing you can do is to stop believing that you cannot climb. (Which makes a good deal of sense really, how is one supposed to improve until one recognizes that meaningful improvement is possible and stops believing that superstitions control their outcomes.)
One match is still a match. Regardless of the quality or quantity, that match just occurred. It shouldn’t occur at all in ranked matches. Secondly, I’d assume by the rank disparity that the other team was full of gold players (and maybe one other Plat 3 player) because we had exactly one gold player on our team. That would effectively put most of the players on the other team at a higher skill bracket than the 2 Silver players I had on my team, because I was the only one who was Plat 3. There is also no fantasy in the fact that high level players can get stuck in lower ranks. It usually takes them longer to rank up to GM than if they skipped metal ranks entirely.
Yeah, both teams get random teammates who may be bad, may be average or may be godlike.
Doesn’t exist btw
They literally provided a developer update on how it worked a couple months ago. But regardless the concept is not at all hard, you get assigned a rating based on how well you play. This increases or decreases as you win or lose.
There’s an obvious limitation in defining your overall skill with a single number when it has to encompass a lot of different elements (aim, timing/use of skills, relative ability on different heroes, willingness or not to swap to counter etc etc) which creates variance so it will never be perfect, but broadly speaking there’s not a lot to unpack here. Play good, number go up, play bad number go down.
Silver and Plat can group together in competitive, so I’m not sure where you are getting the idea that this should never happen in a comp match. I’m also not sure why you are assuming that the opposing team had a bunch of Gold players. That isn’t really the way matches are made anymore. In OW1, matches were made based on average SR, so you could get some weird matches where one team had a Diamond player and a bunch of Silvers or something and the other team was all Gold. In OW2, though matches are made based on individual SR, so if you are Plat, there is another Plat on the enemy team in your same role. And if you have 2 Silvers on your team then the enemy team has 2 Silvers in the same roles as those 2 and so on. And this:
Is completely different than what you were saying before. Of course, it takes longer to rank up through all the ranks than to skip them. But that’s an entirely different thing than to say that people get stuck in the metal ranks. That is the bit that does not happen. No high rank player gets stuck in the metal ranks. Just like a Plat player won’t get stuck in Silver. It’s just too easy to climb through ranks that are significantly below your skill level. Seriously, if you’ve never played in a match far below your skill level, it’s hard to overstate just how impossible those matches are to lose. Enemies that far below your skill level just cannot do anything to you. They have no idea how to play the game relative to you.
We had 2 Plat players, 2 Silver players and 1 Gold player on our team in a match that was ranked Silver 2 to Plat 3. If the other team fits into that range, a balanced match would choose either the exact same setup, which is probably unlikely, or another team that is full of Gold ranks and only one Plat player. The way the other team was playing didn’t make me think they were anywhere near Silver ranks. As a general rule of thumb, though, that match should never be a possiblity in ranked matches when people are busy trying to rank up. I think most players would rather play with people who are in their own rank.
Also I never said they were hard stuck in metal ranks. Just that it is not impossible for GM players to get stuck in lower metal ranks for longer because of the nature of random matches and players. That has a merit in this conversation all on its own, because even high level players are not exempt from the matchmaker variance. You can’t discredit the matchmaking quality and just say “Well it’s your fault because you’re in your own games 100% of the time”, because I know first hand that this is not always true. More often than not, my teammates in fact end up being the reason we lose games.
Its not unlikely, in fact since they introduced the role delta system, probably 2 years ago by now, into the game its quite likely.
For example they match tanks within 1 division in over 80% of their games.
Though if you are in silver to plat games, you’re probably either wide queuing or in 6v6/open queue. Depends on the exact spread though.
And open queue has unrestricted grouping, and all games are “wide” because the game mode has lack of players. So those wide games are a compromise there.
That match was in regular 5v5 competitive, and it should have never happened. That game was an immediate loss
If that was the case, both teams had around the same configuration of players. In OQ it probably could be more lax.
You also could think that if you see the rank range and youre the highest rank player, then you need to carry your weight. Especially if the range is big.
Unfortunate.
“bad games” happen to everyone equally, so it doesnt really matter in the long run. Better players overcome the “bad games” more often than worse players.
So the “bad games” are not holding you back any more than anyone else. Everyone plays against the same odds.
Judging by how both teams played, it was extremely unlikely that they also had Silver players on their team. Which is why I said it was more likely a team full of Gold players.
Maybe, maybe not. It’s one game. Unlucky go next.
You’re right, that is just one game – but it is one game of many that are victim to matchmaking variance.
I dunno what your point is. As said, those games are not holding you back any more than anyone else.
So you had one game you lost. Happens. A better player might have turned that game around.
Rank is not the only variance we have in Overwatch. Player variance is extreme at lower ranks. As I said before, that example was just one example of many reasons why games are lost.
Doesnt matter why games are lost, everyone has those same variances in their games. So everyone fights against the same things, and better players overcome those variances and worse players dont.
Or if your point is just to basically say : “some games are bad in my opinion” . sure, yes, some games are bad.
I am really not sure what you’re going for.
It actually does matter because variance says you can lose more games than you win, even with the progress you make from day to day. It might be completely different for a new account, when their rank ratings are boosted per game, but for an average player in metal ranks, only earning so much rank and losing it to variance is not a healthy way to present the game