So the question for all the allknowing game defending chads of this game (or so they think they are).
If there is certain % of players in each rank that can be attached to a certain rank at a time, for example 1% in gm, 3% in masters 10% in diamond and so on, in theory doesnt smurfs take away a spot for someone on the ladder thus making the system inaccurate ?
Example: If there are 3% of masters players out of total population, and 1% of gm players, each makes an alt where they dont try as hard as they do on main for example or just want to play non meta heroes - those alts have to be ranked somewhere and if they are placed in masters - certain x number of ‘real’ masters players is pushed down into diamond - even though objectively talking they deserve to be in higher rank.
Now applying that to the each rank - we get to a conclusion that the lower the rank the harder is to actually climb because the higher spots are taken by accounts of players that already have a rank - and more than 1.
Therefore the smaller amount of players for the matchmaker pool - game is played by less and less people over time, just like all older games, naturally, and more smurfs, creates a weird enviroment where SR tells you very close to nothing. Sure you could be 2600sr - but you could also be 3100 sr or 2100 sr depending on your luck being matched up with smurfs more than against them, as long as you are not a burden too heavy to carry, games will not depend on you but on higher ranked players disguised in new accounts competing who can clutch more.
The percentage breakdown of the player base was provided by Jeff Kaplan and the dev team…
I don’t think there’s a “room capacity” rule for Overwatch ranks. But this is something I used to wonder (when I was a hard stuck plat player).
For this concept to be possible, that would mean there was a “limited” amount of SR available to all of the player base. The idea that, winning SR, takes SR from someone, and losing SR, gives SR to someone else.
Which seems reasonable considering when you win, you go up, when you lose you go down.
The problem is, when you see smurfs gaining 50-70 SR per win on aged accounts (silver/gold/platinum bordered accounts), this would imply that they’re taking all the SR available for a game that was VERY decisively one sided…
My experience from smurfing was, if I got 50 SR in a game, the other DPS would still get between 20-30 SR, with the Tanks and Supports also getting approximately 20-30 SR. HOWEVER!! There is always one person in those games who does only gain like 15-20 SR. But that still isn’t enough of a balance to shift their 10 to 15 SR to make up for the extra 20-25 SR that I would get when smurfing…
Paragraphs are generally a polite way of helping your readers fully digest information btw…
Again… This is a question I used to think about as well. But on the other side of the coin, think about all the high ranked players who have left Overwatch all together… A lot of them have moved onto Valorant and other games.
The argument can be made that, because the better players are no longer present (or the presence of better players is diminished), this opens up the idea that people who HAVE climbed in rank probably don’t actually belong there because they have less “serious” competition to contend with…
So I think it goes both way.
You’re completely assuming that high elo players are the only ones who continue to play this game.
Judging by the gameplay I experience when I smurf in Gold and Plat, I can tell you, that’s not the case…
There are plenty of hard stuck players who make new accounts thinking they can outsmart the system. After hundreds of games, they eventually drift back down into the rank they belong in. Maybe a little higher or lower depending on how consistently they perform.
I think you’re making a very heavy stretch that High Elo players are the only ones who continue to play the game.
Lets assume that for a second.
With you only gaining 20-30 SR per game and them gaining 50-100 (new account or just out performing for the rank), pretty much every single one of them will out-pace your climb and you’ll settle with the player base you still belong to. There aren’t consistently enough (ONLY) smurfs playing Overwatch or queue times would be infinity…
As I said ‘for example’ since I didn’t or wouldnt really bother researching it.
It’s not smufs that gain that much - its new accounts that gain - or lose that same amount in x comp games after they finish placements. Sure there is preformance based rewards until diamond, but it takes away as much as it gives to smurfs, and its capped at 10ish extra SR if I remember correctly.
Regarding this comment and previous one - taking common logic into account its more likely that low SR accounts will quit before high ranking ones, therefore it’s likely that high ranked accounts will spend more time in game before quiting, just due to skill grind if anything else.
The only point here still stands - that SR is innacurate display of someones skill. And thing like MMR just contributes to more innacuracy because a mere computer algorythm can never anticipate if player queuing will be in a good mood or bad one (from being tilted to dog dying and what not reasons).
Starting with myself as an example - out of last 30 games, there were maybe 3 balanced ones, rest were either destroying or being destroyed - complimenting to my argument that current SR system is terrible and innacurate in displaying someones skill.
Incorrect, I boosted a Gold Bordered account from 13xx to 2400 and it took exactly 21 games. I was averaging about 50-70 SR per win and I received no lost games.
When I’ve climbed accounts from Gold to Diamond, I can still get up to 60 SR per win in platinum on aged accounts.
I suppose its a relatively fair assumption, however, as many times as I’ve played in the various ranks, there are still people from the wide range of players who still actively participate.
A lot of people are unwilling to put in the effort it takes to self-improve.
SR isn’t meant to be a “direct” representation of your skill. It represents your place on the ladder and how near/far you are from the next tier. MMR would be a more appropriate representation of your skill except its not human readable. “So they say.”
complementing*
Current system would be fine with a healthily populated player base.
The mmr system is just plain broken and never made any sense. It evaluates your play based on some number metrics - but it’s a game where there’s a lot more to it than that.
For example, if a junkrat has low accuracy because he’s spamming a hallway for an extended period, but it zones out the enemy team and keeps them off the point, and they win, how is it any worse than a high accuracy junkrat who gets 2 kills but his team loses the team fight because a flanker gets through where the other junkrat would’ve held them back? There’s no way for the mmr system to capture these types of things.
Also… it just makes no logical sense. If your favourite sports team wins and gets awarded 0.8 points because they’ve lost a bunch of games in the past, but another team gets 1.2 points for a win because they have a lot of wins in the past, how is that a good thing?
I don’t get why people defend the hidden mmr. It’s complete garbage. If it was actually any good, they wouldn’t need to hide it.
its not exact percentage, but your basic point is correct. I use the analogy that say 5 people out of 50 belong in GM by relative weighting, but 3 are Smurfs for two players… that locks out three forced now in to Masters, which then pushes say another 3 down, and so on. Top-to-mid weighting definitely is an issue in the game. One is fooling themselves not believe SR inflation occurs with Alting. I won’t even touch on the damaging effects true Smurfing has…
People defending it as basically “perfect” invariably do well in it and thus defend it despite its flaws. Add to that Blizz themselves are overhauling it with OW 2 and doing a much-needed MMR/SR reset… most people will end up roughly where they were, but if they actually institute SR decay… this will help a lot to stem the Alt/Smurf problems…
Congratulations, you performed basic zoning which is understood by players from Bronze to T500
Agreed. And that doesn’t really matter. Because game to game, map to map, there’s no guarantee that your zoning game is going to prevent people from pushing a certain choke.
Or that you’ll consistently prevent a team from advancing if you use this technique on the same map 6 times in one day.
If there was a metric for rewarding people for “playing” the game, then what would be the point of a competitive aspect?
I mean, I don’t really think MMR in and of itself needs to be invisible, though I also don’t think you’d get any valuable information from it.
MMR really gets tied to your APM. How fast of a game are you capable of playing? If you can’t keep up with players in 2600 to 2700, then why should you be allowed to play with players in 3200?
As you mentioned, there’s no (direct) metric for decision making, but it’s a perfect example of why smurfs wield such power. They’re playing faster than you.
Old accounts that are not played certain number of seasons in competitive receive MMR reset - I think it was 8 or 10 seasons consecutive. So in that matter they are treated as new accounts.
It literally is.
With no smurfs no throwers no boosters and robot players that are always in same form ? Yes, true.
You’re reading the points…but reaching a very different conclusion. The sum total benefit of MMR is… nothing. It makes no sense and serves no purpose. SR is already kinda wonky,
And as for tying it to your APM …that’s an equally useless metric. It’s been proven over and over again that it doesn’t actually improve your gameplay - even in RTS games, there are relatively low APM players competing at the highest level…using strategy. And Overwatch is nothing like that - why would a Reinhardt need a high APM? It makes no logical sense.
If someone has 10 smurf accounts in the top 500 that makes it harder for someone else to take one of those spots. It has the same trickle down effect on every rank. Smurfs push people down and derankers push people up over time.
Every time someone does an unranked to GM they are pushing everyone below GM down 1 spot on the ladder. Nobody gets boosted by smurfs in the long run unless they are playing in a stack with someone. Smurfs also have a higher chance to be on the enemy team if you solo queue.
Yes but we are talking about the ladder position not elo. Let’s not move the goalposts.
The key phrase is in the long run. You don’t get much of a boost by winning one game with a random smurf on your team. You get boosted if you stack with one because then you are playing literally every game with a smurf on your team. It’s a simple concept really.
Did you find something amusing about that mathematical fact?
Okay but why do I as a player care if I’m number 5 378 992 or 5 221 203 on the ladder? I don’t even see the number…
Not even top 500 cares - because when someone holds 3 top spots then the rest just say - oh look he’s 3x times better than the second guy
It’s not simple because stating that smurfs are only on the enemy team and maybe once on yours is a nonsensical concept I cannot wrap my brain around.
You said smurfs are mostly on the enemy team like the universe revolves around you. The OW devs have tapped your account in particular and coded that you are never placed with players of higher MMR
Well I was responding to this question, to which you incorrectly answered “No”.
But if you want my opinion, your ladder rank is equally as important as your actual rank. The reason ranks like GM and Master are considered prestigious is because they are the elite minority (top 4%) who play the game. If GM was top 10% for example then it would not be considered as good. That would be the equivalent of a current diamond player. The ranks are only a benchmark based on your skill relative to the average player which is determined by your position on the ladder.
Who said that? Smurfs only have a slightly greater chance to show up on the enemy team. (6 possible slots vs 5)
As I explained above it is only a slightly higher chance to get a random smurf on the enemy team.
I mean at least this is pretty simple math - if you are queueing as non smurf - then there are 5 more slots for eventual smurf on your team - and 6 slots on enemy team, meaning 16,5% more likely for enemy to have smurf than your own team.
It goes the same way with boosted accounts in higher ranks. But Its stats that favors higher tiered players.
Cause its not a real number, its a distribution that doesn’t only get affected by how well u do in your games but also which heroes u play, if u picked up a new one, if you’re inactive for a long time n so on.
The cynicism is noted but the discussion is focusing on the probability of smurfs being on YOUR team (assuming solo Q) and thus can’t address your scenario because it contemplates quantum matchmaking (the smurf is in a superposition of being on your team and / or the other team at the same time) We haven’t figured out how to collapse the Quantum Smurf wavefunction in order to clear it all up.