And what do they do, specifically?
MMR (Match Making Rating) is the number used for matchmaking and only based on performance, not on win/lose ratio. It ranges from -3 to +3, exists in every mode and can’t be seen by the players.
SR (Skill Rating) exsists only in competitive modes and basically gives you nothing but bragging rights and season rewards.
1 Like
It also gives people a bad mood if they lose some of their SR
So a GM player and a bronze player could actually be of equal skill, but the GM player won more games and thus, ranked up?
Yes. If you always lose despite performing incredibly well that is perfectly possible.
For example some 6 stack smurfs used to stomp over other players but intentionally never capped objectives to avoid winning and gaining SR.
Their MMR was probably very high while their SR kept dropping.
1 Like
I don’t believe that is the case. The devs said MMR and SR follow each other. I don’t believe you can have a very high MMR and a very low SR. Plus technically, you can’t have good stats and not win the games in Bronze. How can a DPS can have good damage, eliminations, on fire, stats, par to a GM and not win the game? Even without playing on the objective, sounds hard to achieve. Unless the other team is playing along.
Oh, jeez, dont say that. You are going to piss off a lot of Masters and GM players. Lol.
This would actually make perfect sense.
You have to think of it like this:
Say there are 5 ranks and each rank has a 100 point system. So rank 1: 1-100, rank 2: 101-200, rank 3: 201-300, etc. Now also assume there is another point score which is your personal skill score. Say that goes from 1-100 too.
Say you start with 1 point and thus, are rank 1. You play amazingly well, so the game assumes you have a personal skill of 75. Now you win a match and say you boost up to 10 points. Now let’s say other players lose their first match and stay at 1, but others win and also rise up to 10 points. You’re all still rank 1, but maybe the players on some of the teams who won their first match actually barely squeaked by, so the game actually rates them with a personal skill of 40.
So on your next match, there are two options for you to be matched against, either the other players rated just as good as you who are also in rank 1 with 10 points, or those players who won their matches but were set with a personal skill of 40. It wouldn’t be fair to put you against the 40 skill players, because that would almost guarantee their loss, so the game puts you against the other 75 skill players–remember, the 75’s and the 40’s all won their games, so they all have a rank point rating of 10.
If this is how it actually works, then the entire ladder system is a joke because that’s like saying that if you’re really stupid you don’t have to go to college to get a good job but if you’re really smart, you have to get a doctorate to make the same money as an idiot who dropped out of high school.
If the ranking system is a “reward to earn” and not the metric for who you’re fighting against, then the better players on an individual skill level should automatically inherit a higher rank. If player A is objectively superior to player B, then player B should not be able to have a higher rank than A, no matter how long they play.
Unless the rank system’s reward method is to reward you for underperforming compared to everyone, and only rewards overperforming within the skill level of the players you’re competing against, in which case we’re all actually playing a different league here.
That would be like letting a high school team legitimately also win the World Series because they were the best high school team out of all high school teams, even though the professional team would beat them on their worst day.