Maybe this was a reasonable idea when the game came out and gold was a competitive rank for new players but now around 1/4 of matches between 2200 and 2400 are ruined by one team having at least one level 25-30 player who does not belong in that rank. I’m not saying this in a mean way, they literally do not belong in gold. They belong in low silver or bronze and I say that as someone who has climbed from bronze.
Putting people in high level games ruins the experience of everyone in the game. The new players get chewed out by toxic d-heads who think it’s their fault, they get a massive sense of distress as they lose 40 games in a row to get to bronze and it’s not fair on the players who actually belong in that rank, even the winning team. It’s not fun to win a 5v6 against a team with a lvl25 brand new player that doesn’t know how to use Defence Matrix.
The two fixes: Increase the level threshold on competitive. 50, 75 or 100 all sound good to me. Also reduces the smurfing problem.
Or
CHANGE THE MATCHMAKER SO NEW PLAYERS DON’T GET PLACED IN GOLD!! Surely that just makes sense, gold is a competitive rank and brand new players should not be playing with slightly above average players because THEY ARE NOT SLIGHTLY ABOVE AVERAGE!
Gold is an Average rank though. It makes sense to place people in the Average rank to see wether they are Better, Worse or Fit in this rank and then get changed accordingly.
Yeah idk why everyone doesn’t just start at 0 and then climb (you know kinda like in life pretty much every facet of life). Heck it would even get rid of some of the throwers as they don’t have to derank all the way to bronze on their new accounts.
Not very informative, We already know that blizzard believes that or else they wouldn’t have made their game that way. The logic behind would be actual useful information.
The first reason is uncertainty, as has been noted as “stats”. Under maximum uncertainty you should a priori around the expectation of the distribution (which is known to be idealized as normal pdf with mean around 2250, say. That way you’re minimizing the maximum amount of initialization error.
The second reason is absorption. Even if you’re the most wrong (and you will be for several entrants), the larger population of players near the mean/median can better absorb this entrant, with less disruption paid out to each of them. More of a base to spread out the mismatch, which every account imparts.
So the math for new accounts around gold checks out. And this comes up a lot when talking about resets. A reset-to-the-middle is a better kind of reset than a reset-to-bottom, which forces everyone to grind up and out. Again there are minimax reasons (c.f. Virial Thoerem) for this. A reset-to-middle would minimize the disruption for the maximum number of players. Of course some people would face maximum disruption, but overall the vector sum (or Hamiltonian if you prefer) of all trajectory mismatches (between starting in the middle and reaching end destination) would be minimized.
The global SR average/median is approximately 2300. On average, it ruins the least number of games by minimizing the “travel time” for players to reach their intended SR. It’s designed that way. Put it too low and bronze/silver becomes a stomping fest, and vice versa for if its too high. If they deserve to be bronze, you’ll never see those players again because they’ll be losing 100+ SR each match for a little while.
I see that as a preference of anything. Because if we all started at the bottom it would perhaps be more hectic in the beginning but I see it as a better long-term investment. There would be a lot of variety of skill in the low levels I would result in some pretty crazy stomps but this would be short lived.
The way it currently is now I get that it’s for absorption that we’re most average players will end up somewhere around there It’s generally more comfortable in the beginning I guess you could say. However this comes at the expense of you ruining people’s games who really are at that rank whereas if you’re at zero rank and you’re starting from there there’s nothing to ruin because it’s rank zero, farther away you get from rank 0 the more perfect size the system would be. It would operate the same way natural selection does really
Yes but that’s assuming that the Smurf is just going to say oh well and let himself be ranked up. If a Smurf wants to stay at bronze then he’s only going to derank after every anyway So it’s not like he’s going to let himself get ranked up.
Yes, but the below average would have less impact.
The games for the majority of players is MORE volatile and inconsistent, because 70% of the playerbase can be matched with both a GM smurf and a bronze-level player in the same match.
I think that people should have to play 25 levels in Quickplay/Quickplay classic (no other modes counts exp) before being placed into comp.
Then it reads all the games they have played for the whole 25 levels before giving them a rank. It would mean that a new player smurf would have to throw 25 levels to be placed with a low SR. I think it would put people off. I even think people should have to get to level 50 to play comp. 50 levels is nothing in the grand scheme of it.