Despite the True Skill 2, I continue to see games with players who have very different skill levels. At the end of each game, in each team, someone did K/D ratio of 2.0 or higher, someone did 0.5 or lower… Very often i losed matches because the system has found for us a too poor player for the skill level of the lobby: This players starts with a partial score of 0 kills and 7-8 deaths and ends the game with 4-5 kills and 15-16 deaths. It’s frustrating.
Is it so difficult to create balanced matches? by balancing I do not mean only the final score of the game, but also have players of similar skill. A ranking system should do this … This problem is closely related to the quit problem. People quit when they find players too strongs for them and the partial score gap is too high.
I can suggest to evaluate a different system? A system in which best performances give you more points when you win and less few points when you lose. At the same way, worse performances give you few points when you win and less more points when you lose. In other words, better players go up faster than poor players in case of victory, and go down slower in case of defeat. Poors players go up slower when they win, and down faster when they lose.
For example, each game ends with two score charts: one for winners and one for losers. The placements depends on the gamemode: flag captured in CTF, Kills in Slayer ecc. Probably, in slayer gamemodes the charts could be done not just only on the number of kills but on KDA = K + (A/3) - D.
It’s not difficult when there’s near equal amounts of players at every single rank. That’s a “Perfect World” situation, though. Reality is much less forgiving. Nothing can fix not having enough players at whatever ranks to make balanced matches, so the game has to improvise in such cases, hence seemingly unbalanced matches. I mean, you know how difficult is to make a match with 8 Diamond players when there’s only 2 of them online?
> 2586218893181855;2:
> It’s not difficult when there’s near equal amounts of players at every single rank. That’s a “Perfect World” situation, though. Reality is much less forgiving. Nothing can fix not having enough players at whatever ranks to make balanced matches, so the game has to improvise in such cases, hence seemingly unbalanced matches. I mean, you know how difficult is to make a match with 8 Diamond players when there’s only 2 of them online?
if it’s what you say, two diamonds should do similar performances. Instead it often happens that even plats perform better than diamonds … or that two diamonds make one very good and the other very bad …
In reality it is not the rank that establishes the skill. Not always. It should do this the MMR but, apparently, it does not work well. Look this: stats The fourth of the reds makes 3 kills and 13 deaths, despite being diamond. The third of the reds does better than him despite being platinum. Do not think it’s an isolated case, in every game there are situations like this …
> 2533274874453277;3:
> > 2586218893181855;2:
> > It’s not difficult when there’s near equal amounts of players at every single rank. That’s a “Perfect World” situation, though. Reality is much less forgiving. Nothing can fix not having enough players at whatever ranks to make balanced matches, so the game has to improvise in such cases, hence seemingly unbalanced matches. I mean, you know how difficult is to make a match with 8 Diamond players when there’s only 2 of them online?
>
> If it were as you say, two diamonds should do similar performances. Instead it often happens that even plats perform better than diamonds … or that two diamonds make one very good and the other very bad …
>
> In reality it is not the rank that establishes the skill. It should do the mmr but apparently it does not work well. Look this: stats
Yes, you’re right. In a perfect world, two players of similar skill should have similar performances, but in the real world, not all players are created equal, though their ranks may say they are. That’s what you get when the human factor is thrown into the equation: fluctuation in skill from game to game. A lower-ranked player might have the game of his life and outplay higher-ranked players. Or maybe that lower-ranked player is legit that good and is just moving up the ranks. The highest-ranked player in a match could have the worst game of his life and just totally crap the bed. Stuff happens. No skill system can account for that, which is essentially what you’re implying is the problem.
apart from the individual episodes as the game of the life, I think it’s right to reward with more points good performances. This would limit the carrying up…
You have a couple of issues that are causing the problem you are having. You can be playing against a team that has a diamond6 and a silver1, so now matchmaking has to find players to try to make a balanced match. Then add in a low population and you just made it worse. Now throw in Smurfs, and you have a trifecta. I have a couple of friends that are much better than me and I love playing with them, but I only play social with them so it doesn’t effect my rank. My K/d is bad win or lose so I drop a lot and go up very little. So it takes me a while to get that rank back up.
> 2533274874453277;5:
> apart from the individual episodes as the game of the life, I think it’s right to reward with more points good performances. This would limit the carrying up…
>
> Imho, obviously.
You are grossly simplifing the CSR rank system that is already in place. The current system used individual performance versus expectations to help determine MMR and therefore CSR change.
In the most basic sense playing with bad players and losing while doing extremely well versus expectations doesn’t hurt you. However underperforming does, even if that means going double positive. In the system you are suggesting I could just play with 3 of my low plat friends and constantly destroy the opposition and rank up since I’ll always be having the best score in the lobby.
TS2.0 wasn’t designed to always give 8 players of the exact same skill level. It tries to do that but with a low population that is impossible and so games with carrying skill exist. Instead T2.0 is better at predicting which team will win and thereby creating closer matches. So if you have a double or triple negative teammate but the end score is within a 5 kill difference then the match was balances quite fairly. Again in a limitless population you would always face 7 other people of your exact skill. However that is impossible especially in playlists that have poor population or a wide skill variability such as SWAT.
> 2533274874453277;8:
> > 2533275001522797;7:
> > Maybe those players are at that skill level and are having a bad day? Maybe friends/relatives are playing on their account?
>
> maybe… but I think it’s right to have:
>
> in case of victory:
> good performances → get more points
> bad performances → get less points
>
> in case of defeat:
> good performances → lose less points
> bad performances → lose more points
Yeah, I agree. I actually played Slayer against two low onyx players and even though their team lost they actually gained CSR.
> 2533274871432527;11:
> I’m a high tier diamond and I always get placed with champs
I rest of my idea: If at the end of the game a player finishes with 4 kills and 18 deaths, something does not work well. Of course we can say that it was his unfortunate match, but it is no coincidence that it is always a lower or unclassified rank.
Put one of these players in both teams is a compromise, but very often one of the two quitte the game then it all boils down to those lucky enough to finish the game in 4.
The real problem is the population? Ok. Maybe, If 343 were not stubborn in his idea of gameplay, and things would be different. Perhaps obviously.
I mean that there is half the population that does not like the modern mechanics. Rather than using a throwback / anniversary playlist every so often, they could reduce the total number of playlists and insert some permanent and ranked classic playlists with a good set of forge remakes maps (from HCE to H3). Only two would be good: Classic Arena (objective & slayer) and Classic Slayer (only slayer). Obviously it would not be perfect like the original classic game, but it does not matter. I believe many would be happy anyway.
Nobody can say with certainty if indeed this would have helped, but imho, this card had to be played long ago, or even from the beginning, even just to meet the desires of half community.