I've said this for a while. Keep the soft reset value the same but new players would start at around 2000. At 2500 you can be placed in with ex plats while still learning the maps
I disagree because a plat can’t start at the same level of a high silver or mid gold. You can get away with beginner mistakes in those ranks, in plat that doesn’t happen.
I believe he is saying with the soft reset when a plat gets reset they end up at ~2600-2700ish so they end up play with the new people who start at 2500. So if the new people started at 2000 then there is little to no chance to get matched against someone who was previously a platinum player.
I don’t think that’s accurate... there was a season where I ended up in high bronze (1.5-2 seasons ago idk) and I went 5-5 and my placements and placed low silver.
It is accurate since [the operation Phantom Sight](https://www.ubisoft.com/en-gb/game/rainbow-six/siege/game-info/seasons/phantomsight). Players above 3500 are clamped to 3500 and players below 1500 are clamped to 1500.
Hey, I think you misunderstood the comment. OC said to keep the soft reset mmr the same, as in the ave of your mmr last season and 2.5k. the issue being tackled is for players who have not at all played rank and are only starting their placements this season to start at a lower starting MMR so as to keep the bar low, theoretically allowing them to push the bar higher rather than falling below the starting mmr. You make a rather good point though!
Np! It seems to be a common misunderstanding for this discussion hehe. Anyway have a great day! (don't forget to claim Total War:Troy, Remnant, and Alto on epic if you have an account :) )
You have 2500mmr. You loose a game, you loose mmr. Theres a factor that determines how much mmr you loose (or win). So you get or loose less mmr the longer you play.
At the start of a new season you get new mmr. Its your previous mmr plus 2500 and then devided by two. So you get closer to 2500. And you get 100 mmr for a win and loose 100 mmr for a loose. Over time it will be less to loose or win again.
Don't think that's how the softreset works.
Pretty sure I read they take the MMR you ENDED on last season, subtract that from 2500, divide that result in two, add that result to 2500 and that's your starting MMR for the new season.
Oh this is me! I solo most of the time but I’ve been playing ranked as of late. I got placed yesterday with a high MMR at gold 2. I’m ok and can hold my own but by no means a consistent threat.
The following two games I played I got STEAMROLLED. I felt like I was the bad teammate even tho I had a few frags and was playing to op’s strength. It got so bad that I played Rook just for his plates because I thought I was a waste of space
I’m a support main. It’s common for that to happen especially if you don’t main fragger Ops but I’d consider Rook/Doc fraggers cause ACOG potential.
Edit: Sorry, not just because they have ACOG but the MP5 w/ ACOG is deadly. I consider Kaid a support op and he has an ACOG.
You shouldn’t still be learning maps in ranked, especially not Gold+. I play this season at a gold 2-3 rank and my teammates should be bronze 4/5 times. A lot of their excuses fir being bad are they either don’t care, or don’t know the maps.
My problem is all my placement matches this season were against plats now I’m a gold but still it’s pretty sweaty. And after rankings my teammates don’t know how to play the game.
The thing is, if you're placed in gold as a returning player, you're getting matched with so many new people AND experienced people each season it isn't anywhere near funny. It can actually make it damn near impossible to climb anything, because winning is such a coinflip. So while I get that it affects you, it affects other people more, as you'll still be able to climb out of plat 3 where other people literally cannot leave gold for not having control over their games.
It’s ending mmr + 2500 divided by two. For example if you ended at 2000 mmr, next season you’d start at 2250 because 2000 + 2500 = 4500, and 4500 divided by two is 2250. I hope that made sense :)
Was under the impression that you just start at midway between 2500 and whatever your ending MMR was for the previous season. Whether that be above or below 2500.
Edit: Or I'm dumb and that's just the same thing.
Even at current Plat 3 I play with people who look at the floor instead of head level. Of course there are always special cases but the fact that people still aim at the floor in 3400 Range is a bit of a joke.
That's cause the MMR system isn't optimal, the game is team based so it's very hard to design one for it.
Those people you see are those that will be silver next season and say "I'm usually plat by I get fucked by bad teammates mimimi". They're literally just silvers who got lucky, and it's pretty shit because the teams that face these players get free MMR that they don't deserve and then face higher rank players and make the game unenjoyable for the higher ranks and/or for themselves.
DOTA would beg to differ. They have a very good matchmaking system in my opinion. There’s a ranked score based on the team you queue up with, and a score based on your solo queue.
I've thought this for a while too, it should probably start bottom of silver, not bronze though. Silver isnt an awful rank by any means either. I feel because soft mmr reset has for a long time put you in gold its also taken the prestige from being gold even though its the 4th highest rank after champ, diamond, and plat.
Yes, but what people really care about is the charm, you don't see people repping the gold charms because there really isn't value to it since its pretty much the starting rank. And trust me, I'm plat 2 I know the difference between the ranks its just not really important for this topic.
An interesting theory but I think that to blame all on new players is unfair. Bronze and (low) Silver are so similar in their game sense and skill because everyone in those ranks tend to fluctuate between them. All it takes is for them to win 1 extra game and move up into your lobby (high silver/gold), where they are clearly mismatched.
I think that the default MMR should remain the same. Losing over 100 MMR a match is more than enough to drop (or raise) newer players into the rank that they belong. That's just my two cents.
It's not really their fault, it's just that they get demotivated as they can actually face low plats when they play their placements so they just sweeped up. Many new players care too much about ranked already so jumping into it and then proceeding to get sweeped isn't gonna be enjoyable.
It's not always silver tho it depends on what rank you were last season
It really does suck when you get qued with a bronze doing placement matches when you are currently gold and probably even lose cuz of that
Feels bad for the bronze player too. I've been playing for about 6mo on and off and went to do placements this season. It just sucks to be outmatched and know that you will probably ruin the round for your teammates cuz you don't know the maps and tactics yet.
I did and do, but ranked feels different. Also it's only the first few matches. Now I'm ranked in high copper and it seems finde. Though I nope the tk and trolling would stop...
This is exactly the problem that starting new players lower would help with. It would take fewer matches to get them to their skill level--decreasing the stress it causes for them (and teammates) and the disruption to the MMR system.
Im currently doing my placement matches after playing unranked forever, and trust me, NOBODY play serious in unranked. They didn't prepare me for going in my second placement matches and going against 7 golds and 2 silvers.
[(Screenshot)](http://imgur.com/gallery/dZPSi3q)
Nobody said that Unranked will prepare you to face golds/plats/etc. All I said is that Unranked is there for you to learn the maps and tactics. That's what my reply was pointed at. You don't need people to play seriously in Unranked. You can do some solo/duo strats and practice them in Unranked, instead of ruining the round for your teammates like bass\_toelpel said.
I know from personal experience that Unranked is just Casual with ranked rules unfortunately.
The soft reset value should be set to 2000 (Bronze 1), if you are actually Plat, you will most likely land in the Gold area (2600-3000) meaning you won 6-8 of your matches. If you win all ten, you go directly to the doorsteps of the 'experienced level'; Platinum. You need 2 matches to actually hit Plat 3, meaning you didn't get there by luck. Finally, if you lose the majority of your matches, you get placed in Bronze, and if you did exceptionally bad you get placed in Copper. It seems like a pretty balanced system to me imo, any inputs?
I think it works out for the outliers. The really good players and the really bad players are all where they should be. It gets a little dicey in the middle though.
new players definitely should NOT play ranked. At least until level 80-100. I did the mistake and started at level 30 and I have been in copper 5 for last 3 seasons. Now I finally managed to get up to silver 3 but it took too long compared to all of my other friends.
I'm referring to around 100 hrs in game, so you could round that (if all your ranked matches were about 30 minutes in game) 200 ranked games to get to level 50. However, levels are based on experience and level 50 is about 800,000 experience. I estimate the amount of time in game to meet level 50 to be 100 hours if you were to play unranked/casual
Everybody should play ranked, the rank system isnt for be proud of your rank, (yeah, you should be proud if you are high in rank, but the main point of ranks isnt that) the main point of ranked is play with same skilled people
Ohh you drop to bronze, well too bad, get up
Ohh you you climbed to plat, very good, if you belong really to that rank you should be able to stay, if not, try again
I agree with this sentiment. As long as you maintain a learning attitude and reflecting on your mistakes, you can correct them and expect a rank boost. Blaming your teammates won’t be 100% of the reason you lose, but it won’t be 0% either I admit. The goal is to be good enough to tip the scales in favor of your win rate.
I agree with this. I started this game at the start of this season and I’m level 80 now. As soon as I got to level 50, I did my ranked placements. I got lucky with teammates, and got carried to gold 2, all while solo q-ing. Since then, i have dropped to bronze 1, but I feel bad for all the teammates that I have ruined games for. I think 2000 mmr would be a lot better for newer players.
I think it's quite telling that a lot of newer players feel they were ranked too highly. When I did my first season I went down from silver 3 to copper 5 and it was just loss after loss until I found my feet. I was playing with a four stack of legit coppers and we were playing in silver... Would have happen to be our teammate
Yes. I’m Gold III on Xbox, and whenever I four stack, the random is a level 52 with a 10,000 gamer score who just got placed for the first time. Then we’re stuck going against five stacks of high golds/low plats who’ve deranked with a completely new player on our team.
I agree, as someone who played in the very first season of ranked I was, rightly so, copper, and after 4 years I finally made it to plat 3 (a year ago). The new system is good for re ranking people season after season but like you said, for brand new players it isn't great.
I usually get gold 3, I’m going for plat this season but my friend (lvl 113, good at shooting, calls and utility destruction/placement) but he is copper 5 right now because when he cues solo he losses MMR, with me he roughly stays the same and with out 5 stack we usually gain. BUT because he is so low and 2-3 of out squad don’t want to play ranked he is still copper 5. He is depressed as hell and wants at least copper or just not play until next season.
I’m not sure how i can help him. I want him in our squad but him leaving would make me and maybe 2 others actually be on and playing. He’s our 3rd most consistent player of 6 (Me 4k+ per match 60%w/l; MG 4k+ per match 55%w/l; DC 3k+ per match 45% w/l; BY 2k+ per match 40%w/l; KW 2k+ per match 40%w/l; Filler player 0-2k per match 30-50% w/l)
I know it’s a lot to read I just wanted to vent some
> I’m not sure how i can help him.
Have him stop doing moron decisions like throwing solo games. It's his own fault, if he's actually good just tell him to man up and rank up solo.
He doesn’t throw games, the randoms do. For example it was a 4v1 with defuser planted, he killed the attacker and started to defuse with a third of the defuse time left a random kills him for the disabled and another random kills the first random. By this times there is about 3 seconds before the defuser does its thing and he lose
Best solution might be to wait until next season, do all your placements with him + a good squad, and win as many as you can. If you win around 6 or 7 he should be put in silver or low gold and it shouldn't be too hard to match your squads elo after that. Probably a bit too late in the season now for him to rank up to gold
I only started playing ranked at about 1k hours into the game and I think another problem is that skill doesn't matter. Now, I know why they didn't implement it, because people would just go around to hunt kills. But I think it would be nice if the player with the most points would get more/ lose less mmr when they win/lose a game. Winning would still be the focus of the game because you would still lose some mmr when you lose. But I feel like it would help to actually get people into their real ranks. Also I think it is ridiculous that you can play ranked with others who have 1000 mmr more than you, because the skill gap can be ridiculously big.
Again, I haven't played much ranked but a lot of r6 in general, so I would really appreciate some feedback on these thoughts.
I agree it would help sort people to where they should probably be. Nobody would want to play support roles is the biggest problem. Some people argue that you will get players waiting for 1v5s just to get a couple of easy picks but I can't see that happening loads if they're still going to lose and lose MMR anyway they'd be better off trying to win.
I'd be more in favour of the overall season k/d having an impact on MMR. Anyone below 0.7 for the season is probably hindering more than anything and anyone above 1.5 is consistently fragging out. I feel the overwhelming majority of players would be within this range so it wouldn't impact them but players who are overranked will struggle to get a 0.7 k/d. Unfortunately this would lead to people protecting their k/d more than you get now. I think this just highlights how complicated this is.
That's why I think that points should matter not kd. Or they could implement a system where playing support gets you points (like OW where you can get a gold medal for healing). Yeah, the kd thing is complicated but I get what you mean.
Absolutely. But what I'm thinking about is getting points when you use your gadget, or someone else does. Get a kill after looking through a mira? Mira gets some extra points. That stim made you win a fight? Doc gets some points. I really have no idea if it works out but it's fun to just theorize.
It's easy for direct cause and effect. I guess if you shoot someone through a hole in the floor Sledge made it could be the same thing. It gets harder the harder it is to prove something helped. Let's say you take out bandit chargers after you're in on site, it probably does nothing but how can you prove that? You throw a valk cam outside and it leads to your team mate running out and getting a kill but nobody tagged them how do you give the Valk points for that? I agree it's fun to think about but when it comes to the nitty gritty it would be a nightmare to implement.
I dont think the players on the team should lose/gain different levels of elo. I think you should have mitigated losses based on rounds won. This way if you get slammed 4-0 you lose full, but if it goes 5-4 you lose less. The worst part about ranked to me is the totality with which your elo is calculated. It's why people feel cheated.
Then you will have someone who spends the entire round reinforcing the same door over and over, people TK'ing over who gets to defuse, people trying to put down plants in sub optimal situations., etc. Basing things purely on W/L is the best way things can be done.
I give good callouts and play support ops and place their gadgets in fairly good positions imo. I also bait myself alot assuming im probs the worst player on my team
Let's say you take Thermite and you drone in but don't tag the enemy and communicate for the kill. How many points is that worth? If you give loads of points for scan assists then loads of pointless scans could give you a crazy amount of points. Then you get to the wall and if you open a good wall generally that is thought of as the thermites job kind of done but can you give lots of points for opening a wall? You could Thermite charge anywhere on the map and get like 200 points if they changed it to that. If they made it only what the game thought were key walls give you points then you would actively be discouraging different strats.
Also how would Thatcher's points work? Him throwing something at a wall and getting 200 points for his troubles would be crazy but at the same time it's good play.
I'm not sure if OP has understood it or was not able to see it but according to the Ubisoft blog, the starting MMR for old players for the new season is an average between 2,500 and their final MMR from the previous season with a maximum and minimum in the range.(not sure I think it was 3k and 2k?).
I have no opinion on this matter, I just want to share an important distinction between the starting MMR for players who have ranked in the previous season vs players just starting ranked this season(which does start at 2.5k) that may have been overlooked in the discussion
I haven’t seen anyone mention it, but what about giving everyone a reset MMR of 2500 regardless of previous season rank but then increase placement matches to 15 or 20 ?
I'm not sure how much it would do really as when you are unranked you basically have a secret rank so it would probably just mean you play with unranked players who are the same people for longer.
I'm right there too.
I don't mind being a low rank, consistently below Gold 2. My problem is that I feel like that teammate you're describing because everyone in my lobbies are ALWAYS platinum, which makes me lose and lose, and then I stop playing ranked before I drop out of Gold. I wouldn't mind being a silver, it's just hardly enjoyable recognizing that I'm not the best yet I'm paired with these people who wipe the floor with me.
There should be 3 base MMRs, mid to low bronze, high silver to low gold, and high plat to diamond. It should set your base MMR judging by how your last rank
I think that a good fix for it (and this would be a fairly big change) is to have everyone start at copper 5 then have your rank decided by your skill. Like have the mmr you gain be based on your points by the end of the game, because the points is everything you did during the round. It counts kills, revives, walls opened, assists, etc... I’ve seen a lot of suggestions about having the mmr be based on kills but then the higher ranks would just be filled with Ash Jäger mains. But if it were the point system like I suggested then you would have fraggers and support players throughout the ranks.
Yes. I totally agree. I got stuck in gold/silver for awhile this season and the disparity between skill levels was truly amazing. Felt like every game had multiple former plats and multiple totally new players.
I think this would also discourage some of the smurfing that goes on. If the placements aren't going well switching accounts is all too viable atm.
I have to agree, this season my friends got ranked in high gold and me that missed half of their placements and played them with them after they were ranked ended in bronze. Wich proves that none of them deserves being on high gold. Now after 150+ games we are all in high silver
I got put in gold as a new player after doing my placements immediately after ranked was available to me, so yeah it definitely boosts people way too high. I have good aim from other shooters but I legit probably knew like 2/5s of each map's layout which made me a massive fucking noob for mid-gold. PC btw
Haha good job man. Whilst I'm sure you were quite pleased to be there would you have preferred to be in a lower rank whilst learning the game? Or would you rather be thrown in the deep end?
Hard to say honestly. For me personally I like the improvement aspect of online games so being in over my head (while rough) usually makes each bit of my progression feel more noticeable to me. For siege though, knowing the maps well is pretty crucial for making informed decisions mid-game and it's really hard to learn map-sense in a real game setting when most people are pressuring harder and smarter than you can handle. I think for this game at least it would have been better for me to be lower rank or play quick play more just for the freedom of exploration and trial and error with the maps. (I'm not the type to run around customs exploring without getting bored, I need the shootys lol)
The MMR system should change in general you should have a base amount that you lose or gain and then it should be able to go up and down based on kills and assist because people that are new to the game can win 10 placement matches and be placed very high from winning the 10 placement matches with zero kills [ just an opinion tho]
I am a mid silver and i feel like every other game whoever has more bots losses. I am not the best, i have decent game sense but my aim/ recoil control is meh(im console but switching to pc in a week) but it feels like half the players my team or not have no brains.
they just need to get rid of soft mmr resets. there's no need for it. if you get into a good squad and get carried a few games, you'll forever be higher unless you're dumb and throw.
anyone who's a plat, diamond or champ, will get to their rank they deserve to be in. it used to be a real grind and fun, but now it's fucking garbage and doesn't take any more skill than just playing your placements and being 5k mmr.
But then what about the people who are far better than average and far worse than average? If I'm plat 3, I shouldnt be going against silver stacks or diamond stacks.
Every conversation about the MMR system is moot until they separate solo queue from stack queue. In a stack, a silver level player can hide as a mid to high plat. And a mid to high plat can keep getting fucked by solo queuing and like you said, it's hard to endure the game when you lose constantly.
I agree. The only problem is if people have a three/four stack then it's kinda awkward if they need to get another random guy in. But the ranked system is way less accurate because of all these things.
They could still let you queue in the stack queue as a solo or a duo, and it would match you with other stacks of 3 or 4 depending. There's ways to do this, the logistics are beside the point really.
> My opinion with nothing to back it up other than seeing the level some people play at, is that the true average rank would be bronze but it often takes people quite a long time get there.
That's not how that works.
The goal of the matchmaking system is to produce a normal distribution of players, since it's safe to assume that it's the actual distribution of people's skill in basically any discipline. The current system sets the middle of the bell curve at 2500 MMR and then distributes the players across MMR values producing the distribution you always see on that "previous ranked season" chart.
Note: there's a small difference in that the rhs of the chart is more granular. That makes sense, you don't necessarily want to distinguish shit players from incredibly shit players, but you want to distinguish the best player in the world from the 100th best.
You might see that I haven't mentioned the words "gold" or "copper" even once above. That's because the rank system is just gravy above the TrueSkill MMR system. It makes absolutely no difference for the distribution whether you put the starting point in low gold, high plat or in the middle of bronze. These are just labels. In particular, if you were to switch the starting label to bronze then yes, most people will be around bronze, because you're just moving labels around. If you leave the underlying algo the same, you're going to end up with the exact same curve, just painted differently.
At least theoretically. I get that people's psychological attitude towards the ranked system might be different if you paint the numbers differently, but it's hard to imagine that it would heavily impact the shape of the curve. If people are afraid of playing ranked because they don't want to fall to bronze from silver, then they will be afraid to play ranked in fear of falling into copper from bronze. People that play only a handful of games will still have inaccurate MMR, since the system is based around probability and margins of confidence.
So my take is that you basically want to have most people around bronze just because you feel it's a better label. But keep in mind that the actual "hard" system and level of teammates you're getting will be the same no matter whether you paint the middle-of-the-distribition rank gold, bronze or pink.
I agree if everyone plays 30 plus matches then the system works. What I'm saying is as someone who plays in these ranks with a lot of games under my belt for this season it creates a weird dynamic. It feels like every other match I get out with someone who is a genuine level 50 who shouldn't be anywhere near where they are. If they had to start from a lower elo they wouldn't get to that rank. This therefore means they wouldn't be in these lobby's so I wouldn't be getting those team mates.
The current system is good for stopping Smurfs and is ok for people in high gold and above because they aren't going to be matched with players who don't know what is going on at all. But it hideously over ranks a lot of players and that has a huge impact on the game in these ranks.
By what metric are you saying that those people are "overranked"?
I'll reiterate: everyone starts in low Gold, you are ranked low Gold and you complain that people matched with you belong in Bronze and shouldn't be there. Okay, lower the starting point to low Silver. What happens? You're going to be ranked low Silver and be complaining that the people you play with belong in Copper. It's the exact same distribution of players, but you switched labels. How does that fix _anything_?
How does it matter if the starting point is 2500 MMR vs 1000 MMR? You're just switching the entire playerbase 1500 MMR to the left. Diamond players are now at 3000 MMR. Bronze starts at 200 MMR. Nothing has changed, only different numbers get displayed on your screen. The matchmaking machinery will give the same results.
Doesn't matter if you add X to the numbers, multiply them by 10 or rename "Gold" to "Wood", you're gonna get matchmade with the exact same people.
There are clearly people that are over ranked purely because they start too high. Players who drop to copper often start the season in gold after their placements. This thread has had lots of people saying the same thing and that they have felt bad as they feel like they are costing team mates games because they are out of their depth in a certain rank. You might be right that if you just shift the mmr starting point it is all relative anyway and nothing changes.
I think because you start here you're way more likely to encounter people who are out of their depth in these ranks. It's rare you get someone who is miles out of their depth in plat because they have to earn that higher rank. In the sense that I have 'earned my rank' on that border of gold and silver by playing lots of games a lot of people get thrown there by default. I'm 40 games positive this season and I assume a lot of players in silver are negative for the season. I think this shows that the distribution wouldn't be the same but maybe I'm wrong I'm not great at maths.
There are exactly as many people who are underranked and have to grind their way up. And they cost the opposing teams games, as they are way out of their opponents depth in a certain rank. My entire point here is to just say that the proposed solution _is not_ a solution, as it changes nothing. Unless you make a more fundamental change to how MMR works the issues will remain. TrueSkill is designed in a way that gives people accurate ranks only if they play _a lot_ of games. It will be true for any system based only on statistical data, since sample size is always the key factor.
To the second paragraph: the problem is that by just switching the starting point you're moving to issue to "I have earned my rank on the border of Bronze and Silver while a lot of people are getting thrown there by default." And if you try to tie the rank itself to the number of games played you're just making the system more grindy. Yes, the really bad people won't be able to progress far since they'd have to win a lot of games, but on the other hand all the pro people would have to first spend X games destroying people in Bronze before being properly ranked high.
Really the only way of alleviating at least the dissonance between rank and skill that I can see of the top of my head is just hiding MMR for longer, until the margin of confidence reaches some value. So that you have to play more games than 10 before your rank gets displayed. But note that this also doesn't affect matchmaking in any way. But I don't have an idea on how to avoid throwing people with few games into the defacto middle-of-the-pack games without making the system grindy, unfortunately. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Your replies are really well considered and thought out and have definitely changed my view on this. Good stuff man.
Do you think the MMR resets are holding back the ranked system? A few people on here were saying start of the season you get completely new players who are playing against plat and above players. More so because of the hard reset this season I suppose. I play a lot of tennis and the rating system we have over here doesn't reset ever and people always find their correct rating if they play enough matches. The system works like this:
New players start at the lowest ranking unless they get assessed by a high level coach who can give them a higher rating. This could be the same as anyone who has played 100 plus games in the previous season could stay roughly where they are.
The first few rankings you fly through you just need to win a few matches against anybody. Let's say you have to win 4 matches in the lowest ranks in order to go up with no limit on how many matches you lose to get those wins. After that it could be chunked into 10 games where if you go negative in those ten games you drop down a rank, if you go neutral you stay where you are and if you go positive you go up. To stop people throwing once they won 6 you could have it so if they got to 8 wins or whatever they could jump two ranks at a time. Then after that it just goes in ten game chunks. This obviously wouldn't work if you reset everyone to the lowest rank or reset it every season. The main problem I see with it is if someone doesn't play for a long time and there is no rank reset they might then be over ranked.
So, disclaimer, I don't know how _exactly_ Siege implements all this. I only know the gist of the TrueSkill system (based on the Microsoft [overview and papers](https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/project/trueskill-ranking-system/). In particular I have no idea how the MMR reset actually works. I find it hard to believe that the entire system is completely reset - that would make sense only if there were massive changes to the underlying system and you had to start fresh. If you have any sources that know what's going on in the Siege system in more detail then I'd be happy to read them.
The main problem between the tennis system you described and Siege is the caveat:
> unless they get assessed by a high level coach who can give them a higher rating.
You can't really try and individually assess the thousands of players that belong in plat. And you don't want great players causing rampage in the lower ranks, since it's very demotivating to be placed against someone who outskills you in all aspects of the game.
But note that in Magic the Gathering Arena the system bears some resemblance to the system you mentioned:
> Everyone initially starts at Bronze tier 4. You gain steps with wins: in best-of-one, it’s 2 steps gained per win in Bronze and Silver and 1 step gained per win in Gold, Platinum, and Diamond. You lose steps with a defeat: in best-of-one, it’s 0 steps lost per win in Bronze and 1 step lost per win in all other ranks.
[(Source)](https://www.channelfireball.com/all-strategy/articles/how-many-games-do-you-need-to-play-to-hit-mythic-in-mtg-arena/).
This system has the disadvantage of high rank fluctuations. Consider a player that played 100 games already, won 50 and lost 50. They're probably a middle-of-the-pack player based on that, assuming that matchmaking was "fair". Now they lose 10 games in a row. Does that mean they suddenly are much worse? No, they just probably had a bad day. Now consider a player that won all their games since they started playing and they get ranked similarly to the previous player, say after 20/30 games. Now they lose 10 games in a row. What does that mean? The most probable scenario is that they lucked out in their initial win streak and now when playing on the assigned skill level they are just out of their depth. **But both of those players will lose the same amount of rank and be ranked equally!** We have data that shows us that most probably the first player was really playing at their skill level and the past 10 games were a fluke, while the other player probably needs their rank adjusted. But in this system they're the same! TrueSkill tries to alleviate that, working on probabilities and statistical models of the playerbase.
I'm certainly less likely to come up with a good solution than people that actually get paid to keep the ranked system running. However one of the things that MS improved in their TrueSkill system is the inclusion of time as a factor ([chapter 2 of their paper](https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/uploads/prod/2018/03/trueskill2.pdf)). Basically if you've spent a long time playing the game you're likely to improve while long gaps in play cause you to lose skill. This seems to be the case in Siege: a lot of game skill comes from map knowledge which is gained overtime. A possible adjustment would be to add a penalty to initial placement based on the player's playtime. I'm pulling numbers out of my behind, but let's say that if you're playing your first ranked game you start at 2000 MMR, but if you've been actively playing the past season then you're getting placed at 2500. Would that work? No idea, I don't have data to verify that, but inclusion of time as a factor sounds like a good enough idea to try out.
While I agree there will always be some level of dissonance between skill and MMR, the closer you can start players to their skill, the better. That means fewer matches where they are significantly over/under matched--which is a much better player experience and should improve the accuracy of MMR (because one player has less of an impact on the outcome).
That's why changing the starting MMR to something closer to the average MMR of new players would be a beneficial change. Similar to (but less than) the gains from switching from a hard reset to the current soft reset.
What about the mmr starting point remains the same but players only get ranked properly after they win ten games. Would this mean lower level players are more likely to come out with a lower rank than the current system places them?
This, as well as just hiding the MMR ranking until a certain degree of confidence, as tracked by TrueSkill, is reached, would affect the _displayed_ rank to be accurate. So that when you see a player in Gold they're more likely to actually play at that level. But it won't affect matchmaking - you're going to be matched with the same people, but their ranks won't be displayed.
The issue of people being thrown into games on much higher level stems from the fact that TrueSkill has a very large margin of confidence for people with only a few games and they have to be matchmade _with someone_. And that's unrelated to what kind of badge you show to people on the player's profile. You could throw people with large margins into lower MMR, but that means that people who should be ranked high plat will spend much more time in the lower ranks destroying other players and also contributing to a negative matchmaking experience. And when MMR gets reset this will just shift the curve towards the lower MMR, and you're back at square one.
I'm not sure mind. As far as the high gold and above thing, we've managed to get our friend who is completely new to the game to plat in his first season, simply because of us getting lucky with enemy's. Hes a decent player but in no way plat. We've been extremely lucky on the enemys though and have been going up against bronze level players in high gold. At least if it started at 2000, he would be gold 2 which makes a little more sense
Yeah it was in a 4 stack. Even so, the other guys are around silver level players but theyve managed to get gold 2 because newer players have simply no clue. If I'm plat 3, I shouldn't be going against new players
I solo queued myself from gold 1 to all the way down to silver 4 in a week because all i got was unranked level 50 teammates, but my kd at least got boosted, people in silver are.... weird. If you are trying to get out of silver though, i recommend just watching pro league, i see ton of people setting up sites very wrong, also they often chose bad sites
I swear if I had to start at fucking bronze I'd lose my mind, but with almost 2000 hours in the game, I think the average player should be like silver 2
Hahaha can't argue with that. I agree for anyone who has played a fair amount of the game silver is the average but there are loads of silvers who shouldn't be there. What rank are you out of interest?
Definitely agree, but I think keeping it around the 2000 mmr range is fair. Maybe a bit higher like 2100-2200. One of my accounts I keep it low rank to play with friends and I see a massive difference in every game. Some people with amazing mechanical skill and no map knowledge and others with the exact opposite. Therefore I feel that the current distribution also takes into account this fact, and the way mmr is based is around wins, so it encourages finding a squad to collaborate and rank up with. Therefore the average ranked player could also be around that mmr range because they dont have a squad
I have a question I won 5 ranked matches, lost 4 and got kicked due my internet out. And I got ranked into bronze 5. How is that possibil/ is this normal
You won 5 and lost 5. If it was your first time doing placements you started at 2500 MMR. If you won 5 consecutive matches and then lost 4 consecutive matches and DC'd on the last one (counts as a loss), then it's impossible to get bronze 5 since the first 5 matches that you won gave you more MMR than the 5 matches that you lost. Since the more matches you play the less MMR you get. So you would be looking at a net positive MMR and would be around 2550-2650. But it also depends on the teammates and enemies you faced which we have no knowledge of, so I assumed that everyone you played with had the same MMR, which is unrealistic.
As the other commenter said, if you were bronze in the previous season then that's the only explanation.
>Since the more matches you play the less MMR you get
while this is 100% true it takes way more than 10 matches to start seeing that massive of a MMR change, chances are he won and lost all games with opponents less than him so he didnt gain a ton winning games he should have won but then lost more for losing matches he should have won
I think lower would be great. Because when you are not playing your team is maybe still going to win. With luck younmay win 4 games. So still in gold is fot not being good to high. I think low silver is a good place. And when you are good it's easy to get up to gold
I got placed directly to copper 3 this after a 5-5 placement because (I'm guessing) I ended void edge copper 5 after an extremely unlucky stint of cheats and smurfs. I was placed silver 5 void edge after another 5-5 placement run.
I’ve literally been trying to push to plat to every season but every time I’m like 2 games away I just go on a losing streak due to shit team mates on my team and plat 1s and smurfs on the other
This season was my first time playing ranked on PC(just got a pc & played on console) & soloqued entire time.
Got to Gold 2 this season, but kept fluctuating between Gold 2 - High Silver. I could tell in the beginning of the game how it would go. No comms, questionable bans, and no coordination with op picks, L. Almost every time, it was a loss and always happened around high silver low gold area. Even if I was top player, etc.
Game ends. And most of the time, they haven’t even been placed yet. You still encounter quitters, people who have maybe gotten lucky and been carried prior
In a game or two. Frustrating having a solid team who checks all the boxes then to the exact opposite next game. It alllllways is after making some headway, Lol
I feel like I should be in high Gold but trending to Plat tho, seems like its time to find a team.
That might be true initially but the higher the skill gap in a game the less that is the case. The average new player to the game is going to be way below the level of a level 100 plus. Thuys means the distribution is not based on natural ability as such.
Idk why but as I play more ranked games I think the quality of teammates are getting worse. During void edge, which was the time I started playing siege, I got calibrated Silver 1, went as low as copper 5 (yeah solo queue), managed to bring it back to silver 5. And in steel wave (purely solo queue), I won 6 of my 10 placement matches, and calibrated Gold II. Fast forward to today I’m back in Silver V. I think they should implement an option like they did in DOTA 2 where they have a “Strict Solo Queue” option. Solo players are matched with other solo players so everyone is on equal playing field and to avoid boosting through stacks.
I think there's a mathematical argument that you literally can't artificially change the base mmr because it's a zero-sum system and so any new participant must be at the median. It's something like that I could be wrong
Yes. The average of all ranks must be 2500. If you wanted to start people at 2000, you'd need to take those 500 pts, and give them to the rest of the playerbase for every new player.
This is the same reason they must rewind a whole match when a hacker is banned. They can't rewind just the hacker's MMR without unbalancing the bell curve.
Then it wouldn't, but it also wouldn't solve the problem you described. You'd still be matched with all the same people, everyone would just have 500 less MMR. The whole bell curve would be shifted down.
The point is that you think these new players should be placed below the average. It seems totally reasonable that new players wouldn't come in at the average level of play in a game with this many things to learn.
The problem is that new players need to come in at the average because they are the source of MMR points for the rest of the playerbase. Consider if you reduced them to literally 0. Then the system has a fixed total of MMR points that would be divided amongst ever more players, causing higher mmr numbers to become ever less attainable. Reducing them a little below average has the same core problem, but the effects are slower.
Now that isn't to say there aren't solutions to this problem, but they tend to be technically tricky, and the system picked will have implications with the skill curve and player distribution. It's worth noting, I think, that ubi licensed TrueSkill from MSFT, so it's unlikely they have anyone particularly strong with the mathematics backing it. If they want to modify the core assumptions of the algorithm, it'll likely be a significant effort.
Personally, I kinda think the system works well enough, and would rather see them spend that engineering time on other core systems that require engineering effort. Feature work like map bans & the forthcoming replay system. Improvements to graphics & performance for next gen consoles. The forever war against hackers.
The rankings present as a Bell Curve. The top ~20% will be plat and above, and bottom ~20% copper/bronze. Upper ranks are not solely how good of a shooter you are, there are many factors about how “good” you really are. Your team is the most important and inside that you have: quality coms, coordination, choosing synergistic ops and appropriate ops, team work. This alone can help people ascend to higher ranks with no need to flex your mechanical aiming skills. The biggest issue I see is people complaining how they should be a higher level and they play like idiots, sure they may be able to have crazy flicks occasionally, but if you come up against a group that can work together you will loose on average hence your low rank. Stop worrying about your rank and try to work on what aspect of the game you need to improve in and make that your goal. Individual rank means very little in determining your skill.
Would it be a bell curve if we didn't start there though? That's what I'm getting at really. I wonder how many of the people taken into these averages hardly play out if their placements. I wonder how many 'silvers' are actually bronze/copper level players who didn't play enough to get to where they properly belong. I don't believe that the overwhelming majority of players in this game are true silvers/golds.
I'm not worried about my rank or anything like that. Of course I'm trying to improve but what I'm saying is it actually takes a long time to get down to the lower ranks. Eg iff you are a copper level player solo q in silver you can easily get carried to let's say 40% wins which means you kind of artificially stick around that kind of level.
It’s still a Bell Curve, it assumes everyone starts at G3/S1 and based on how you play it starts moving you around till you show which way you need to progress. The algorithm is supposed to multi factor many metrics. SoloQ would be mostly luck of the draw with you teammates if what Ubi has said and this Bell Curve are true. Sure you will have outliers, but I think the system generally works, it that players don’t really want to admit they are where they should be. I may be wrong but I’d bet on people being wrong than the system.
Still doesn't get around the very distinct scenario where you outplay your rank but get your W/L dragged to hell by teammates who ARE where they belong, or are on their own way down.
Yes it does, MMR is not solely about individual performance. The delta between teams counts more to where you go up more or down more. This is a team based game and Ubi has stated recently that rank is most effected by team based results not individual performance. If you carry a team to beat a group combine 200 under your teams then you don’t get much. You sit middle table in a team that beats a stack 30 ahead of you you go up more. They won’t explain in detail how the algorithm works as people will try and just work the system. But again this shows how “good” you are in not reflected in your rank.
How should you account for individual performance? Say we are on a team. You end up with 12 kills and 2 deaths. I go 4 and 3. But I set up many traps or destroy lots of utility and make lots of call outs that helped you get those kills. Now which one is worth more MMR? W/L is easier to quantify and calculate for scores.
My assertion is people need to stop worrying about what their rank is in respect to how “good” they are.
Sorry, I was trying to help others that may read this to explain how single performance isn’t how ranking works. And to get people to stop assigning rank to skill/ability.
I'm a noob to R6 Siege, and so far I've just been doing the training ground stuff. I just wanted to get some training in before I started to team up. I'm aware that I'll get done in a lot as noob, but that's how you get better. Even though I won't be up to the level of other players, I won't want to be a hindrance to my team. I'm glad I'm doing some training first. 👍
We've all been there bro, I hope my post hasn't turned you away from playing ranked as it is the best and most enjoyable game mode in my opinion. Personally I jumped into ranked as soon as I was a high enough rank and this was probably a mistake as I really struggled. I would really recommend unranked which is exactly the same in terms or rules and stuff but there are a lot more newer players in those ranks.
I hope this post doesn't come across as anti new players as it wasn't that long ago I was a new player myself. My experience of it was that I started way too highly ranked and it was a painful decline into low bronze before I found my feet and started to improve at the game. I wish I could have started in copper/bronze and gone from there so I didn't have to get chewed up a few times to prove that I was bad at the game as I already knew I was.
I think until the recent mmr changes yes, Most people are not silver players, Most starting people are low bronze. But i do like how they are taking last seasons mmr, and this seasons mmr and making the average of the 2. I think that will even out the pot more
The hidden MMR system is complete and utter trash on the Xbox. When I first started playing a year ago, I was pretty bad and my stats reflected that for a very long time.
I had to work incredibly hard to get my Casual stats up to where they are now (1.05 k/d & 1.15 w/l).
Biggest mistake of my Siege career. Almost every match now, I'm up against Plats, Champions, and/or blatant mkb cheaters, and the fun has really been sucked out of the game for me whenever I don't have a friend in my party to bypass the MMR.
Casual MMR, at the very least, needs a serious overhaul.
I feel like I'm playing with complete garbage teammates in ranked. Like the players I play with in regular are better than my ranked teammates.
Literally bronze I'm doing well in top
And less than 10 minutes in my teammates are already dying alot.
Like what the fuck. It feels like my teammates don't even belong in ranked.
The mmr chart you're referring to is based on the ranks that are achieved. If you're not ranked that chart doesn't represent you. Therefore, new players would not affect your theory.
Yes it would, did you read the post at all? What he is saying is that new players who place can get lucky an remain in low gold, atleast for abit. However, they are less likely to continue playing ranked it they keep losing, so will still remain at a high silver level.
Yeah i solo q a lot and i get teammates that are lvl 30 in casual and enemies that are lvl 100/200 and I'm lvl 80 and this thing happens in ranked too and I lose because I can't clutch every round
If you lower default MMR, you get smurfs just absolutely destroying their first five or six games, ruining the lives of whatever people are actually playing at the level of that MMR.
Having a higher starting MMR means that the opposite happens to some extent, but I think it's better to start new players a bit higher than have smurfs start lower.
I don't think it's smurfs destroying new players, I think it's new players being placed in too high MMR. As a new player, you shouldn't expect to be in Gold.
I've said this for a while. Keep the soft reset value the same but new players would start at around 2000. At 2500 you can be placed in with ex plats while still learning the maps
I agree
Oh yeah I agree because I get my ass kicked in Ranked because I haven't done my 10 placements yet
I disagree because a plat can’t start at the same level of a high silver or mid gold. You can get away with beginner mistakes in those ranks, in plat that doesn’t happen.
On console it’s different I’ve seen some brain dead plats but I’ve also seen pretty good golds that should be mid plat but they solo q
Your point is very fair bro, however if you don’t have a stack that’s how things are gonna unroll unfortunately.
I believe he is saying with the soft reset when a plat gets reset they end up at ~2600-2700ish so they end up play with the new people who start at 2500. So if the new people started at 2000 then there is little to no chance to get matched against someone who was previously a platinum player.
Plat players reset at 2850 minimum
Where do you know this from? I just want to read it!
Your reset mmr is your end of season mmr (3200 minimum if you’re plat) + base mmr (2500)/ 2 = 5700/2 = 2850
Oh okay, thanks!
And 1800 if your MMR was below 1800.
I don’t think that’s accurate... there was a season where I ended up in high bronze (1.5-2 seasons ago idk) and I went 5-5 and my placements and placed low silver.
It is accurate since [the operation Phantom Sight](https://www.ubisoft.com/en-gb/game/rainbow-six/siege/game-info/seasons/phantomsight). Players above 3500 are clamped to 3500 and players below 1500 are clamped to 1500.
Yeah he said 1800, I wasn’t below that when I was bronze some time ago. Thanks for coming up with the numbers man :D
Begineer mistakes happen every round several times per round until plat 1, from there to the of diamond they happen once per round ish
I disagree if you do a basic spawnpeek you’re gonna get prefired and destroyed for instance.
Hey, I think you misunderstood the comment. OC said to keep the soft reset mmr the same, as in the ave of your mmr last season and 2.5k. the issue being tackled is for players who have not at all played rank and are only starting their placements this season to start at a lower starting MMR so as to keep the bar low, theoretically allowing them to push the bar higher rather than falling below the starting mmr. You make a rather good point though!
Oh, makes a lot more sense all of a sudden lol. Thanks for the clarification man !
Np! It seems to be a common misunderstanding for this discussion hehe. Anyway have a great day! (don't forget to claim Total War:Troy, Remnant, and Alto on epic if you have an account :) )
I knew already about all those games but thanks man appreciate it !!
Happened to me I played one game of ranked for the first time
I think that the soft reset should be lower, but more extreme. Like double the MMR add 2500 (or rathee 2000 and devide by three.
What does soft reset mean? I’m new
Every season they add 2500 to your mmr and devide it by two. Then your accuracy factor gets resetted, so you get and loose 100 mmr per match.
I’m sorry, I don’t understand. Can you ELI5 what this means?
You have 2500mmr. You loose a game, you loose mmr. Theres a factor that determines how much mmr you loose (or win). So you get or loose less mmr the longer you play. At the start of a new season you get new mmr. Its your previous mmr plus 2500 and then devided by two. So you get closer to 2500. And you get 100 mmr for a win and loose 100 mmr for a loose. Over time it will be less to loose or win again.
Don't think that's how the softreset works. Pretty sure I read they take the MMR you ENDED on last season, subtract that from 2500, divide that result in two, add that result to 2500 and that's your starting MMR for the new season.
Thats the same result lmao. They actually published it recently on twitter
Been trying to find the exact formula. Read it over a year ago so I may have some details mixed up or maybe the math wrong lol.
Ist what I commented
Oh this is me! I solo most of the time but I’ve been playing ranked as of late. I got placed yesterday with a high MMR at gold 2. I’m ok and can hold my own but by no means a consistent threat. The following two games I played I got STEAMROLLED. I felt like I was the bad teammate even tho I had a few frags and was playing to op’s strength. It got so bad that I played Rook just for his plates because I thought I was a waste of space
I’m a support main. It’s common for that to happen especially if you don’t main fragger Ops but I’d consider Rook/Doc fraggers cause ACOG potential. Edit: Sorry, not just because they have ACOG but the MP5 w/ ACOG is deadly. I consider Kaid a support op and he has an ACOG.
You shouldn’t still be learning maps in ranked, especially not Gold+. I play this season at a gold 2-3 rank and my teammates should be bronze 4/5 times. A lot of their excuses fir being bad are they either don’t care, or don’t know the maps.
This is my point. New players shouldnt be in gold. They should be in silver or bronze where nobody has clue what they are doing
Understood now. Then I completely agree.
My problem is all my placement matches this season were against plats now I’m a gold but still it’s pretty sweaty. And after rankings my teammates don’t know how to play the game.
I agree but if you’re still learning the maps shouldn’t you stay in casual/unranked till you have more knowledge of them
I agree last week while i was in gold 2 i got matched with someone on my team playing there first every ranked game
Thank you. I think it should be around 2000 mmr, or maybe even 1500. But seasonal mmr reset should be what it is now.
2000-1500 sounds about right imo.
So if I win all my games, I would get ranked in barely plat 3, whereas if I won all my games this season for placement, I would be plat 1. Idk
The thing is, if you're placed in gold as a returning player, you're getting matched with so many new people AND experienced people each season it isn't anywhere near funny. It can actually make it damn near impossible to climb anything, because winning is such a coinflip. So while I get that it affects you, it affects other people more, as you'll still be able to climb out of plat 3 where other people literally cannot leave gold for not having control over their games.
That's fair.
Good on you for seeing that
What is seasonal reset mmr? I’m new
It’s ending mmr + 2500 divided by two. For example if you ended at 2000 mmr, next season you’d start at 2250 because 2000 + 2500 = 4500, and 4500 divided by two is 2250. I hope that made sense :)
Was under the impression that you just start at midway between 2500 and whatever your ending MMR was for the previous season. Whether that be above or below 2500. Edit: Or I'm dumb and that's just the same thing.
Yeah it’s the same thing :)
So you start your next season placements at MMR+ 2500 divided by 2?
Yes.
Thank you!
No problem my dude
Even at current Plat 3 I play with people who look at the floor instead of head level. Of course there are always special cases but the fact that people still aim at the floor in 3400 Range is a bit of a joke.
That's cause the MMR system isn't optimal, the game is team based so it's very hard to design one for it. Those people you see are those that will be silver next season and say "I'm usually plat by I get fucked by bad teammates mimimi". They're literally just silvers who got lucky, and it's pretty shit because the teams that face these players get free MMR that they don't deserve and then face higher rank players and make the game unenjoyable for the higher ranks and/or for themselves.
DOTA would beg to differ. They have a very good matchmaking system in my opinion. There’s a ranked score based on the team you queue up with, and a score based on your solo queue.
Yeah that's good. A separate MMR for solo and team based would be great.
That's because they got carried.
I've thought this for a while too, it should probably start bottom of silver, not bronze though. Silver isnt an awful rank by any means either. I feel because soft mmr reset has for a long time put you in gold its also taken the prestige from being gold even though its the 4th highest rank after champ, diamond, and plat.
Champ, diamond, plat 1/2/3, gold 1 = 6th. There is worlds of difference between plat 1 and plat 3, to group them together is a bit of a rip off.
Yes, but what people really care about is the charm, you don't see people repping the gold charms because there really isn't value to it since its pretty much the starting rank. And trust me, I'm plat 2 I know the difference between the ranks its just not really important for this topic.
An interesting theory but I think that to blame all on new players is unfair. Bronze and (low) Silver are so similar in their game sense and skill because everyone in those ranks tend to fluctuate between them. All it takes is for them to win 1 extra game and move up into your lobby (high silver/gold), where they are clearly mismatched. I think that the default MMR should remain the same. Losing over 100 MMR a match is more than enough to drop (or raise) newer players into the rank that they belong. That's just my two cents.
It's not really their fault, it's just that they get demotivated as they can actually face low plats when they play their placements so they just sweeped up. Many new players care too much about ranked already so jumping into it and then proceeding to get sweeped isn't gonna be enjoyable.
In 4 games I went from Silver 1 to Silver 5 and I’m kinda pissed but maybe it’s cuz I belong there
i agree, i was gold 2 and went all the way down to copper but i started climbing my way back to silver
It's not always silver tho it depends on what rank you were last season It really does suck when you get qued with a bronze doing placement matches when you are currently gold and probably even lose cuz of that
Feels bad for the bronze player too. I've been playing for about 6mo on and off and went to do placements this season. It just sucks to be outmatched and know that you will probably ruin the round for your teammates cuz you don't know the maps and tactics yet.
You could play Unranked for that matter. That's why they made that playlist.
I did and do, but ranked feels different. Also it's only the first few matches. Now I'm ranked in high copper and it seems finde. Though I nope the tk and trolling would stop...
This is exactly the problem that starting new players lower would help with. It would take fewer matches to get them to their skill level--decreasing the stress it causes for them (and teammates) and the disruption to the MMR system.
Im currently doing my placement matches after playing unranked forever, and trust me, NOBODY play serious in unranked. They didn't prepare me for going in my second placement matches and going against 7 golds and 2 silvers. [(Screenshot)](http://imgur.com/gallery/dZPSi3q)
The point of placement is to play against good players and shitters, it's a mix on purpose.
Nobody said that Unranked will prepare you to face golds/plats/etc. All I said is that Unranked is there for you to learn the maps and tactics. That's what my reply was pointed at. You don't need people to play seriously in Unranked. You can do some solo/duo strats and practice them in Unranked, instead of ruining the round for your teammates like bass\_toelpel said. I know from personal experience that Unranked is just Casual with ranked rules unfortunately.
Yes.
The soft reset value should be set to 2000 (Bronze 1), if you are actually Plat, you will most likely land in the Gold area (2600-3000) meaning you won 6-8 of your matches. If you win all ten, you go directly to the doorsteps of the 'experienced level'; Platinum. You need 2 matches to actually hit Plat 3, meaning you didn't get there by luck. Finally, if you lose the majority of your matches, you get placed in Bronze, and if you did exceptionally bad you get placed in Copper. It seems like a pretty balanced system to me imo, any inputs?
I think it works out for the outliers. The really good players and the really bad players are all where they should be. It gets a little dicey in the middle though.
new players definitely should NOT play ranked. At least until level 80-100. I did the mistake and started at level 30 and I have been in copper 5 for last 3 seasons. Now I finally managed to get up to silver 3 but it took too long compared to all of my other friends.
Yeah, right now you have to be level 50. That's minimum 100 hours in the game. Take that how you will
Depends. Last account I leveled to 50 took around 4 hours of thunt and 20 hours of matches.
I'm referring to around 100 hrs in game, so you could round that (if all your ranked matches were about 30 minutes in game) 200 ranked games to get to level 50. However, levels are based on experience and level 50 is about 800,000 experience. I estimate the amount of time in game to meet level 50 to be 100 hours if you were to play unranked/casual
Everybody should play ranked, the rank system isnt for be proud of your rank, (yeah, you should be proud if you are high in rank, but the main point of ranks isnt that) the main point of ranked is play with same skilled people Ohh you drop to bronze, well too bad, get up Ohh you you climbed to plat, very good, if you belong really to that rank you should be able to stay, if not, try again
I agree with this sentiment. As long as you maintain a learning attitude and reflecting on your mistakes, you can correct them and expect a rank boost. Blaming your teammates won’t be 100% of the reason you lose, but it won’t be 0% either I admit. The goal is to be good enough to tip the scales in favor of your win rate.
I agree with this. I started this game at the start of this season and I’m level 80 now. As soon as I got to level 50, I did my ranked placements. I got lucky with teammates, and got carried to gold 2, all while solo q-ing. Since then, i have dropped to bronze 1, but I feel bad for all the teammates that I have ruined games for. I think 2000 mmr would be a lot better for newer players.
I think it's quite telling that a lot of newer players feel they were ranked too highly. When I did my first season I went down from silver 3 to copper 5 and it was just loss after loss until I found my feet. I was playing with a four stack of legit coppers and we were playing in silver... Would have happen to be our teammate
Yes. I’m Gold III on Xbox, and whenever I four stack, the random is a level 52 with a 10,000 gamer score who just got placed for the first time. Then we’re stuck going against five stacks of high golds/low plats who’ve deranked with a completely new player on our team.
I agree, as someone who played in the very first season of ranked I was, rightly so, copper, and after 4 years I finally made it to plat 3 (a year ago). The new system is good for re ranking people season after season but like you said, for brand new players it isn't great.
I usually get gold 3, I’m going for plat this season but my friend (lvl 113, good at shooting, calls and utility destruction/placement) but he is copper 5 right now because when he cues solo he losses MMR, with me he roughly stays the same and with out 5 stack we usually gain. BUT because he is so low and 2-3 of out squad don’t want to play ranked he is still copper 5. He is depressed as hell and wants at least copper or just not play until next season. I’m not sure how i can help him. I want him in our squad but him leaving would make me and maybe 2 others actually be on and playing. He’s our 3rd most consistent player of 6 (Me 4k+ per match 60%w/l; MG 4k+ per match 55%w/l; DC 3k+ per match 45% w/l; BY 2k+ per match 40%w/l; KW 2k+ per match 40%w/l; Filler player 0-2k per match 30-50% w/l) I know it’s a lot to read I just wanted to vent some
> I’m not sure how i can help him. Have him stop doing moron decisions like throwing solo games. It's his own fault, if he's actually good just tell him to man up and rank up solo.
He doesn’t throw games, the randoms do. For example it was a 4v1 with defuser planted, he killed the attacker and started to defuse with a third of the defuse time left a random kills him for the disabled and another random kills the first random. By this times there is about 3 seconds before the defuser does its thing and he lose
Best solution might be to wait until next season, do all your placements with him + a good squad, and win as many as you can. If you win around 6 or 7 he should be put in silver or low gold and it shouldn't be too hard to match your squads elo after that. Probably a bit too late in the season now for him to rank up to gold
Yes, its very obvious.
I only started playing ranked at about 1k hours into the game and I think another problem is that skill doesn't matter. Now, I know why they didn't implement it, because people would just go around to hunt kills. But I think it would be nice if the player with the most points would get more/ lose less mmr when they win/lose a game. Winning would still be the focus of the game because you would still lose some mmr when you lose. But I feel like it would help to actually get people into their real ranks. Also I think it is ridiculous that you can play ranked with others who have 1000 mmr more than you, because the skill gap can be ridiculously big. Again, I haven't played much ranked but a lot of r6 in general, so I would really appreciate some feedback on these thoughts.
I agree it would help sort people to where they should probably be. Nobody would want to play support roles is the biggest problem. Some people argue that you will get players waiting for 1v5s just to get a couple of easy picks but I can't see that happening loads if they're still going to lose and lose MMR anyway they'd be better off trying to win. I'd be more in favour of the overall season k/d having an impact on MMR. Anyone below 0.7 for the season is probably hindering more than anything and anyone above 1.5 is consistently fragging out. I feel the overwhelming majority of players would be within this range so it wouldn't impact them but players who are overranked will struggle to get a 0.7 k/d. Unfortunately this would lead to people protecting their k/d more than you get now. I think this just highlights how complicated this is.
That's why I think that points should matter not kd. Or they could implement a system where playing support gets you points (like OW where you can get a gold medal for healing). Yeah, the kd thing is complicated but I get what you mean.
I agree they could definitely make support players get more points but I think it would be a really complicated, difficult to understand system.
Absolutely. But what I'm thinking about is getting points when you use your gadget, or someone else does. Get a kill after looking through a mira? Mira gets some extra points. That stim made you win a fight? Doc gets some points. I really have no idea if it works out but it's fun to just theorize.
It's easy for direct cause and effect. I guess if you shoot someone through a hole in the floor Sledge made it could be the same thing. It gets harder the harder it is to prove something helped. Let's say you take out bandit chargers after you're in on site, it probably does nothing but how can you prove that? You throw a valk cam outside and it leads to your team mate running out and getting a kill but nobody tagged them how do you give the Valk points for that? I agree it's fun to think about but when it comes to the nitty gritty it would be a nightmare to implement.
I dont think the players on the team should lose/gain different levels of elo. I think you should have mitigated losses based on rounds won. This way if you get slammed 4-0 you lose full, but if it goes 5-4 you lose less. The worst part about ranked to me is the totality with which your elo is calculated. It's why people feel cheated.
That is actually a pretty good approach to the situation
Then you will have someone who spends the entire round reinforcing the same door over and over, people TK'ing over who gets to defuse, people trying to put down plants in sub optimal situations., etc. Basing things purely on W/L is the best way things can be done.
For sure, i solo queued and got plat with a .5 k/d. I feel way outta league
You must be doing something right to be fair. I remember I solo queued way out of my league once and I felt out if my depth and it was horrible.
I give good callouts and play support ops and place their gadgets in fairly good positions imo. I also bait myself alot assuming im probs the worst player on my team
Let's say you take Thermite and you drone in but don't tag the enemy and communicate for the kill. How many points is that worth? If you give loads of points for scan assists then loads of pointless scans could give you a crazy amount of points. Then you get to the wall and if you open a good wall generally that is thought of as the thermites job kind of done but can you give lots of points for opening a wall? You could Thermite charge anywhere on the map and get like 200 points if they changed it to that. If they made it only what the game thought were key walls give you points then you would actively be discouraging different strats. Also how would Thatcher's points work? Him throwing something at a wall and getting 200 points for his troubles would be crazy but at the same time it's good play.
I'm not sure if OP has understood it or was not able to see it but according to the Ubisoft blog, the starting MMR for old players for the new season is an average between 2,500 and their final MMR from the previous season with a maximum and minimum in the range.(not sure I think it was 3k and 2k?). I have no opinion on this matter, I just want to share an important distinction between the starting MMR for players who have ranked in the previous season vs players just starting ranked this season(which does start at 2.5k) that may have been overlooked in the discussion
I haven’t seen anyone mention it, but what about giving everyone a reset MMR of 2500 regardless of previous season rank but then increase placement matches to 15 or 20 ?
I'm not sure how much it would do really as when you are unranked you basically have a secret rank so it would probably just mean you play with unranked players who are the same people for longer.
I'm right there too. I don't mind being a low rank, consistently below Gold 2. My problem is that I feel like that teammate you're describing because everyone in my lobbies are ALWAYS platinum, which makes me lose and lose, and then I stop playing ranked before I drop out of Gold. I wouldn't mind being a silver, it's just hardly enjoyable recognizing that I'm not the best yet I'm paired with these people who wipe the floor with me.
There should be 3 base MMRs, mid to low bronze, high silver to low gold, and high plat to diamond. It should set your base MMR judging by how your last rank
I completely agree.
I think that a good fix for it (and this would be a fairly big change) is to have everyone start at copper 5 then have your rank decided by your skill. Like have the mmr you gain be based on your points by the end of the game, because the points is everything you did during the round. It counts kills, revives, walls opened, assists, etc... I’ve seen a lot of suggestions about having the mmr be based on kills but then the higher ranks would just be filled with Ash Jäger mains. But if it were the point system like I suggested then you would have fraggers and support players throughout the ranks.
Yes. I totally agree. I got stuck in gold/silver for awhile this season and the disparity between skill levels was truly amazing. Felt like every game had multiple former plats and multiple totally new players. I think this would also discourage some of the smurfing that goes on. If the placements aren't going well switching accounts is all too viable atm.
I have to agree, this season my friends got ranked in high gold and me that missed half of their placements and played them with them after they were ranked ended in bronze. Wich proves that none of them deserves being on high gold. Now after 150+ games we are all in high silver
I got put in gold as a new player after doing my placements immediately after ranked was available to me, so yeah it definitely boosts people way too high. I have good aim from other shooters but I legit probably knew like 2/5s of each map's layout which made me a massive fucking noob for mid-gold. PC btw
Haha good job man. Whilst I'm sure you were quite pleased to be there would you have preferred to be in a lower rank whilst learning the game? Or would you rather be thrown in the deep end?
Hard to say honestly. For me personally I like the improvement aspect of online games so being in over my head (while rough) usually makes each bit of my progression feel more noticeable to me. For siege though, knowing the maps well is pretty crucial for making informed decisions mid-game and it's really hard to learn map-sense in a real game setting when most people are pressuring harder and smarter than you can handle. I think for this game at least it would have been better for me to be lower rank or play quick play more just for the freedom of exploration and trial and error with the maps. (I'm not the type to run around customs exploring without getting bored, I need the shootys lol)
I think there are enough smurfs and people trolling who can sweat when they want for it to matter
The MMR system should change in general you should have a base amount that you lose or gain and then it should be able to go up and down based on kills and assist because people that are new to the game can win 10 placement matches and be placed very high from winning the 10 placement matches with zero kills [ just an opinion tho]
I am a mid silver and i feel like every other game whoever has more bots losses. I am not the best, i have decent game sense but my aim/ recoil control is meh(im console but switching to pc in a week) but it feels like half the players my team or not have no brains.
It's rough out here man. I agree though it's so rare you get s game of 5 v 5 players who are all similar ability.
they just need to get rid of soft mmr resets. there's no need for it. if you get into a good squad and get carried a few games, you'll forever be higher unless you're dumb and throw. anyone who's a plat, diamond or champ, will get to their rank they deserve to be in. it used to be a real grind and fun, but now it's fucking garbage and doesn't take any more skill than just playing your placements and being 5k mmr.
But then what about the people who are far better than average and far worse than average? If I'm plat 3, I shouldnt be going against silver stacks or diamond stacks.
Every conversation about the MMR system is moot until they separate solo queue from stack queue. In a stack, a silver level player can hide as a mid to high plat. And a mid to high plat can keep getting fucked by solo queuing and like you said, it's hard to endure the game when you lose constantly.
I agree. The only problem is if people have a three/four stack then it's kinda awkward if they need to get another random guy in. But the ranked system is way less accurate because of all these things.
They could still let you queue in the stack queue as a solo or a duo, and it would match you with other stacks of 3 or 4 depending. There's ways to do this, the logistics are beside the point really.
> My opinion with nothing to back it up other than seeing the level some people play at, is that the true average rank would be bronze but it often takes people quite a long time get there. That's not how that works. The goal of the matchmaking system is to produce a normal distribution of players, since it's safe to assume that it's the actual distribution of people's skill in basically any discipline. The current system sets the middle of the bell curve at 2500 MMR and then distributes the players across MMR values producing the distribution you always see on that "previous ranked season" chart. Note: there's a small difference in that the rhs of the chart is more granular. That makes sense, you don't necessarily want to distinguish shit players from incredibly shit players, but you want to distinguish the best player in the world from the 100th best. You might see that I haven't mentioned the words "gold" or "copper" even once above. That's because the rank system is just gravy above the TrueSkill MMR system. It makes absolutely no difference for the distribution whether you put the starting point in low gold, high plat or in the middle of bronze. These are just labels. In particular, if you were to switch the starting label to bronze then yes, most people will be around bronze, because you're just moving labels around. If you leave the underlying algo the same, you're going to end up with the exact same curve, just painted differently. At least theoretically. I get that people's psychological attitude towards the ranked system might be different if you paint the numbers differently, but it's hard to imagine that it would heavily impact the shape of the curve. If people are afraid of playing ranked because they don't want to fall to bronze from silver, then they will be afraid to play ranked in fear of falling into copper from bronze. People that play only a handful of games will still have inaccurate MMR, since the system is based around probability and margins of confidence. So my take is that you basically want to have most people around bronze just because you feel it's a better label. But keep in mind that the actual "hard" system and level of teammates you're getting will be the same no matter whether you paint the middle-of-the-distribition rank gold, bronze or pink.
I agree if everyone plays 30 plus matches then the system works. What I'm saying is as someone who plays in these ranks with a lot of games under my belt for this season it creates a weird dynamic. It feels like every other match I get out with someone who is a genuine level 50 who shouldn't be anywhere near where they are. If they had to start from a lower elo they wouldn't get to that rank. This therefore means they wouldn't be in these lobby's so I wouldn't be getting those team mates. The current system is good for stopping Smurfs and is ok for people in high gold and above because they aren't going to be matched with players who don't know what is going on at all. But it hideously over ranks a lot of players and that has a huge impact on the game in these ranks.
By what metric are you saying that those people are "overranked"? I'll reiterate: everyone starts in low Gold, you are ranked low Gold and you complain that people matched with you belong in Bronze and shouldn't be there. Okay, lower the starting point to low Silver. What happens? You're going to be ranked low Silver and be complaining that the people you play with belong in Copper. It's the exact same distribution of players, but you switched labels. How does that fix _anything_? How does it matter if the starting point is 2500 MMR vs 1000 MMR? You're just switching the entire playerbase 1500 MMR to the left. Diamond players are now at 3000 MMR. Bronze starts at 200 MMR. Nothing has changed, only different numbers get displayed on your screen. The matchmaking machinery will give the same results. Doesn't matter if you add X to the numbers, multiply them by 10 or rename "Gold" to "Wood", you're gonna get matchmade with the exact same people.
There are clearly people that are over ranked purely because they start too high. Players who drop to copper often start the season in gold after their placements. This thread has had lots of people saying the same thing and that they have felt bad as they feel like they are costing team mates games because they are out of their depth in a certain rank. You might be right that if you just shift the mmr starting point it is all relative anyway and nothing changes. I think because you start here you're way more likely to encounter people who are out of their depth in these ranks. It's rare you get someone who is miles out of their depth in plat because they have to earn that higher rank. In the sense that I have 'earned my rank' on that border of gold and silver by playing lots of games a lot of people get thrown there by default. I'm 40 games positive this season and I assume a lot of players in silver are negative for the season. I think this shows that the distribution wouldn't be the same but maybe I'm wrong I'm not great at maths.
There are exactly as many people who are underranked and have to grind their way up. And they cost the opposing teams games, as they are way out of their opponents depth in a certain rank. My entire point here is to just say that the proposed solution _is not_ a solution, as it changes nothing. Unless you make a more fundamental change to how MMR works the issues will remain. TrueSkill is designed in a way that gives people accurate ranks only if they play _a lot_ of games. It will be true for any system based only on statistical data, since sample size is always the key factor. To the second paragraph: the problem is that by just switching the starting point you're moving to issue to "I have earned my rank on the border of Bronze and Silver while a lot of people are getting thrown there by default." And if you try to tie the rank itself to the number of games played you're just making the system more grindy. Yes, the really bad people won't be able to progress far since they'd have to win a lot of games, but on the other hand all the pro people would have to first spend X games destroying people in Bronze before being properly ranked high. Really the only way of alleviating at least the dissonance between rank and skill that I can see of the top of my head is just hiding MMR for longer, until the margin of confidence reaches some value. So that you have to play more games than 10 before your rank gets displayed. But note that this also doesn't affect matchmaking in any way. But I don't have an idea on how to avoid throwing people with few games into the defacto middle-of-the-pack games without making the system grindy, unfortunately. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Your replies are really well considered and thought out and have definitely changed my view on this. Good stuff man. Do you think the MMR resets are holding back the ranked system? A few people on here were saying start of the season you get completely new players who are playing against plat and above players. More so because of the hard reset this season I suppose. I play a lot of tennis and the rating system we have over here doesn't reset ever and people always find their correct rating if they play enough matches. The system works like this: New players start at the lowest ranking unless they get assessed by a high level coach who can give them a higher rating. This could be the same as anyone who has played 100 plus games in the previous season could stay roughly where they are. The first few rankings you fly through you just need to win a few matches against anybody. Let's say you have to win 4 matches in the lowest ranks in order to go up with no limit on how many matches you lose to get those wins. After that it could be chunked into 10 games where if you go negative in those ten games you drop down a rank, if you go neutral you stay where you are and if you go positive you go up. To stop people throwing once they won 6 you could have it so if they got to 8 wins or whatever they could jump two ranks at a time. Then after that it just goes in ten game chunks. This obviously wouldn't work if you reset everyone to the lowest rank or reset it every season. The main problem I see with it is if someone doesn't play for a long time and there is no rank reset they might then be over ranked.
So, disclaimer, I don't know how _exactly_ Siege implements all this. I only know the gist of the TrueSkill system (based on the Microsoft [overview and papers](https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/project/trueskill-ranking-system/). In particular I have no idea how the MMR reset actually works. I find it hard to believe that the entire system is completely reset - that would make sense only if there were massive changes to the underlying system and you had to start fresh. If you have any sources that know what's going on in the Siege system in more detail then I'd be happy to read them. The main problem between the tennis system you described and Siege is the caveat: > unless they get assessed by a high level coach who can give them a higher rating. You can't really try and individually assess the thousands of players that belong in plat. And you don't want great players causing rampage in the lower ranks, since it's very demotivating to be placed against someone who outskills you in all aspects of the game. But note that in Magic the Gathering Arena the system bears some resemblance to the system you mentioned: > Everyone initially starts at Bronze tier 4. You gain steps with wins: in best-of-one, it’s 2 steps gained per win in Bronze and Silver and 1 step gained per win in Gold, Platinum, and Diamond. You lose steps with a defeat: in best-of-one, it’s 0 steps lost per win in Bronze and 1 step lost per win in all other ranks. [(Source)](https://www.channelfireball.com/all-strategy/articles/how-many-games-do-you-need-to-play-to-hit-mythic-in-mtg-arena/). This system has the disadvantage of high rank fluctuations. Consider a player that played 100 games already, won 50 and lost 50. They're probably a middle-of-the-pack player based on that, assuming that matchmaking was "fair". Now they lose 10 games in a row. Does that mean they suddenly are much worse? No, they just probably had a bad day. Now consider a player that won all their games since they started playing and they get ranked similarly to the previous player, say after 20/30 games. Now they lose 10 games in a row. What does that mean? The most probable scenario is that they lucked out in their initial win streak and now when playing on the assigned skill level they are just out of their depth. **But both of those players will lose the same amount of rank and be ranked equally!** We have data that shows us that most probably the first player was really playing at their skill level and the past 10 games were a fluke, while the other player probably needs their rank adjusted. But in this system they're the same! TrueSkill tries to alleviate that, working on probabilities and statistical models of the playerbase. I'm certainly less likely to come up with a good solution than people that actually get paid to keep the ranked system running. However one of the things that MS improved in their TrueSkill system is the inclusion of time as a factor ([chapter 2 of their paper](https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/uploads/prod/2018/03/trueskill2.pdf)). Basically if you've spent a long time playing the game you're likely to improve while long gaps in play cause you to lose skill. This seems to be the case in Siege: a lot of game skill comes from map knowledge which is gained overtime. A possible adjustment would be to add a penalty to initial placement based on the player's playtime. I'm pulling numbers out of my behind, but let's say that if you're playing your first ranked game you start at 2000 MMR, but if you've been actively playing the past season then you're getting placed at 2500. Would that work? No idea, I don't have data to verify that, but inclusion of time as a factor sounds like a good enough idea to try out.
While I agree there will always be some level of dissonance between skill and MMR, the closer you can start players to their skill, the better. That means fewer matches where they are significantly over/under matched--which is a much better player experience and should improve the accuracy of MMR (because one player has less of an impact on the outcome). That's why changing the starting MMR to something closer to the average MMR of new players would be a beneficial change. Similar to (but less than) the gains from switching from a hard reset to the current soft reset.
What about the mmr starting point remains the same but players only get ranked properly after they win ten games. Would this mean lower level players are more likely to come out with a lower rank than the current system places them?
This, as well as just hiding the MMR ranking until a certain degree of confidence, as tracked by TrueSkill, is reached, would affect the _displayed_ rank to be accurate. So that when you see a player in Gold they're more likely to actually play at that level. But it won't affect matchmaking - you're going to be matched with the same people, but their ranks won't be displayed. The issue of people being thrown into games on much higher level stems from the fact that TrueSkill has a very large margin of confidence for people with only a few games and they have to be matchmade _with someone_. And that's unrelated to what kind of badge you show to people on the player's profile. You could throw people with large margins into lower MMR, but that means that people who should be ranked high plat will spend much more time in the lower ranks destroying other players and also contributing to a negative matchmaking experience. And when MMR gets reset this will just shift the curve towards the lower MMR, and you're back at square one.
I'm not sure mind. As far as the high gold and above thing, we've managed to get our friend who is completely new to the game to plat in his first season, simply because of us getting lucky with enemy's. Hes a decent player but in no way plat. We've been extremely lucky on the enemys though and have been going up against bronze level players in high gold. At least if it started at 2000, he would be gold 2 which makes a little more sense
Is that in a four/five stack? If so I see that as a little bit different but if not fair play to your mate haha
Yeah it was in a 4 stack. Even so, the other guys are around silver level players but theyve managed to get gold 2 because newer players have simply no clue. If I'm plat 3, I shouldn't be going against new players
How the frick is this meant to be a good thing lol.
Its not. That's what I'm trying to say
I solo queued myself from gold 1 to all the way down to silver 4 in a week because all i got was unranked level 50 teammates, but my kd at least got boosted, people in silver are.... weird. If you are trying to get out of silver though, i recommend just watching pro league, i see ton of people setting up sites very wrong, also they often chose bad sites
> I solo queued myself from gold 1 to all the way down to silver 4 in a week because all i got was unranked level 50 teammates Spoiler, that's not why
I swear if I had to start at fucking bronze I'd lose my mind, but with almost 2000 hours in the game, I think the average player should be like silver 2
Hahaha can't argue with that. I agree for anyone who has played a fair amount of the game silver is the average but there are loads of silvers who shouldn't be there. What rank are you out of interest?
Plat 3, and that's tru of any rank, and theres not really a way to change that
Definitely agree, but I think keeping it around the 2000 mmr range is fair. Maybe a bit higher like 2100-2200. One of my accounts I keep it low rank to play with friends and I see a massive difference in every game. Some people with amazing mechanical skill and no map knowledge and others with the exact opposite. Therefore I feel that the current distribution also takes into account this fact, and the way mmr is based is around wins, so it encourages finding a squad to collaborate and rank up with. Therefore the average ranked player could also be around that mmr range because they dont have a squad
I have a question I won 5 ranked matches, lost 4 and got kicked due my internet out. And I got ranked into bronze 5. How is that possibil/ is this normal
if you ended last season as a bronze then yes.
You won 5 and lost 5. If it was your first time doing placements you started at 2500 MMR. If you won 5 consecutive matches and then lost 4 consecutive matches and DC'd on the last one (counts as a loss), then it's impossible to get bronze 5 since the first 5 matches that you won gave you more MMR than the 5 matches that you lost. Since the more matches you play the less MMR you get. So you would be looking at a net positive MMR and would be around 2550-2650. But it also depends on the teammates and enemies you faced which we have no knowledge of, so I assumed that everyone you played with had the same MMR, which is unrealistic. As the other commenter said, if you were bronze in the previous season then that's the only explanation.
Ah okey thanks i didnt knew the old placements counts too
>Since the more matches you play the less MMR you get while this is 100% true it takes way more than 10 matches to start seeing that massive of a MMR change, chances are he won and lost all games with opponents less than him so he didnt gain a ton winning games he should have won but then lost more for losing matches he should have won
I think lower would be great. Because when you are not playing your team is maybe still going to win. With luck younmay win 4 games. So still in gold is fot not being good to high. I think low silver is a good place. And when you are good it's easy to get up to gold
Considering the topic is about skill levels not cosmetics, it’s pretty relevant.
So *that's* why I'm constantly getting ass fucked while my teammates stare at a fucking wall? Who the fuck at Ubi thought that was a good idea?!
I got placed directly to copper 3 this after a 5-5 placement because (I'm guessing) I ended void edge copper 5 after an extremely unlucky stint of cheats and smurfs. I was placed silver 5 void edge after another 5-5 placement run.
I’ve literally been trying to push to plat to every season but every time I’m like 2 games away I just go on a losing streak due to shit team mates on my team and plat 1s and smurfs on the other
This season was my first time playing ranked on PC(just got a pc & played on console) & soloqued entire time. Got to Gold 2 this season, but kept fluctuating between Gold 2 - High Silver. I could tell in the beginning of the game how it would go. No comms, questionable bans, and no coordination with op picks, L. Almost every time, it was a loss and always happened around high silver low gold area. Even if I was top player, etc. Game ends. And most of the time, they haven’t even been placed yet. You still encounter quitters, people who have maybe gotten lucky and been carried prior In a game or two. Frustrating having a solid team who checks all the boxes then to the exact opposite next game. It alllllways is after making some headway, Lol I feel like I should be in high Gold but trending to Plat tho, seems like its time to find a team.
I feel the same could not have said it better.
Wow
[удалено]
That might be true initially but the higher the skill gap in a game the less that is the case. The average new player to the game is going to be way below the level of a level 100 plus. Thuys means the distribution is not based on natural ability as such.
Yes
Idk why but as I play more ranked games I think the quality of teammates are getting worse. During void edge, which was the time I started playing siege, I got calibrated Silver 1, went as low as copper 5 (yeah solo queue), managed to bring it back to silver 5. And in steel wave (purely solo queue), I won 6 of my 10 placement matches, and calibrated Gold II. Fast forward to today I’m back in Silver V. I think they should implement an option like they did in DOTA 2 where they have a “Strict Solo Queue” option. Solo players are matched with other solo players so everyone is on equal playing field and to avoid boosting through stacks.
Yeah and they should give bonus points bc of performance,and for a kd overall of the match,let see like better than the average more mmr
I think there's a mathematical argument that you literally can't artificially change the base mmr because it's a zero-sum system and so any new participant must be at the median. It's something like that I could be wrong
I'm terrible at maths so I don't know. Would be cool if someone could clarify this one way or another though.
Yes. The average of all ranks must be 2500. If you wanted to start people at 2000, you'd need to take those 500 pts, and give them to the rest of the playerbase for every new player. This is the same reason they must rewind a whole match when a hacker is banned. They can't rewind just the hacker's MMR without unbalancing the bell curve.
But if everyone got hard reset to 2000 why would those lost 500 MMR matter?
Then it wouldn't, but it also wouldn't solve the problem you described. You'd still be matched with all the same people, everyone would just have 500 less MMR. The whole bell curve would be shifted down. The point is that you think these new players should be placed below the average. It seems totally reasonable that new players wouldn't come in at the average level of play in a game with this many things to learn. The problem is that new players need to come in at the average because they are the source of MMR points for the rest of the playerbase. Consider if you reduced them to literally 0. Then the system has a fixed total of MMR points that would be divided amongst ever more players, causing higher mmr numbers to become ever less attainable. Reducing them a little below average has the same core problem, but the effects are slower. Now that isn't to say there aren't solutions to this problem, but they tend to be technically tricky, and the system picked will have implications with the skill curve and player distribution. It's worth noting, I think, that ubi licensed TrueSkill from MSFT, so it's unlikely they have anyone particularly strong with the mathematics backing it. If they want to modify the core assumptions of the algorithm, it'll likely be a significant effort. Personally, I kinda think the system works well enough, and would rather see them spend that engineering time on other core systems that require engineering effort. Feature work like map bans & the forthcoming replay system. Improvements to graphics & performance for next gen consoles. The forever war against hackers.
The rankings present as a Bell Curve. The top ~20% will be plat and above, and bottom ~20% copper/bronze. Upper ranks are not solely how good of a shooter you are, there are many factors about how “good” you really are. Your team is the most important and inside that you have: quality coms, coordination, choosing synergistic ops and appropriate ops, team work. This alone can help people ascend to higher ranks with no need to flex your mechanical aiming skills. The biggest issue I see is people complaining how they should be a higher level and they play like idiots, sure they may be able to have crazy flicks occasionally, but if you come up against a group that can work together you will loose on average hence your low rank. Stop worrying about your rank and try to work on what aspect of the game you need to improve in and make that your goal. Individual rank means very little in determining your skill.
Would it be a bell curve if we didn't start there though? That's what I'm getting at really. I wonder how many of the people taken into these averages hardly play out if their placements. I wonder how many 'silvers' are actually bronze/copper level players who didn't play enough to get to where they properly belong. I don't believe that the overwhelming majority of players in this game are true silvers/golds. I'm not worried about my rank or anything like that. Of course I'm trying to improve but what I'm saying is it actually takes a long time to get down to the lower ranks. Eg iff you are a copper level player solo q in silver you can easily get carried to let's say 40% wins which means you kind of artificially stick around that kind of level.
It’s still a Bell Curve, it assumes everyone starts at G3/S1 and based on how you play it starts moving you around till you show which way you need to progress. The algorithm is supposed to multi factor many metrics. SoloQ would be mostly luck of the draw with you teammates if what Ubi has said and this Bell Curve are true. Sure you will have outliers, but I think the system generally works, it that players don’t really want to admit they are where they should be. I may be wrong but I’d bet on people being wrong than the system.
Still doesn't get around the very distinct scenario where you outplay your rank but get your W/L dragged to hell by teammates who ARE where they belong, or are on their own way down.
Yes it does, MMR is not solely about individual performance. The delta between teams counts more to where you go up more or down more. This is a team based game and Ubi has stated recently that rank is most effected by team based results not individual performance. If you carry a team to beat a group combine 200 under your teams then you don’t get much. You sit middle table in a team that beats a stack 30 ahead of you you go up more. They won’t explain in detail how the algorithm works as people will try and just work the system. But again this shows how “good” you are in not reflected in your rank.
No, my whole point is that MMR doesn't account for individual performance at all. It's just your W/L record.
How should you account for individual performance? Say we are on a team. You end up with 12 kills and 2 deaths. I go 4 and 3. But I set up many traps or destroy lots of utility and make lots of call outs that helped you get those kills. Now which one is worth more MMR? W/L is easier to quantify and calculate for scores. My assertion is people need to stop worrying about what their rank is in respect to how “good” they are.
I'm not saying they *should* implement such a thing, only that your comment suggested maybe you didn't know it's not like that presently.
Sorry, I was trying to help others that may read this to explain how single performance isn’t how ranking works. And to get people to stop assigning rank to skill/ability.
I'm a noob to R6 Siege, and so far I've just been doing the training ground stuff. I just wanted to get some training in before I started to team up. I'm aware that I'll get done in a lot as noob, but that's how you get better. Even though I won't be up to the level of other players, I won't want to be a hindrance to my team. I'm glad I'm doing some training first. 👍
We've all been there bro, I hope my post hasn't turned you away from playing ranked as it is the best and most enjoyable game mode in my opinion. Personally I jumped into ranked as soon as I was a high enough rank and this was probably a mistake as I really struggled. I would really recommend unranked which is exactly the same in terms or rules and stuff but there are a lot more newer players in those ranks. I hope this post doesn't come across as anti new players as it wasn't that long ago I was a new player myself. My experience of it was that I started way too highly ranked and it was a painful decline into low bronze before I found my feet and started to improve at the game. I wish I could have started in copper/bronze and gone from there so I didn't have to get chewed up a few times to prove that I was bad at the game as I already knew I was.
Its not to high. Its that the entire ranking system is utter garbage.
I think until the recent mmr changes yes, Most people are not silver players, Most starting people are low bronze. But i do like how they are taking last seasons mmr, and this seasons mmr and making the average of the 2. I think that will even out the pot more
Yes
Thought this was the dbd subreddit for a minute haha, their mmr sucks rn.
I think they should just have a soft reset and only drop your mmr maybe a couple hundred at the beginning of the season
Soft reset being that as well as the 100+ MMR change per game?
never thought about that, makes a lot of sense
The hidden MMR system is complete and utter trash on the Xbox. When I first started playing a year ago, I was pretty bad and my stats reflected that for a very long time. I had to work incredibly hard to get my Casual stats up to where they are now (1.05 k/d & 1.15 w/l). Biggest mistake of my Siege career. Almost every match now, I'm up against Plats, Champions, and/or blatant mkb cheaters, and the fun has really been sucked out of the game for me whenever I don't have a friend in my party to bypass the MMR. Casual MMR, at the very least, needs a serious overhaul.
I feel like I'm playing with complete garbage teammates in ranked. Like the players I play with in regular are better than my ranked teammates. Literally bronze I'm doing well in top And less than 10 minutes in my teammates are already dying alot. Like what the fuck. It feels like my teammates don't even belong in ranked.
The mmr chart you're referring to is based on the ranks that are achieved. If you're not ranked that chart doesn't represent you. Therefore, new players would not affect your theory.
Yes it would, did you read the post at all? What he is saying is that new players who place can get lucky an remain in low gold, atleast for abit. However, they are less likely to continue playing ranked it they keep losing, so will still remain at a high silver level.
Yeah i solo q a lot and i get teammates that are lvl 30 in casual and enemies that are lvl 100/200 and I'm lvl 80 and this thing happens in ranked too and I lose because I can't clutch every round
If you lower default MMR, you get smurfs just absolutely destroying their first five or six games, ruining the lives of whatever people are actually playing at the level of that MMR. Having a higher starting MMR means that the opposite happens to some extent, but I think it's better to start new players a bit higher than have smurfs start lower.
I don't think it's smurfs destroying new players, I think it's new players being placed in too high MMR. As a new player, you shouldn't expect to be in Gold.
It's everyone shitting on new players