big update from blizzard Korea, trans needed - Page 6

On May 10 2018 04:32 Lazare1969 wrote:
One idea I have is that if your MMR is 1500 or less, then your average APM should be added into the equation of how much your MMR drops or increases. While that won't eliminate smurfs, your "placement match" would put you in a more accurate rank. For example if you lose your first game and your APM is low (under 100) then your loss in MMR points should be greater.

On May 08 2018 12:32 iopq wrote:

since new accounts start lower, that will really screw over older accounts at 1300, since now they will have to play against my new smurf

the bottom will drop out from the rating system and everyone will lose points eventually except for the top pros who only lose to each other

On May 10 2018 03:34 dark.matter wrote:


Losing to the 100th different cheese is awful as well. Broodwar is on an extreme in terms of competitive gaming so buckle up kid. There is always fortnite.

The point is, for people who care about their performance, they don't care about their MMR so much as how they feel they are improving. Yeah MMR is a nice yard stick occasionally but it's like weight in weightloss, you don't measure everyday. For those who just want to win (BILL WHERE R U) then it's the wrong game, OR they won't mind tanking until they can easily win. I simply don't understand where you are coming from tbh.

On May 10 2018 08:16 Hider wrote:


the intention behind an optimal ranking system is that it maximizes the amount of close games.

Thus if it is true that new players are put against too good opponents too frequently, you can reduce their starting mmr so it is closer to the bottom. My point is that the comment from the blizzard korea guy was 100% false.

Smurfs is a different issue and good smurfs are going to win no matter where they start. Regardless if it is at 10% bottom or 2% bottom. What matters here is a system that quickly moves the MMR for players that win a lot early on.

On May 10 2018 12:44 Kare wrote:
Playing against smurfs is only bad for people who care a lot about winning ladder matches. If you are mostly interested in improving, then playing vs smurfs is a blessing. I wish I could play vs Flash and Larva all the time, my level of play would rocket to the sky in a pretty short time.

On May 10 2018 12:44 Kare wrote:
Playing against smurfs is only bad for people who care a lot about winning ladder matches. If you are mostly interested in improving, then playing vs smurfs is a blessing. I wish I could play vs Flash and Larva all the time, my level of play would rocket to the sky in a pretty short time.

On May 11 2018 16:23 iopq wrote:

Actually, it wouldn't. You need feedback. If you play against a player who's that much better than you, you'll just get smashed every time, even if you did EVERYTHING RIGHT. You will start to believe that what you're doing is wrong, when that's not true. You just didn't macro during a fight or something.

On May 10 2018 12:44 Kare wrote:
Playing against smurfs is only bad for people who care a lot about winning ladder matches. If you are mostly interested in improving, then playing vs smurfs is a blessing. I wish I could play vs Flash and Larva all the time, my level of play would rocket to the sky in a pretty short time.

On May 12 2018 09:09 Excalibur_Z wrote:
A ranked environment is inherently one in which players are trying their hardest to win. A player's rating is a product of a combination of their skill and their effort. When you queue for a ranked match, the matchmaker finds an opponent of similar rating. The matchmaker has no way of knowing whether you are intending to try your best or goof around. If you queue up expecting to just take it easy, you're setting yourself up to lose because your opponent probably won't be likeminded. The only way to obtain an accurate "chill" rating this way is to play that way in every single game until your rating reaches a level which accurately defines your actual level of effort (but then it won't suit you for the times you want to try really hard).

I tell you this for two reasons. One, so you get a rough idea of one element of the smurf mentality (the others being to intentionally derank in order to find games faster or dominate unsuspecting weaker players). Two, so you can set your own expectations for effort: perhaps you might want two separate accounts, one where you relax and one where you try your best (that is, smurfing yourself).

All that said, smurfing is something that is not handled well by the matchmaker. If you want to play relaxed games against other relaxed players, you're usually better off joining a lobby from the Join list. This is especially true for team games. The level of competition is lower and expectations are different. Trying to rely on the matchmaker to find close matches when your level of effort varies by game is not possible because your own mental state predetermines whether you will perform on the high end or the low end of your personal skill distribution.

On May 12 2018 09:27 Excalibur_Z wrote:
But that's not necessarily true either. Take SC2 for example. Players who want to smurf in that game will insta-leave dozens of games until they get to a rating where they're comfortable they can dominate the competition. When they invariably start rising back up toward their original rating, they'll tank it again and repeat the cycle. It's a player mentality thing. Requiring one account per player only makes it a little more difficult to accomplish the same goals of smurfing, it doesn't eliminate it.