|
I felt obligated to post this SS because I think it is a real problem.
Can someone tell me how it is possible ?
https://imgur.com/a/otXBh
This little guy as litteraly 6 games in his entire career (3w 3L) and only he is 100 MMR below me.
This is not the first time I see more than 100 MMR lost in 1 game, obviously guys are all noobs on sc2 so why they have to play vs people way better than him.
I think there is no better way to kill a game discouraging new players.
I know the MMR needs many games to fix itself but it is absolutly not fun for the new player and for his opponents. Why he has a such high MMR after 6 games, it is nonsense.
I specifiy this guy has already a rank, he was Silver 100th in his division.
I am Plat T2. In one word, it was wasted time for him and I.
|
-130 MMR. Poor guy. You should have let him win couple games to make up for it!
|
Losing 130 MMR is a good thing--it means he'll reach the correct MMR faster. Besides Blizzard is aware of new players having to go on losing streaks before their MMR stabilizes and is addressing it (https://us.battle.net/forums/en/sc2/topic/20759537143). At the end of the day Blizzard can't magically know the other player's 'true' MMR--the fact that he's gone 3-4 so far is pretty good.
|
Unless it's changed, the wild fluctuating MMR changes happen for the first 25 games, or "provisional mmr" period. I think it works quite well, tho I think it can be improved for the brand new player.
I have played several former masters players from WoL since 4.0, and I think it's the correct solution to have big mmr swings to get those type of players in the league where they belong, and not starting from the bottom beating up complete beginners.
|
Canada8989 Posts
Hey good thing is, he probably don't know how bad losing 130 MMR is yet 
But I mean he is 3-4 so it's not that bad, maybe it will stabilizes around an MMR of his level. Honestly I wouldn't think someone who played only 6 games is gonna see that much difference between losing against a plat or losing against a silver, since you don't really realize how badly you were outplayed at this point and you are suppose to win only about 50% of your games anyway. So if it's not a recurring thing I don't think it's really a problem to verify that the MMR of the new player are ok by giving them hard match up.
|
On December 01 2017 06:17 Nakajin wrote:
Honestly I wouldn't think someone who played only 6 games is gonna see that much difference between losing against a plat or losing against a silver, since you don't really realize how badly you were outplayed at this point
Sorry, but I can't agree with you on this point. More your opponents is better than you hardest the game is.
Maybe he would have been more opportunities to win vs a silver or a gold but not vs Plat playing seriously. He didn't even have time to understand what going on, just because he doesn't know how to macro yet, and he was focused on his production.
I don't think our game between us helped him a lot. I just hope it will not be too discouraged.
|
Plat and silver are not so far apart. As a player who was/probably is 3.5k mmr-ish again. If I am not warmed-up I might lose against golds so much that I would get paired with silver. Especially since I haven't played on the new patch etc..
Having some games with skill differences is also not the end of the world.
|
Not always true, for me it more common lower players try cheesey all-ins that abit hard to defend but once you do you have won. While the players at some or higher might give you some credit and play for a longer game.
I am quite new but if I was competly new I would feel alot more overun by a rush I wouldn't understand how to stop then if my opponent showed up with 40 roaches/stalkers/marines&mauraders with upgrades when I am at lets say 20 with no upgrades.
|
I think I've got around ~25 games by now and I still see some absolutely crazy stuff with MMR, like how diamond player with 7k!!! games have similar MMR as I do (around ~3,5k)? In-game it is painfully obvious that opponent plays like 50 times better than me, and we're matched in Ranked system...
Btw, a quick question: does Unranked takes into account player stats and matches you against more similar in skill opponent?
|
Canada8989 Posts
On December 01 2017 06:50 Sound1 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2017 06:17 Nakajin wrote:
Honestly I wouldn't think someone who played only 6 games is gonna see that much difference between losing against a plat or losing against a silver, since you don't really realize how badly you were outplayed at this point Sorry, but I can't agree with you on this point. More your opponents is better than you hardest the game is. Maybe he would have been more opportunities to win vs a silver or a gold but not vs Plat playing seriously. He didn't even have time to understand what going on, just because he doesn't know how to macro yet, and he was focused on his production. I don't think our game between us helped him a lot. I just hope it will not be too discouraged.
Oh I mean he probably got trash it's not what I mean, but when you just start to play you don't really understand your position in the game. (well at least I didn't) So losing while beeing 40 supply down after 6 minutes or losing while beeing down 10 supply after 6 minutes feels kind of the same, you just know that you lost. And sure it's a shitty game for him but I wouldn't think he found it worst than beeing chese or 2 bases push by a silver.
|
On December 01 2017 08:18 Sundr wrote:
I think I've got around ~25 games by now and I still see some absolutely crazy stuff with MMR, like how diamond player with 7k!!! games have similar MMR as I do (around ~3,5k)? In-game it is painfully obvious that opponent plays like 50 times better than me, and we're matched in Ranked system...
Btw, a quick question: does Unranked takes into account player stats and matches you against more similar in skill opponent?
Unranked has separate MMR, but still uses the same system to match you up with people. I wouldn't focus too much on the number of games played--some people play a ton of games, but still aren't very good.
|
United States12235 Posts
On December 01 2017 05:27 Sound1 wrote:I felt obligated to post this SS because I think it is a real problem. Can someone tell me how it is possible ? https://imgur.com/a/otXBhThis little guy as litteraly 6 games in his entire career (3w 3L) and only he is 100 MMR below me. This is not the first time I see more than 100 MMR lost in 1 game, obviously guys are all noobs on sc2 so why they have to play vs people way better than him. I think there is no better way to kill a game discouraging new players. I know the MMR needs many games to fix itself but it is absolutly not fun for the new player and for his opponents. Why he has a such high MMR after 6 games, it is nonsense. I specifiy this guy has already a rank, he was Silver 100th in his division. I am Plat T2. In one word, it was wasted time for him and I.
Happy to explain what's happening here.
You correctly assessed that your opponent had very few games played. This means that there is a great deal of uncertainty around whether he actually belongs at 3400 MMR. It's much better for his MMR to move rapidly in this case because if it didn't, if he lost the standard (low-uncertainty) 20-21 MMR, he would take 6-7x longer to reach players of his true skill level.
He did not lose 130 MMR because of any in-game factors, or because of how badly you beat him. He lost 130 MMR for two reasons:
1. The system is not convinced that he is truly 3400-quality.
2. The system IS convinced that YOU ARE truly 3400-quality.
If you had only 6 games played and were in the same high-uncertainty situation as your opponent, his MMR would not have been as heavily impacted (he probably would have lost half that much instead). But because you have established yourself as a reliable representation of what a 3400-MMR player is, you exert greater influence over his MMR.
The fact that he is in Silver is related. His MMR is in the Platinum range, but for players who have less than ~25 games played, their league placement uses a provisional MMR that is around ~500 lower than the MMR used for actually finding opponents. The reason for this is that if he continues playing against people much better than him, losing -130 then -100 then -70 then -50..., then he would end up around 2900 MMR anyway and the Silver badge would accurately define him. If he instead started winning half his games at 3400 and defined himself as a true 3400-quality player, he would be promoted once the provisional status expires after ~25 games.
The reason he has 3400 MMR to start with is simple: that's near the median of the skill spectrum. Because skill distribution is relatively normal, it makes sense to start new players out near the middle where they have equal opportunity to rise and fall.
On December 01 2017 08:18 Sundr wrote:
I think I've got around ~25 games by now and I still see some absolutely crazy stuff with MMR, like how diamond player with 7k!!! games have similar MMR as I do (around ~3,5k)? In-game it is painfully obvious that opponent plays like 50 times better than me, and we're matched in Ranked system...
Btw, a quick question: does Unranked takes into account player stats and matches you against more similar in skill opponent?
The number of games doesn't matter beyond a certain point. For players in Placement (<5 matches played) the matchmaker will try to put you against other players in Placement. After that, it will just find players near your MMR. Some players were once 1K and it took 7000 games for them to rise to 3.5K. Some players were 3.5K and never improved relative to other players after 7000 games, and so they stayed at 3.5K.
That's the most important thing to remember about what MMR represents: it's a relative measure of your skill compared to the rest of the population. Everyone gets better the more they practice, that's obvious. But you will only rise in MMR if you improve faster than players at your current skill level.
Unranked (and Ranked, for that matter) do not take into account any player stats or anything in-game when adjusting your MMR or seeking out opponents (which is solely governed by MMR). The only thing that changes your MMR is winning and losing, and the degree of change depends on the confidence the matchmaker has in your MMR (see above).
|
I think there is something legitimately wrong with the MMR system after the game went free to play. I haven't played in like 3-4 years, where I was struggling to beat gold players. I played a bunch of games last week when the game went free, went 16-11, and the game put me in diamond with like 3900 MMR. I'm not sure if the skill pool has been incredibly diluted with all the free players, or if Blizzard is giving out "feel good" ranks now. I still don't even know what some of the new units do and don't know any build orders. It feels nice to be a rank that I thought used to be respectable, but it is off-putting because now it seems like a shiny participation sticker. I wanted to see my skill level after a long time, and was thinking I'd be lucky to get gold, but I came back to an MMR shitfest instead.
|
Interesting, never seen that much point change in a game before.
|
United States12235 Posts
On December 01 2017 09:23 Elite00fm wrote:
I think there is something legitimately wrong with the MMR system after the game went free to play. I haven't played in like 3-4 years, where I was struggling to beat gold players. I played a bunch of games last week when the game went free, went 16-11, and the game put me in diamond with like 3900 MMR. I'm not sure if the skill pool has been incredibly diluted with all the free players, or if Blizzard is giving out "feel good" ranks now. I still don't even know what some of the new units do and don't know any build orders. It feels nice to be a rank that I thought used to be respectable, but it is off-putting because now it seems like a shiny participation sticker. I wanted to see my skill level after a long time, and was thinking I'd be lucky to get gold, but I came back to an MMR shitfest instead.
Some degree of MMR inflation is expected with the influx of new players. The league distribution will self-correct during the next season roll, but if Blizzard believes that's too far into the future, they can force it manually.
|
|
|
I played almost an hour a day and my mmr never fluctuate that much. If you play lots, bnet can see your skills and place you with players more relevant to your mmr.
|
On December 01 2017 08:41 Excalibur_Z wrote:
Happy to explain what's happening here.
You correctly assessed that your opponent had very few games played. This means that there is a great deal of uncertainty around whether he actually belongs at 3400 MMR. It's much better for his MMR to move rapidly in this case because if it didn't, if he lost the standard (low-uncertainty) 20-21 MMR, he would take 6-7x longer to reach players of his true skill level.
He did not lose 130 MMR because of any in-game factors, or because of how badly you beat him. He lost 130 MMR for two reasons:
1. The system is not convinced that he is truly 3400-quality.
2. The system IS convinced that YOU ARE truly 3400-quality.
If you had only 6 games played and were in the same high-uncertainty situation as your opponent, his MMR would not have been as heavily impacted (he probably would have lost half that much instead). But because you have established yourself as a reliable representation of what a 3400-MMR player is, you exert greater influence over his MMR.
The fact that he is in Silver is related. His MMR is in the Platinum range, but for players who have less than ~25 games played, their league placement uses a provisional MMR that is around ~500 lower than the MMR used for actually finding opponents. The reason for this is that if he continues playing against people much better than him, losing -130 then -100 then -70 then -50..., then he would end up around 2900 MMR anyway and the Silver badge would accurately define him. If he instead started winning half his games at 3400 and defined himself as a true 3400-quality player, he would be promoted once the provisional status expires after ~25 games.
The reason he has 3400 MMR to start with is simple: that's near the median of the skill spectrum. Because skill distribution is relatively normal, it makes sense to start new players out near the middle where they have equal opportunity to rise and fall.
Thanks a lot for these explanations. MMR system still was mysterious for me.
The reason he has 3400 MMR to start with is simple: that's near the median of the skill spectrum. Because skill distribution is relatively normal, it makes sense to start new players out near the middle where they have equal opportunity to rise and fall.
It sounds very weird to me. Why no synchronise MMR with rank ? Even if you win your 5 ranking matches, you can not drop in diams league, so why MMR is not immediatly adapted to your current league (silver or gold).
Instead of that, a new player will have to play vs plats or diams (with ~3.5k MMR) while he still has difficulties to make units.
It still nonsense for me 
This game is already so frustrating when you play against an opponent with equal skill level than you, I don't think it is a good idea to propose to new player some matches vs 2 leagues above players.
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On December 01 2017 08:24 ZigguratOfUr wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2017 08:18 Sundr wrote:
I think I've got around ~25 games by now and I still see some absolutely crazy stuff with MMR, like how diamond player with 7k!!! games have similar MMR as I do (around ~3,5k)? In-game it is painfully obvious that opponent plays like 50 times better than me, and we're matched in Ranked system...
Btw, a quick question: does Unranked takes into account player stats and matches you against more similar in skill opponent? Unranked has separate MMR, but still uses the same system to match you up with people. I wouldn't focus too much on the number of games played--some people play a ton of games, but still aren't very good.
Not exactly. Unless Blizzard made changes in the past year or so, unranked has wider range of players you can get.
Back in the end of HotS/beginning of LotV I was playing both ranked and unranked modes. In ranked I've rarely seen master or platinum, 90 % of players were diamond. Though if i switched to unranked I saw even golds  Even the search times were shorter in the unranked pool.
Currently I'm not playing ranked at all so I cannot compare.
|
On December 01 2017 09:23 Elite00fm wrote:
I think there is something legitimately wrong with the MMR system after the game went free to play. I haven't played in like 3-4 years, where I was struggling to beat gold players. I played a bunch of games last week when the game went free, went 16-11, and the game put me in diamond with like 3900 MMR. I'm not sure if the skill pool has been incredibly diluted with all the free players, or if Blizzard is giving out "feel good" ranks now. I still don't even know what some of the new units do and don't know any build orders. It feels nice to be a rank that I thought used to be respectable, but it is off-putting because now it seems like a shiny participation sticker. I wanted to see my skill level after a long time, and was thinking I'd be lucky to get gold, but I came back to an MMR shitfest instead.
There is nothing legitimately wrong with MMR, although some improvements can be made to deal with new players.
There are slightly too many people in Diamond and Plat based on the league distribution, but that has absolutely zero effect on matchmaking or correct ranking on sites like RankedFTW. This is a cosmetic issue that will fix itself when the league boundaries get updated.
As for the OP, new players losing 130 MMR per game is good, it means they'll get to their true MMR faster. If anything, the change in MMR should be even larger.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
