This MMR system is so beyond bad and there is literal nothing anyone can do to try to explain it's blatant erroraneous design.
With the intense feelings of loopsided games in which RNG seems biased, blatant snowballing, bottom players highrolling to top Four to poor balance, its no wonder I'm stuck at 5000-6000k elo.
Top four, regardless of any opinion should always experience a healthy gain based off past game W/L and various factors while in game.
Screenshot for proof.
This game is literal the foulest dogwater.
ATTACHMENTS
Hearthstone Screenshot 10-06-21 00.46.01
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Hearstone Devs are incompetant. Fax on fax. No printer.
You're going to be at an average of roughly +0 for fourth, isn't that pretty standard? Roughly +100 for first, +70 for second, +30 for third, -30 for 5th, -60 for 6th, -80 6th and -100 8th, assuming it's actually that place and not shared. You're not climbing if you're not getting third or above.
Half the time you're one of three or four going out at once, though, and so the placement stated is rather useless.
Top 4 can even lose you some points. This happens if the lobby's MMR is on average lower than yours, which is definitely possible as it is quite hard to get 8 players of more or less the same MMR together at all times.
I've seen some streamers gain MMR for 6th place, I've seen others lose MMR for second place. All just depends on the specific lobby, and what your personal rating is relative to everybody else.
Like... think about Chess ELO - if Magnus Carlsen got first place in some local pub tournament (that also happened to matter for worldwide Chess ELO), it likely wouldn't impact his ELO score because he's at such a high level compared to everybody else that it wouldn't make sense for him to gain any points.
The battlegrounds MMR system *is* the equivalent of ELO, so if you lose in an 8k lobby as a 2k player, it isn't going to really matter, but losing in a 2k lobby as a 12k player is *devastating*
Like... think about Chess ELO - if Magnus Carlsen got first place in some local pub tournament (that also happened to matter for worldwide Chess ELO), it likely wouldn't impact his ELO score because he's at such a high level compared to everybody else that it wouldn't make sense for him to gain any points.
Now I'm picturing Magnus going to the pub and roflstomping everyone to farm up his ELO.
This MMR system is so beyond bad and there is literal nothing anyone can do to try to explain it's blatant erroraneous design.
With the intense feelings of loopsided games in which RNG seems biased, blatant snowballing, bottom players highrolling to top Four to poor balance, its no wonder I'm stuck at 5000-6000k elo.
Top four, regardless of any opinion should always experience a healthy gain based off past game W/L and various factors while in game.
Screenshot for proof.
This game is literal the foulest dogwater.
Don't play it, be one more like us. Eventually this shit company changes the game or die. How can Blizzard be worse than IMC?
Top 4 can even lose you some points. This happens if the lobby's MMR is on average lower than yours, which is definitely possible as it is quite hard to get 8 players of more or less the same MMR together at all times.
Ja, that is true. I don't think rating should be the definitive calculation in an "RNG" game. Since more than half the time, setting aside cheese tactics, the game is a complete anyones-bet-to-who-wins. Due to the shared pool and some Hero's legit draining the "shared" pool it puts others at disadvantage.
Top 4 can even lose you some points. This happens if the lobby's MMR is on average lower than yours, which is definitely possible as it is quite hard to get 8 players of more or less the same MMR together at all times.
Ja, that is true. I don't think rating should be the definitive calculation in an "RNG" game. Since more than half the time, setting aside cheese tactics, the game is a complete anyones-bet-to-who-wins. Due to the shared pool and some Hero's legit draining the "shared" pool it puts others at disadvantage.
Bro, MMR doesn't even matter really... you don't get anything even if you are the top 1st player (just the thing, that you are first). So play BG's for fun until we actually get something from progressing to higher MMR
Most of the time, Bob singlehandledly decides whether you will win or lose by offering you either crap or cherries.
That's what the ranking system does. The matchmaking sets you up against opponents of allegedly equal skill, and if you're against equally skilled opponents then luck will singlehandedly determine whether you win or lose. The more you play Battlegrounds, the more time the system has to rank you accurately, and as that process completes one goes from more skill-based games to games determined almost solely by luck.
So what you're basically saying is that you're at the rating you deserve.
Okay. And? What's the point of being the best in Battlegrounds or having a high ranking? You don't get anything for playing. There are no rewards for being high rank, or even playing in general. You're just playing for fun. Nothing more, nothing less.
I like Battlegrounds as much and as little as the next guy, but let's be real ...
Most of the time, Bob singlehandledly decides whether you will win or lose by offering you either crap or cherries.
Unless you are a broken hero like Millhouse, Hooktusk, etc.
And here you are worrying about your +0 MMR in a game where Bob decides every game whether you win or lose ...
You be making a BIG MISTAKE MON,
Hah, I suppose. You're absolutely right. Bob does have a strong impact. I never could figure out why Millhouse is so good. He seems high cost for little reward back. I'm open to learning.
Bro, MMR doesn't even matter really... you don't get anything even if you are the top 1st player (just the thing, that you are first). So play BG's for fun until we actually get something from progressing to higher MMR
Some people play for personal achievement and are competitive. I know I do. I want to get better, but it feels like -dawns tinfoil hat- That there is a dev team specifically there to moniter to me and make me lose. I do not agree with the algoryhtm system for matchmaking or overall the balance.
Most of the time, Bob singlehandledly decides whether you will win or lose by offering you either crap or cherries.
That's what the ranking system does. The matchmaking sets you up against opponents of allegedly equal skill, and if you're against equally skilled opponents then luck will singlehandedly determine whether you win or lose. The more you play Battlegrounds, the more time the system has to rank you accurately, and as that process completes one goes from more skill-based games to games determined almost solely by luck.
So what you're basically saying is that you're at the rating you deserve.
I do not have faith in the system as it is. I believe it to be flawed. Due to the invisible rating and there was 20k reddit post that explained it well with the data to back it up.
Okay. And? What's the point of being the best in Battlegrounds or having a high ranking? You don't get anything for playing. There are no rewards for being high rank, or even playing in general. You're just playing for fun. Nothing more, nothing less.
Yes.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Hearstone Devs are incompetant. Fax on fax. No printer.
Most of the time, Bob singlehandledly decides whether you will win or lose by offering you either crap or cherries.
That's what the ranking system does. The matchmaking sets you up against opponents of allegedly equal skill, and if you're against equally skilled opponents then luck will singlehandedly determine whether you win or lose. The more you play Battlegrounds, the more time the system has to rank you accurately, and as that process completes one goes from more skill-based games to games determined almost solely by luck.
So what you're basically saying is that you're at the rating you deserve.
I do not have faith in the system as it is. I believe it to be flawed. Due to the invisible rating and there was 20k reddit post that explained it well with the data to back it up.
You're missing the point. That's what the system is supposed to do. If a ranking based matchmaking system is functioning perfectly, it matches you against opponents of equal skill. If you are playing opponents of equal skill, who wins comes down to pure luck. Therefore, the better the matchmaking system is working, the more matches are decided by luck.
Also the "internal rating" isn't something Blizzard has been quiet about, there's a dev post explaining it dated 9/28/20.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Just got 0 pts for placing 4th place.
This MMR system is so beyond bad and there is literal nothing anyone can do to try to explain it's blatant erroraneous design.
With the intense feelings of loopsided games in which RNG seems biased, blatant snowballing, bottom players highrolling to top Four to poor balance, its no wonder I'm stuck at 5000-6000k elo.
Top four, regardless of any opinion should always experience a healthy gain based off past game W/L and various factors while in game.
Screenshot for proof.
This game is literal the foulest dogwater.
Hearstone Devs are incompetant. Fax on fax. No printer.
You're going to be at an average of roughly +0 for fourth, isn't that pretty standard? Roughly +100 for first, +70 for second, +30 for third, -30 for 5th, -60 for 6th, -80 6th and -100 8th, assuming it's actually that place and not shared. You're not climbing if you're not getting third or above.
Half the time you're one of three or four going out at once, though, and so the placement stated is rather useless.
I have never gotten those numbers for this places.
Still doesn't change that 0 is unacceptable.
Top four should always garuntee points of some value, since the double ratings are so lopsided
Hearstone Devs are incompetant. Fax on fax. No printer.
Top 4 can even lose you some points. This happens if the lobby's MMR is on average lower than yours, which is definitely possible as it is quite hard to get 8 players of more or less the same MMR together at all times.
If you died simultaneously with another player, then the rating of 4th and 5th place is shared between you, thus you got +0 and they got -0.
Stop looking for conspiracies. You're not stuck. You have just plateaued because that is the rating you deserve.
But not the rating he needs right now.
That's... fairly standard for MMR systems?
I've seen some streamers gain MMR for 6th place, I've seen others lose MMR for second place. All just depends on the specific lobby, and what your personal rating is relative to everybody else.
Like... think about Chess ELO - if Magnus Carlsen got first place in some local pub tournament (that also happened to matter for worldwide Chess ELO), it likely wouldn't impact his ELO score because he's at such a high level compared to everybody else that it wouldn't make sense for him to gain any points.
The battlegrounds MMR system *is* the equivalent of ELO, so if you lose in an 8k lobby as a 2k player, it isn't going to really matter, but losing in a 2k lobby as a 12k player is *devastating*
Now I'm picturing Magnus going to the pub and roflstomping everyone to farm up his ELO.
Don't play it, be one more like us. Eventually this shit company changes the game or die. How can Blizzard be worse than IMC?
Ja, that is true. I don't think rating should be the definitive calculation in an "RNG" game. Since more than half the time, setting aside cheese tactics, the game is a complete anyones-bet-to-who-wins. Due to the shared pool and some Hero's legit draining the "shared" pool it puts others at disadvantage.
Okey pal. Whatever you say. Imagine having so much faith in Blizzard to believe they are infallible and the system is perfect. You are a dipshit.
Hearstone Devs are incompetant. Fax on fax. No printer.
Wow, so salty
I like Battlegrounds as much and as little as the next guy, but let's be real ...
Most of the time, Bob singlehandledly decides whether you will win or lose by offering you either crap or cherries.
Unless you are a broken hero like Millhouse, Hooktusk, etc.
And here you are worrying about your +0 MMR in a game where Bob decides every game whether you win or lose ...
You be making a BIG MISTAKE MON,
Bro, MMR doesn't even matter really... you don't get anything even if you are the top 1st player (just the thing, that you are first). So play BG's for fun until we actually get something from progressing to higher MMR
Wait till you lose points for getting to rank 4.
Or till you win points for getting to rank 5.
I don't even complain about it, I don't play for rank anyways.
Click to see my Hearthstone projects:
That's what the ranking system does. The matchmaking sets you up against opponents of allegedly equal skill, and if you're against equally skilled opponents then luck will singlehandedly determine whether you win or lose. The more you play Battlegrounds, the more time the system has to rank you accurately, and as that process completes one goes from more skill-based games to games determined almost solely by luck.
So what you're basically saying is that you're at the rating you deserve.
Okay. And? What's the point of being the best in Battlegrounds or having a high ranking? You don't get anything for playing. There are no rewards for being high rank, or even playing in general. You're just playing for fun. Nothing more, nothing less.
Hah, I suppose. You're absolutely right. Bob does have a strong impact. I never could figure out why Millhouse is so good. He seems high cost for little reward back. I'm open to learning.
Some people play for personal achievement and are competitive. I know I do. I want to get better, but it feels like -dawns tinfoil hat- That there is a dev team specifically there to moniter to me and make me lose. I do not agree with the algoryhtm system for matchmaking or overall the balance.
Do you mean place in match or? Sorry
I do not have faith in the system as it is. I believe it to be flawed. Due to the invisible rating and there was 20k reddit post that explained it well with the data to back it up.
Yes.
Hearstone Devs are incompetant. Fax on fax. No printer.
You're missing the point. That's what the system is supposed to do. If a ranking based matchmaking system is functioning perfectly, it matches you against opponents of equal skill. If you are playing opponents of equal skill, who wins comes down to pure luck. Therefore, the better the matchmaking system is working, the more matches are decided by luck.
Also the "internal rating" isn't something Blizzard has been quiet about, there's a dev post explaining it dated 9/28/20.