So i feel like the rank inflation seems a bit high, i can't say that i know how it works but it seems wrong that im capable of losing more games than winning and still rank up 3 times.
Perhaps you win the important matches against a high rated team and lose the ones where your team is higher ranked.
I would suppose the "hard" matches give way more experience.
Game Masters are not Frostburn Studios employees. My posts in no way represent the view of Frostburn Studios or any of its staff.
The bonus experience for win streaks make it so you can make it to legendary losing more games than you win. I'm sure there will be 3 or 4 times more legendary players than there is now by the time the season ends. It's rating that's added to the pool that comes from nowhere. As opposed to rating you took from the opponent, it will gradually inflate all players up.
The system is broken. 1500 1700 in legendary bracket.
If the win streak bonus really is a thing then its pretty damn stupid, and should obviously be removed instantly, If you let people get more rating for win streaks but not lose for more lose streaks, then you are creating a system that is made to push everyone to high rating, and thats obviously wrong.
Honestly, I'm not fond of the 'climb the ladder' approach used to make players feel better about themselves. It's just a bad form of matchmaking, in my opinion...
I would rather be the same rank for a month and have great, closely matched games rather than climb multiple 'ranks' and play mediocre games the whole time.
How to get gold 1 with 20% wr?
The streak bonus is retarded. I took an account with 1300 legacy mmr and got to diamond 2 within 13 games. I'm about 2 wins from legendary now, with only 27 games played (23 wins, 4 loses). So have gone from 1300 (approx bronze 3) to legendary in 30 games (assuming I win the next 2).
Quite funny really.
Its insane how much bonus you get for five or more games won in a row.
= one shot
Anyways, as long as you fix the inflation from time to time by simply taking away from everyone, adding rating "out of nothing" isn't necessarily bad (think about that one yo capitalists). It simply provides you with an higher rating if you play a lot, so it's kind of an automatic MMR-loss for everyone who doesn't play much.
I guess above 1800 that never appeared, but in lower brackets you occasionally run into someone with very much rating, stating "first game in 5 years" and he clearly should have lost 200 mmr in that time, since he doesn't know anything anymore.
This system kinda fixes such cases, so there are objective reasons to do it this way. The more obvious reason probably being "hey you play a lot of our game, take this free rating" to encourage people to play more games. And I appreciate this effort even more! I want people to play on their top accounts to get better ratings and not switch to a lower one so the high one doesn't loose it's rating (as I've done it the last few years ;-)). So it also kinda fixes the smurf problem in its own way.
The problem being that all those issues don't have a good influence on the balance. BUT it should have one over time. As if you play with better players, you'll most likely get better and so players that play much will improve and we'll get more good players. While those that don't play as often stay at lower brackets, loosing their skill over time. Potentially this could lead to enough good players to have a competitive scene again, but that would take a long time. Anyways it's probably the best effort to achieve this I can think of.
It sounds like the system right now rewards playing more games in the MMR system rather than just focusing on wins/losses.
Suppose you have player A and player B of equal skill level. Player A plays a lot of games. Player B plays a moderate number of games. Player A will have a much higher rank in CoN seasons than player B (and matchmaking will make appropriate accommodations).
This is a bit unfortunate, in my opinion, because Player A and Player B have an equal chance of winning the game - but the matchmaking system will treat them differently.
I suppose it's because of the winstreaks xp bonus. Even with a 50% winrate, winstreaks are bound to happen, since we're not living in a mathematical utopia. And since a winstreak gives more rank than an equivalent losestreak takes away...
This inflation can't be good for the game, if gold is really silver and diamond really gold, then everyone gets bunched into the same games with huge differences in skill.
Could also be that the guy won many games in a streak - which gives a nice hefty bonus to the climb.
Medical studies have confirmed and proved:
Your penis size (in cm) IRL = (K/D) * 10