High MMR players and lower MMR players are experiencing different things

@reconzero

More like:

“I’m really good at the game but I don’t feel like it because the game has locked me into the top bucket, where I lose consistently to top 3% of players in the world.

So I would rather everyone play everyone in pubs (except new players, who need their own space to learn), so that everyone’s outcomes are representative of their skill vs the entire player population.”

I do NOT want to exclusively play noobs. I want to play the whole player base (in public matches). By virtue of this, under-average players would have under average results, average players would have average results, and above average players would have above average results.

It feels REALLY crappy to improve with the intention of having better results, only to lose more overall because the algorithm is locking me into an exclusive experience against the best players. I think this is exactly how a ranked system should work but not all modes in a game.

And I know I mentioned this earlier, but I really mean it, it feels worse (overall) being my current skill level than when I was under-average. Plus the fact that I have to wait longer for games and end up in high ping-lobbies doesn’t improve the experience. Definitely not looking for sympathy; just highlighting the effect of matchmaking.

This explains why am I getting random 200ms ping at one game and the next game I get 15ms (on average 3-4 games with 15ms ping and 6-7 games with 200ms ping out of 10 games), I thought my Internet is shet and I'm the only one. What an unplayable trash.

@reconzero"By virtue of this, under-average players would have under average results, average players would have average results, and above average players would have above average results."

You might get a result like this with looser sbmm, but certainly not if you eliminate it altogether. Not sure if that's what we're talking about here or not.

You would absolutely get this result, why wouldn't you? If anything our stats would actually hold some truth / meaning, because we are not intentionally placed in skill buckets, or "soft" ranks, meaning you can't even compare one player's stats to another in pubs because the skill brackets are invisible.

This is a team game, and sometimes carrying a team can be rewarding in itself. Personally I love it, as long as the lobby isn't too sweaty overall. Some of my most enjoyable games have been carries. But to say "I hate playing with stupid randoms and losing because of them" is a narrow way of looking at things. Again, I will say, that your platform dictates a big chunk of your experience, but without a dedicated team you will do well to have low expectations anyway. Also, it's not all about winning, it's about learning play patterns, weapons, recoil patterns with different scopes, ranges, rotations, limitations etc. And kills. You know how I know? Because I used to be you. But the moment I stepped into the firing range with one of my friends I got fried, although I was the one "getting us wins". That sucks, because it meant a lot of what I thought I knew was meaningless, and a lot of stats didn't matter, since I was being beaten by a "lesser" player whenever we had random loadouts / characters.

I say play the whole of the game - solo, aggressively, passively, with all guns, all characters, all scopes, teams, no teams, ranked....all of it. I think it's the best way to experience it and also be ACTUALLY good at it instead of people just flaunting their 500 wins per character with the same weapon. When the two of you meet the winner will be obvious, even with all those "wins". Just saying..not hating. With the current system, we are forced to just play the meta all the time pretty much...because sweat.