Original Post — Direct link

I spend quite a lot of time explaining to people how the ranked system currently works by copy pasting from a long document of resources I have saved (you may have seen me in a lot of threads giving Riot quotes). But that never really gives me the chance to add criticisms for the system, since the responses are meant to be impartial and just give explanations. Plus no one ever gives actual solutions to their complaints. So here are three clear criticisms with possible solutions to discuss:

1. The interval at which MMR can match players needs to be truncated relative to the player's visible rank.

Problem: Because MMR is the sole factor in matching games, cases where players with MMR varying wildly from their rank cause confusion in fringe cases. Some matches might have a player with a rank 6+ full divisions away from another player (for example, a Bronze player in a Plat game). Even though this is estimated to be an even skill level, it appears very bad to players.

Solution: Continue the current matchmaking MMR pair, but filter out any possible match made games where the largest rank difference in the match is more than 5 divisions. A Silver 1 player, therefore, can not see a player higher than Gold 3. This elongates queue times by an extremely small amount only for players with very high or low MMR, but makes matches appear more fair. This rule does not apply for accounts made by Immortal+ players that get placed Plat 3 to start, as they still need to be queued in appropriate levels.

2. The breakdown of RR gains and losses needs some qualitative explanation after matches.

Problem: Players have no idea how their RR is calculated unless they've previously played with an MMR system or read the appropriate articles explaining things (most do not). The things they are shown (a short match history, scoreboard, etc) are not significant parts of the RR calculation and are misleading.

Solution: Create a visual pie chart in the post game UI explaining the approximate sources of RR. For example, half of the pie is labeled "extended winrate", a quarter is labeled "rounds won", and the last quarter is "individual performance". These ratios change according to the situation, and give players an indication of how much each portion means for their RR.

3. Ranks below silver need to have more emphasis on individual performance.

Problem: In Iron and Bronze divisions, there is virtually no team cohesion (due to a variety of factors both in and out of the control of players). Therefore, winrate (the primary MMR factor) is not an appropriate primary measuring device, even though it is appropriate for ranks above Bronze that have a sense of team impact. The variability in these two specific ranks make it extremely difficult even for good players to make the slow shift to a rank like Silver. As a result, Valorant's player distribution is much lower shifted than most other games, which a peak player population in the barrier between Bronze and Silver.

Solution: Have a modified performance MMR factor for these low ELO ranks that can quickly identify players who stand out from others on a performance basis, giving a temporary RR increase. This aid ends as soon as the player enters Silver, in which the more appropriate winrate factor takes over as normal.

And a P.S., 2FA needs to be added just for the security benefit alone. I know some people have recommended this be used as a barrier for ranked (which I am indifferent about), but the simpler fact is that any online service worth their salt should have basic 2FA on accounts to prevent compromised situations. It's just basic security.

External link →
18 days ago - /u/EvrMoar - Direct link

I saw this the other day, but didn't have time to comment. I wanted to make sure I commented on this post, because you've done an amazing job informing the community, but also there are some definite interesting things to talk about.

First addressing your format, and how you tackled with problems and solutions. This is a very "designer" way of looking at it. I like how you put down the problem, and what your solution is. You could take it another step forward by asking yourself what the expected outcome of your solution is, as well as what consequences your change could have - This is more of how you would tackle it if you were at a studio, working in design, less of a random post on reddit.

Continue the current matchmaking MMR pair, but filter out any possible match made games where the largest rank difference in the match is more than 5 divisions.

I like this, and we use to have this when we were purely MMR based. It gets a little weird with grouping restrictions. If we were to do this we would probably have to have a set "time" where it tries to follow this ruleset then it's allowed to break that rule. It gets weird if a radiant MMR player decides to not play ranked for an act, then in like Act 2 plays placements dropping into Plat 3. When they match it's very unlikely other Radiant MMR players have just finished placements in Act 2. So we would have to allow breaking the rules, sometimes. But it's an interesting solution :)

Create a visual pie chart in the post game UI explaining the approximate sources of RR.

I like this, just have to make sure the information is more beneficial then harmful. I always favor giving the player more information - the only counter you will get in something like this is "does this empower the player, and give them agency in their ranked climb". Not saying it does or it doesn't, just pointing out how I would think about it.

Have a modified performance MMR factor for these low ELO ranks that can quickly identify players who stand out from others on a performance basis, giving a temporary RR increase.

all ranks Diamond and under have performance MMR, so we actually already have this :). Your MMR is technically part Win/Loss and part Performance(again below diamond). The lower ranks have performance MMR factor in more, and as you climb it factors in less!

Great write up, and hope you have a good weekend!






devtrackers.gg