Originally posted by IatemyBlobby
I’ve got an anecdote about this. I (at the time was gold 3) found a silver 3 in my lobby who top fragged. His account had several expensive skins, so I was convinced he was not smurfing. He was a chill dude, so we added him to our 4 stack. His career was full of him, being silver, in full gold lobbies. He plays very well too, able to match mvp a significant portion of his games.
I brought this up because I think this is an example of why rank and matchmaking should be related. A player consistently fighting against and beating golds should be in gold. He was good at the game, but not being rewarded for it.
edit: this was last act, where you lost as much mmr for a match mvp loss as you can gain in a win. He had many lost match mvp games or games where he finished top half, which effectively canceled out all the games he won.
Your ranked gains are directly related to your MMR. And after around 30-50 games you will converge at your MMR.
That's why if you maintain a 50% winrate(sometimes even less) as a silver player playing against golds, you will climb to gold. Your gains/losses are multiplied a specific way when your rank does not equal your MMR.
I've talked about this a lot in comments, on why we choose a system that isn't 1:1. But in the end, if we did a straight-up MMR system it would still take 30-50(sometimes more) to get to your actual rank. Getting better at the game, and raising your MMR, is the only way to climb.
I'm willing to bet that Silver 3 was in the middle of climbing, and climbing would look like that in any skill system. If he's winning and match mvp'ing the system will keep pushing him up and up, because rank is a ladder and you beat people above you to climb.
If we put you in Plat after placements, because that's the exact middle(or top) of your MMR r...
Read more