Guild Wars 2

As I understand it, players can only earn effectiveness points when their team wins, and they are deducted when their team loses. My best guess is your stats during the match influence the amount gained or lost.

But I ask you, why can’t an individual be “effective” even though their team loses or ineffective when their teams win?

The in match stats don’t affect your skill rating, its affected by the quality of players you won or lost against. If you lose to a team that has a lower Mmr than your team then you lose more points because you should have won, if you win it’s less skill rating increase because your Mmr was better than theirs, and this works in the reverse if you go against better Mmr players when you lose you don’t lose that much if you win your skill rating increase is bigger.

Now the closer the Mmrs are on win or lose makes the amount won or lost almost negligible since you are supposedly equivalent skill and the match is a toss up.

Thanks for the info! I understand that and agree that should certainly be a factor. However, a player is only 20% of a team and their rating is therefore 80% dependent on the ability of their teammates.

SaltAndLight.4652:

Thanks for the info! I understand that and agree that should certainly be a factor. However, a player is only 20% of a team and their rating is therefore 80% dependent on the ability of their teammates.

And every one of your teammates is in the same boat.

It can be frustrating. I, 1 v 2’d two people on far and we actually were all in down state. My teammate ran over and tried to stomp rather than rez me. He got CC’d away and I died. They both got up and killed him before I respawned. We lost the match not too horribly.

Point being, I was a far better player than the opposing team members I directly played against, whom in turn wiped the floor with my team. We lost by a little bit, but to the match making system this is identical to me having been creamed by the other team. Even if I’d been he sole person responsible for my teams loss due to my utterly horrible playing the result would be the same.

Essentially some of my best performance in the evening and my MMR goes down for it. Applying MMR based on team output and expecting it to represent an indviduals skill is flawed because there is only a loose correlation between those things.

The skill adjustment doesn’t take into account how well you actually do indivdiually, or how close you are to winning. As far as I know. It only counts a win a win and assumes you are individually responsible for the outcome.

exactly that is the problem of MMR ….
closer losses should reduce point loss and maybe top stats give 1 point per stat.
That will keep players motivated to try harder.

shion.2084:

It can be frustrating. I, 1 v 2’d two people on far and we actually were all in down state. My teammate ran over and tried to stomp rather than rez me. He got CC’d away and I died. They both got up and killed him before I respawned. We lost the match not too horribly.

Point being, I was a far better player than the opposing team members I directly played against, whom in turn wiped the floor with my team. We lost by a little bit, but to the match making system this is identical to me having been creamed by the other team. Even if I’d been he sole person responsible for my teams loss due to my utterly horrible playing the result would be the same.

Essentially some of my best performance in the evening and my MMR goes down for it. Applying MMR based on team output and expecting it to represent an indviduals skill is flawed because there is only a loose correlation between those things.

The skill adjustment doesn’t take into account how well you actually do indivdiually, or how close you are to winning. As far as I know. It only counts a win a win and assumes you are individually responsible for the outcome.

MMR isn’t concerned with representing individual skill since it’s a team game. It’s more reflective of how well you work with a team. If you typed in /s “res” that’s putting forth more team effort.

Honest John.4673:

shion.2084:

It can be frustrating. I, 1 v 2’d two people on far and we actually were all in down state. My teammate ran over and tried to stomp rather than rez me. He got CC’d away and I died. They both got up and killed him before I respawned. We lost the match not too horribly.

Point being, I was a far better player than the opposing team members I directly played against, whom in turn wiped the floor with my team. We lost by a little bit, but to the match making system this is identical to me having been creamed by the other team. Even if I’d been he sole person responsible for my teams loss due to my utterly horrible playing the result would be the same.

Essentially some of my best performance in the evening and my MMR goes down for it. Applying MMR based on team output and expecting it to represent an indviduals skill is flawed because there is only a loose correlation between those things.

The skill adjustment doesn’t take into account how well you actually do indivdiually, or how close you are to winning. As far as I know. It only counts a win a win and assumes you are individually responsible for the outcome.

MMR isn’t concerned with representing individual skill since it’s a team game. It’s more reflective of how well you work with a team. If you typed in /s “res” that’s putting forth more team effort.

By the time he moved past me to stomp, typing res would have resulted in me being dead if he’d changed his mind. My only chance was that his stomp worked. Plus hard to type res when your mashing the stay alive button

shion.2084:

Honest John.4673:

shion.2084:

It can be frustrating. I, 1 v 2’d two people on far and we actually were all in down state. My teammate ran over and tried to stomp rather than rez me. He got CC’d away and I died. They both got up and killed him before I respawned. We lost the match not too horribly.

Point being, I was a far better player than the opposing team members I directly played against, whom in turn wiped the floor with my team. We lost by a little bit, but to the match making system this is identical to me having been creamed by the other team. Even if I’d been he sole person responsible for my teams loss due to my utterly horrible playing the result would be the same.

Essentially some of my best performance in the evening and my MMR goes down for it. Applying MMR based on team output and expecting it to represent an indviduals skill is flawed because there is only a loose correlation between those things.

The skill adjustment doesn’t take into account how well you actually do indivdiually, or how close you are to winning. As far as I know. It only counts a win a win and assumes you are individually responsible for the outcome.

MMR isn’t concerned with representing individual skill since it’s a team game. It’s more reflective of how well you work with a team. If you typed in /s “res” that’s putting forth more team effort.

By the time he moved past me to stomp, typing res would have resulted in me being dead if he’d changed his mind. My only chance was that his stomp worked. Plus hard to type res when your mashing the stay alive button

You only have to press the stay alive button one or set it to auto cast….

Honest John.4673:

shion.2084:

It can be frustrating. I, 1 v 2’d two people on far and we actually were all in down state. My teammate ran over and tried to stomp rather than rez me. He got CC’d away and I died. They both got up and killed him before I respawned. We lost the match not too horribly.

Point being, I was a far better player than the opposing team members I directly played against, whom in turn wiped the floor with my team. We lost by a little bit, but to the match making system this is identical to me having been creamed by the other team. Even if I’d been he sole person responsible for my teams loss due to my utterly horrible playing the result would be the same.

Essentially some of my best performance in the evening and my MMR goes down for it. Applying MMR based on team output and expecting it to represent an indviduals skill is flawed because there is only a loose correlation between those things.

The skill adjustment doesn’t take into account how well you actually do indivdiually, or how close you are to winning. As far as I know. It only counts a win a win and assumes you are individually responsible for the outcome.

MMR isn’t concerned with representing individual skill since it’s a team game. It’s more reflective of how well you work with a team. If you typed in /s “res” that’s putting forth more team effort.

I don’t believe it is tightly correlated to how well you work with a team, as it doesn’t say, well this team would have “really really lost”, but because of how well you worked with it, it only “really lost”. So I’m going to up your works with a team well rating. that would be a tight correlation.

If you loose you could have sorta worked with your team, not worked at all with your team, or really worked with your team, and your rating will go down all the same. So it is not directly reflective of individual contribution to the team.

Kinda see what I mean?

shion.2084:

Honest John.4673:

shion.2084:

It can be frustrating. I, 1 v 2’d two people on far and we actually were all in down state. My teammate ran over and tried to stomp rather than rez me. He got CC’d away and I died. They both got up and killed him before I respawned. We lost the match not too horribly.

Point being, I was a far better player than the opposing team members I directly played against, whom in turn wiped the floor with my team. We lost by a little bit, but to the match making system this is identical to me having been creamed by the other team. Even if I’d been he sole person responsible for my teams loss due to my utterly horrible playing the result would be the same.

Essentially some of my best performance in the evening and my MMR goes down for it. Applying MMR based on team output and expecting it to represent an indviduals skill is flawed because there is only a loose correlation between those things.

The skill adjustment doesn’t take into account how well you actually do indivdiually, or how close you are to winning. As far as I know. It only counts a win a win and assumes you are individually responsible for the outcome.

MMR isn’t concerned with representing individual skill since it’s a team game. It’s more reflective of how well you work with a team. If you typed in /s “res” that’s putting forth more team effort.

I don’t believe it is tightly correlated to how well you work with a team, as it doesn’t say, well this team would have “really really lost”, but because of how well you worked with it, it only “really lost”. So I’m going to up your works with a team well rating. that would be a tight correlation.

If you loose you could have sorta worked with your team, not worked at all with your team, or really worked with your team, and your rating will go down all the same. So it is not directly reflective of individual contribution to the team.

Kinda see what I mean?

And the person who’s consistently winning (and consistently gaining higher rating) is the one who’s been consistently putting in their 20% (or more, to cover).

Honest John.4673:

shion.2084:

Honest John.4673:

shion.2084:

It can be frustrating. I, 1 v 2’d two people on far and we actually were all in down state. My teammate ran over and tried to stomp rather than rez me. He got CC’d away and I died. They both got up and killed him before I respawned. We lost the match not too horribly.

Point being, I was a far better player than the opposing team members I directly played against, whom in turn wiped the floor with my team. We lost by a little bit, but to the match making system this is identical to me having been creamed by the other team. Even if I’d been he sole person responsible for my teams loss due to my utterly horrible playing the result would be the same.

Essentially some of my best performance in the evening and my MMR goes down for it. Applying MMR based on team output and expecting it to represent an indviduals skill is flawed because there is only a loose correlation between those things.

The skill adjustment doesn’t take into account how well you actually do indivdiually, or how close you are to winning. As far as I know. It only counts a win a win and assumes you are individually responsible for the outcome.

MMR isn’t concerned with representing individual skill since it’s a team game. It’s more reflective of how well you work with a team. If you typed in /s “res” that’s putting forth more team effort.

I don’t believe it is tightly correlated to how well you work with a team, as it doesn’t say, well this team would have “really really lost”, but because of how well you worked with it, it only “really lost”. So I’m going to up your works with a team well rating. that would be a tight correlation.

If you loose you could have sorta worked with your team, not worked at all with your team, or really worked with your team, and your rating will go down all the same. So it is not directly reflective of individual contribution to the team.

Kinda see what I mean?

And the person who’s consistently winning (and consistently gaining higher rating) is the one who’s been consistently putting in their 20% (or more, to cover).

Putting in the exact same effort with a different team might see them lose. There is not a strong correlation. Conversely a person who won may just by freak of statistics be being paired with wonderful teammates and under performing. Outliers will do that to you and there’s always going to be some.

I don’t think you’ve effectively argued that the result has a tight correlation.

Now if I was going to take your side of the argument, I’d say that in aggregate, if the averages treat you averagely, your effort in play may end up on average affecting your outcome. So there isn’t No correlation, its simply a weak one, and unfortunately your not given a rating as a team but as an individual.

shion.2084:

Honest John.4673:

shion.2084:

Honest John.4673:

shion.2084:

It can be frustrating. I, 1 v 2’d two people on far and we actually were all in down state. My teammate ran over and tried to stomp rather than rez me. He got CC’d away and I died. They both got up and killed him before I respawned. We lost the match not too horribly.

Point being, I was a far better player than the opposing team members I directly played against, whom in turn wiped the floor with my team. We lost by a little bit, but to the match making system this is identical to me having been creamed by the other team. Even if I’d been he sole person responsible for my teams loss due to my utterly horrible playing the result would be the same.

Essentially some of my best performance in the evening and my MMR goes down for it. Applying MMR based on team output and expecting it to represent an indviduals skill is flawed because there is only a loose correlation between those things.

The skill adjustment doesn’t take into account how well you actually do indivdiually, or how close you are to winning. As far as I know. It only counts a win a win and assumes you are individually responsible for the outcome.

MMR isn’t concerned with representing individual skill since it’s a team game. It’s more reflective of how well you work with a team. If you typed in /s “res” that’s putting forth more team effort.

I don’t believe it is tightly correlated to how well you work with a team, as it doesn’t say, well this team would have “really really lost”, but because of how well you worked with it, it only “really lost”. So I’m going to up your works with a team well rating. that would be a tight correlation.

If you loose you could have sorta worked with your team, not worked at all with your team, or really worked with your team, and your rating will go down all the same. So it is not directly reflective of individual contribution to the team.

Kinda see what I mean?

And the person who’s consistently winning (and consistently gaining higher rating) is the one who’s been consistently putting in their 20% (or more, to cover).

Putting in the exact same effort with a different team might see them lose. There is not a strong correlation. Conversely a person who won may just by freak of statistics be being paired with wonderful teammates and under performing. Outliers will do that to you and there’s always going to be some.

I don’t think you’ve effectively argued that the result has a tight correlation.

Now if I was going to take your side of the argument, I’d say that in aggregate, if the averages treat you averagely, your effort in play may end up on average affecting your outcome. So there isn’t No correlation, its simply a weak one, and unfortunately your not given a rating as a team but as an individual.

It’s a measure of your ability to win games. Whether that’s because of your raw mechanical skill, or your ability to work well with a team, it all plays a role but the only constant is you, and your ability (or lack thereof) to win games.

Honest John.4673:

It’s a measure of your ability to win games. Whether that’s because of your raw mechanical skill, or your ability to work well with a team, it all plays a role but the only constant is you, and your ability (or lack thereof) to win games.

Lol John I usually appreciate your answers, but this time you’re not thinking it all the way through. Let’s start from a simple premise: my team, through the quality of their play, has a 100% possibility of winning every game if each player performs at the top level. This is of course not a correct premise, but to simplify things let’s stick with it. As an individual, I represent 20% of the team. If I contribute 20% of the quality play necessary to win the game, and so does everyone else on my team, then we get a resultant 100% of the effort necessary to win.

I can, of course, contribute more; if I consistently win or at least stall 1v2s, decap far repeatedly then come back to help at mid, then i could possibly contribute up to 30% of the total effort necessary to win. I can never contribute more than that; no matter how good I am at fighting, I can never be in 2 places at once. If one of my teammates contributes 9%, I contribute 30%, and the other the contribute 20% each, we get 99%. That’s a loss.

So in reality, my win/loss ratio is an accurate measure of my teams’ ability to get a collective 100% effort necessary to win. That’s it. It is in no way a measure of my personal ability. You can carry 3 perfectly average teammates and one bad, but no more. And the bad must make at least half the contribution that the average players do in order to win, more often than not they do 9% or less.

Huskyboy.1053:

Honest John.4673:

It’s a measure of your ability to win games. Whether that’s because of your raw mechanical skill, or your ability to work well with a team, it all plays a role but the only constant is you, and your ability (or lack thereof) to win games.

Lol John I usually appreciate your answers, but this time you’re not thinking it all the way through. Let’s start from a simple premise: my team, through the quality of their play, has a 100% possibility of winning every game if each player performs at the top level. This is of course not a correct premise, but to simplify things let’s stick with it. As an individual, I represent 20% of the team. If I contribute 20% of the quality play necessary to win the game, and so does everyone else on my team, then we get a resultant 100% of the effort necessary to win.

I can, of course, contribute more; if I consistently win or at least stall 1v2s, decap far repeatedly then come back to help at mid, then i could possibly contribute up to 30% of the total effort necessary to win. I can never contribute more than that; no matter how good I am at fighting, I can never be in 2 places at once. If one of my teammates contributes 9%, I contribute 30%, and the other the contribute 20% each, we get 99%. That’s a loss.

So in reality, my win/loss ratio is an accurate measure of my teams’ ability to get a collective 100% effort necessary to win. That’s it. It is in no way a measure of my personal ability. You can carry 3 perfectly average teammates and one bad, but no more. And the bad must make at least half the contribution that the average players do in order to win, more often than not they do 9% or less.

What am I not thinking all the way through? Nothing in what you said conflicts with what you quoted.

Honest John.4673:

Huskyboy.1053:

Honest John.4673:

It’s a measure of your ability to win games. Whether that’s because of your raw mechanical skill, or your ability to work well with a team, it all plays a role but the only constant is you, and your ability (or lack thereof) to win games.

Lol John I usually appreciate your answers, but this time you’re not thinking it all the way through. Let’s start from a simple premise: my team, through the quality of their play, has a 100% possibility of winning every game if each player performs at the top level. This is of course not a correct premise, but to simplify things let’s stick with it. As an individual, I represent 20% of the team. If I contribute 20% of the quality play necessary to win the game, and so does everyone else on my team, then we get a resultant 100% of the effort necessary to win.

I can, of course, contribute more; if I consistently win or at least stall 1v2s, decap far repeatedly then come back to help at mid, then i could possibly contribute up to 30% of the total effort necessary to win. I can never contribute more than that; no matter how good I am at fighting, I can never be in 2 places at once. If one of my teammates contributes 9%, I contribute 30%, and the other the contribute 20% each, we get 99%. That’s a loss.

So in reality, my win/loss ratio is an accurate measure of my teams’ ability to get a collective 100% effort necessary to win. That’s it. It is in no way a measure of my personal ability. You can carry 3 perfectly average teammates and one bad, but no more. And the bad must make at least half the contribution that the average players do in order to win, more often than not they do 9% or less.

What am I not thinking all the way through? Nothing in what you said conflicts with what you quoted.

You said “its a measure of your ability to win games.” The contradiction is that it is not a measure of your ability to win games. It is a measure of whether your team won or not.

shion.2084:

Honest John.4673:

Huskyboy.1053:

Honest John.4673:

It’s a measure of your ability to win games. Whether that’s because of your raw mechanical skill, or your ability to work well with a team, it all plays a role but the only constant is you, and your ability (or lack thereof) to win games.

Lol John I usually appreciate your answers, but this time you’re not thinking it all the way through. Let’s start from a simple premise: my team, through the quality of their play, has a 100% possibility of winning every game if each player performs at the top level. This is of course not a correct premise, but to simplify things let’s stick with it. As an individual, I represent 20% of the team. If I contribute 20% of the quality play necessary to win the game, and so does everyone else on my team, then we get a resultant 100% of the effort necessary to win.

I can, of course, contribute more; if I consistently win or at least stall 1v2s, decap far repeatedly then come back to help at mid, then i could possibly contribute up to 30% of the total effort necessary to win. I can never contribute more than that; no matter how good I am at fighting, I can never be in 2 places at once. If one of my teammates contributes 9%, I contribute 30%, and the other the contribute 20% each, we get 99%. That’s a loss.

So in reality, my win/loss ratio is an accurate measure of my teams’ ability to get a collective 100% effort necessary to win. That’s it. It is in no way a measure of my personal ability. You can carry 3 perfectly average teammates and one bad, but no more. And the bad must make at least half the contribution that the average players do in order to win, more often than not they do 9% or less.

What am I not thinking all the way through? Nothing in what you said conflicts with what you quoted.

You said “its a measure of your ability to win games.” The contradiction is that it is not a measure of your ability to win games. It is a measure of whether your team won or not.

Yeah, just like with any statistic, you can make inferences. If I have several esl players on my team (say in unranked) and no one I recognize on the other, don’t you think that maybe, just maybe they’ve been on teams that have won a lot and that maybe we have a high probability to win?

Again the only constant in all those matches and all those teams was you. And if you’ve been on teams that have won a lot then the rating will reflect that and be higher. What is the problem here?

Honest John.4673:

It’s a measure of your ability to win games. Whether that’s because of your raw mechanical skill, or your ability to work well with a team, it all plays a role but the only constant is you, and your ability (or lack thereof) to win games.

This guy gets it.

shion.2084:

You said “its a measure of your ability to win games.” The contradiction is that it is not a measure of your ability to win games. It is a measure of whether your team won or not.

And what’s the one factor that exists in all of your games? it’s you.

Honest John.4673:

shion.2084:

You said “its a measure of your ability to win games.” The contradiction is that it is not a measure of your ability to win games. It is a measure of whether your team won or not.

Yeah, just like with any statistic, you can make inferences. If I have several esl players on my team (say in unranked) and no one I recognize on the other, don’t you think that maybe, just maybe they’ve been on teams that have won a lot and that maybe we have a high probability to win?

Again the only constant in all those matches and all those teams was you. And if you’ve been on teams that have won a lot then the rating will reflect that and be higher. What is the problem here?

Have you ever heard the saying “If you ran into an kitten in the morning, you ran into an kitten. If you run into kittens all day, you’re the kitten”? I think that this is pretty true. After all, in every interaction with an individual, you’re 50% of the people in the interaction. Therefore, on average, you at least had the ability to influence 50% of these interactions; if in 5 interactions there was a kitten, then you were the kitten in 2.5 of these interactions. Whether you round up or down, you were a kitten 2 or 3 times out of 5.

However, in conquest, you’re only 10% of the people in the match. So realistically you only make up about 10% of the outcome. You can put in more or less effort, but your teammates are also affecting the outcome of the game by about 10%, whether they’re owning people in 1v2s or getting farmed mid repeatedly. Doesn’t matter how well they play, they still influence the outcome by 10%. Every time they lose a 1v1, that’s just as impactful as if they had won it. Same goes for you, you can only influence the outcome by about 10%. So there’s actually 2 constants in each match. You named one, that being you and your contribution to the match, 10%. The other constant is that everyone else collectively affects the outcome of the match by 90%.

If you want to believe that you can change the outcome of your matches by outplaying the enemy, go for it, I believe that too. But the fact is that you can’t change 90% of what happens in the match, literally. Only some matches will be close enough that you can nudge it in one direction or another. I’m not saying this to discourage people from trying, I always do my best even with a D/C, but this is the truth of a system that goes purely off of wins/losses.

Just to clarify my analogy: an interaction with an kitten = 1 match.

Huskyboy.1053:

Honest John.4673:

shion.2084:

You said “its a measure of your ability to win games.” The contradiction is that it is not a measure of your ability to win games. It is a measure of whether your team won or not.

Yeah, just like with any statistic, you can make inferences. If I have several esl players on my team (say in unranked) and no one I recognize on the other, don’t you think that maybe, just maybe they’ve been on teams that have won a lot and that maybe we have a high probability to win?

Again the only constant in all those matches and all those teams was you. And if you’ve been on teams that have won a lot then the rating will reflect that and be higher. What is the problem here?

Have you ever heard the saying “If you ran into an kitten in the morning, you ran into an kitten. If you run into kittens all day, you’re the kitten”? I think that this is pretty true. After all, in every interaction with an individual, you’re 50% of the people in the interaction. Therefore, on average, you at least had the ability to influence 50% of these interactions; if in 5 interactions there was a kitten, then you were the kitten in 2.5 of these interactions. Whether you round up or down, you were a kitten 2 or 3 times out of 5.

However, in conquest, you’re only 10% of the people in the match. So realistically you only make up about 10% of the outcome. You can put in more or less effort, but your teammates are also affecting the outcome of the game by about 10%, whether they’re owning people in 1v2s or getting farmed mid repeatedly. Doesn’t matter how well they play, they still influence the outcome by 10%. Every time they lose a 1v1, that’s just as impactful as if they had won it. Same goes for you, you can only influence the outcome by about 10%. So there’s actually 2 constants in each match. You named one, that being you and your contribution to the match, 10%. The other constant is that everyone else collectively affects the outcome of the match by 90%.

If you want to believe that you can change the outcome of your matches by outplaying the enemy, go for it, I believe that too. But the fact is that you can’t change 90% of what happens in the match, literally. Only some matches will be close enough that you can nudge it in one direction or another. I’m not saying this to discourage people from trying, I always do my best even with a D/C, but this is the truth of a system that goes purely off of wins/losses.

A lot of what you’re saying makes sense on the surface. I guess I just don’t get what your point is. Do you have a problem with what MMR measures specifically, or what you think it measures or what you think it should, or how matches are made up? If you don’t have a point you can blowhard endlessly I just don’t see how any of what you say matters since you’ve taken no concrete stance on anything you just talk.

Honest John.4673:

Huskyboy.1053:

Honest John.4673:

shion.2084:

You said “its a measure of your ability to win games.” The contradiction is that it is not a measure of your ability to win games. It is a measure of whether your team won or not.

Yeah, just like with any statistic, you can make inferences. If I have several esl players on my team (say in unranked) and no one I recognize on the other, don’t you think that maybe, just maybe they’ve been on teams that have won a lot and that maybe we have a high probability to win?

Again the only constant in all those matches and all those teams was you. And if you’ve been on teams that have won a lot then the rating will reflect that and be higher. What is the problem here?

Have you ever heard the saying “If you ran into an kitten in the morning, you ran into an kitten. If you run into kittens all day, you’re the kitten”? I think that this is pretty true. After all, in every interaction with an individual, you’re 50% of the people in the interaction. Therefore, on average, you at least had the ability to influence 50% of these interactions; if in 5 interactions there was a kitten, then you were the kitten in 2.5 of these interactions. Whether you round up or down, you were a kitten 2 or 3 times out of 5.

However, in conquest, you’re only 10% of the people in the match. So realistically you only make up about 10% of the outcome. You can put in more or less effort, but your teammates are also affecting the outcome of the game by about 10%, whether they’re owning people in 1v2s or getting farmed mid repeatedly. Doesn’t matter how well they play, they still influence the outcome by 10%. Every time they lose a 1v1, that’s just as impactful as if they had won it. Same goes for you, you can only influence the outcome by about 10%. So there’s actually 2 constants in each match. You named one, that being you and your contribution to the match, 10%. The other constant is that everyone else collectively affects the outcome of the match by 90%.

If you want to believe that you can change the outcome of your matches by outplaying the enemy, go for it, I believe that too. But the fact is that you can’t change 90% of what happens in the match, literally. Only some matches will be close enough that you can nudge it in one direction or another. I’m not saying this to discourage people from trying, I always do my best even with a D/C, but this is the truth of a system that goes purely off of wins/losses.

A lot of what you’re saying makes sense on the surface. I guess I just don’t get what your point is. Do you have a problem with what MMR measures specifically, or what you think it measures or what you think it should, or how matches are made up? If you don’t have a point you can blowhard endlessly I just don’t see how any of what you say matters since you’ve taken no concrete stance on anything you just talk.

Good questions. I don’t generally get on the forum for any other purpose than to discuss how to make the game more fun or interesting. Seemed like there was an understanding gap between people who agree with my 10%/90% analogy and those who don’t, I was trying to bridge that gap.

There already a thread going on about how to measure individual contribution to a match, though nobody has gone into detail about how each individual stat would be weighted. I think ideally the first implementation of this system should weight individual contributions at about 60% total and win/loss record at 40%, and successive iterations (when improvements to the “individual contributions” valuation has improved) would weight win/loss record less and less. Win/loss is very crude but it’s still relevant I would say.