The Upcoming Season 8 Changes to Skill Based SR Adjustments

Competitive Discussion
I would like to address the fact that many lower level players (including platinum and below) think that this change is some sort of “elitist” thing. The hard truth is it’s not.

The fact of the matter is that performance based SR adjustments are actually good for platinum rank and below.

Let me first explain why the performance based sr is good. It let’s you escape your rank by playing well. The thing is that you have about a 50/50 chance to win which means you will win about half the time. If you do well enough in those games, you will climb. If you didn’t have the rank based adjustments, you would be stuck in lower ranks even if you are good. People are also saying that platinum needs to be a part of the new change. To that, I say no because the fact that I’ve heard people complaining about how they “can’t climb out of platinum” and that probably means they are not winning as many games as they are losing to bein with and the change applying will only exacerbate the issue more.

This change is for Diamond and above because blizz is probably testing how it works. Also, the number of throwers, leavers and all-around toxic people that make our games extremely inconsistent and unfair and we also know how to play our heroes to 80% of their capability so the skill based adjustment does not help much. The smurfs also make it so that we have to try really hard to get sr because their statistics are so good.

Another thing that many GMs and top 500 players are only getting a little SR per match. Like we're talking like 5 SR sometimes and lose about 30 from what I've heard and to me, that just is plain unfair.

Only constructive criticism please. I just want to know that I helped people understand why this change is only for diamond and up! GL in your games guys and be a team player!!! (I've made major edits to this post so some of the comments may not make sense.)
(I changed the title from "The upcoming season 8 changes are not trying to be “elitist”") fyi
If you got his far in it, you should know that I only made this to spur discussion so that blizzard understands how so many people feel about the issue. If you want, let me know that you read this by putting a star before the first word of your post.
12/09/2017 01:15 PMPosted by Flash
This change is for diamond and above because diamonds and masters have to deal with smurfs.


Uh.....this is totally wrong.
This change is for diamond and above because diamonds and masters have to deal with smurfs. The smurfs make our games extremely inconsistent and unfair...


So... there are no smurfs in Bronze and Silver that make games inconsistent and unfair?

Edit: Formatting *facepalm*
The thing is that you have about a 50/50 chance to win which means you will win about half the time. If you do well enough in those games, you will climb.


Erm, no.

When I ranked up from 1850 to 2333 SR in season 6 I had a 60%+ win rate. As I was better than the SR I was at, I won a higher % of games and rose up.

In season 4 I was at 60% win rate with Mercy, but didn't rank up for 30+ hours as I was "playing her wrong". I'd have thought that a 60% win rate would prove I was "playing her right"?

I then played Torb and Orisa and rose up 300SR super easily. I then player Mercy again and was suddenly "performing well" according to the SR system (Even though I should have had a tougher time as I was "not good enough" when I was 300SR lower).

This season I am around 50% as I have hit my skill wall (And Blizzard servers crashing 1 second from end of 4th win in a row costing me 70+SR always helps...)

So, I'm bitter as I have first hand experience what a steaming crock the PBSR system is.

I'm in the right place now, but I was definitely screwed over in season 4. Then I learned that the system was about one tricking an off meta hero to advance better.

But I'm a gold peasant, so who gives a !@#$ right?
It needs to be system wide. Elo hell is more like elo mudd. You can get out if your better.

Remove preformance based sr. Its stat based and numbers just dont tell the story.
12/09/2017 01:50 PMPosted by IamPig
Elo hell is more like elo mudd. You can get out if your better.


of course you can get out if youre better. dont tell me you expect to get out even if you truly belong there or perform even worse than that rank????
12/09/2017 01:28 PMPosted by Magnus
12/09/2017 01:15 PMPosted by Flash
This change is for diamond and above because diamonds and masters have to deal with smurfs.


Uh.....this is totally wrong.


Yeah I came to say that.

It basically boils down to Diamonds not wanting one-tricks to solo queue their way into Diamond.

Even though I've never made it to Diamond (2400 or so is my highest) I kinda understand where they're coming from. Diamond is where the meta changes and where many of the things that dominated in Gold are no longer effective.

But try-hard golds aren't what cause problems for Diamonds. The space between Gold and Diamond is where Golds are trying their hardest and Diamonds are on tilt.

Individual performance rating should be across the board. If Blizz really wants a game changer between Diamond and Gold then they should introduce a second set of qualifying / placement matches and provide a reward for Diamond+ that entices them to stay there instead of de-ranking to troll the lower ranks.
12/09/2017 01:56 PMPosted by HammerDown
12/09/2017 01:50 PMPosted by IamPig
Elo hell is more like elo mudd. You can get out if your better.


of course you can get out if youre better. dont tell me you expect to get out even if you truly belong there or perform even worse than that rank????


If you keep on winning games with a 50+% win rate, then surely by definition you're doing better and deserve to rise up?

At the moment, with some off meta heroes, you can lose more than you win and still go up...
12/09/2017 01:28 PMPosted by Magnus
12/09/2017 01:15 PMPosted by Flash
This change is for diamond and above because diamonds and masters have to deal with smurfs.


Uh.....this is totally wrong.

For me at least, I’ve had a ton of BLATANT smurfs and every rank has throwers and toxic people at the moment. So I’m talking from my experience. I’m sorry for not clarifying and I’ll edit it to make it clear that I am not talking fact, but experience. Thanks for the feedback :)
12/09/2017 02:17 PMPosted by Gazzor
12/09/2017 01:56 PMPosted by HammerDown
...

of course you can get out if youre better. dont tell me you expect to get out even if you truly belong there or perform even worse than that rank????


If you keep on winning games with a 50+% win rate, then surely by definition you're doing better and deserve to rise up?

At the moment, with some off meta heroes, you can lose more than you win and still go up...

REALLY good point. MORE COMMENTS LIKE THIS PLS! hehe
Not elitest huh?

So then, why not try the system out on the lower levels?
Thinking about it, I've thought of a possible solution. It would make a lot of sense to just get rid of the performance based SR at all ranks and using the shorter seasons in order to calibrate us to the ranks that our MMR thinks we should be at. Thoughts on this?
12/09/2017 02:38 PMPosted by Rukus
Not elitest huh?

So then, why not try the system out on the lower levels?

If you are doing wayyy better than your silver teammates, but end up losing a little more than half of your games, you should not be in silver, yet you are stuck there because you are not getting a boost from your performance (stats) and are therefore going to have a harder time to climb out of places that feel like ELO hell. That's what I would assume.
12/09/2017 01:40 PMPosted by DeusUlt
This change is for diamond and above because diamonds and masters have to deal with smurfs. The smurfs make our games extremely inconsistent and unfair...


So... there are no smurfs in Bronze and Silver that make games inconsistent and unfair?

Edit: Formatting *facepalm*

Sorry for being a little vague. There are smurfs in bronze and silver and all the ranks, but I'm sure that they get out of there pretty quick because of the PERFORMANCE BASED SR. (emphasis, not yelling)
12/09/2017 02:42 PMPosted by Flash
12/09/2017 02:38 PMPosted by Rukus
Not elitest huh?

So then, why not try the system out on the lower levels?

If you are doing wayyy better than your silver teammates, but end up losing a little more than half of your games, you should not be in silver, yet you are stuck there because you are not getting a boost from your performance (stats) and are therefore going to have a harder time to climb out of places that feel like ELO hell. That's what I would assume.


I appreciate that's the aim, but it feels that the reverse is true. I was winning 60% of my Mercy games at 1700SR but with +20/-30 gains/ losses I was stuck down there.
(Played Orisa and Torb, yada yadda to 2000SR).

Played Mercy again at 2000SR (As no one wanted to heal and I wanted to actually win the game). Whoop, I'm on circa +25/ -17 SR gains and losses. Bear in mind I'd gone up 300SR in circa 6 hours, after 30 hours of not moving. I think most of my gameplay improvement was in that 30 hours...

So on that basis, Silver Mercy's are better than gold ones?

or maybe the system is a fat crock?
Now let me explain why performance based SR is bad, much worse.

  • Encourages one tricking in an attempt to stat pad/chase to climb faster
  • Discourages teamwork
  • Tanks generally get a little bit less SR in comparison to DPS heroes
  • Supports generally get less SR in comparison to DPS heroes (with maybe the exception of Ana, Moira or Zen depending how you play them)
  • Encourages people to play DPS heroes because of the above, regardless of if and how they may be helping their team or not
  • Is far quicker to de-rank deliberately in order to stomp matches in a much lower tier a person doesn't belong in
  • Is far quicker to get boosted into a higher tier, and by boosted I mean 'illegally'
  • Encourages toxicity because of the above frustrations
12/09/2017 02:46 PMPosted by Gazzor
12/09/2017 02:42 PMPosted by Flash
...
If you are doing wayyy better than your silver teammates, but end up losing a little more than half of your games, you should not be in silver, yet you are stuck there because you are not getting a boost from your performance (stats) and are therefore going to have a harder time to climb out of places that feel like ELO hell. That's what I would assume.


I appreciate that's the aim, but it feels that the reverse is true. I was winning 60% of my Mercy games at 1700SR but with +20/-30 gains/ losses I was stuck down there.
(Played Orisa and Torb, yada yadda to 2000SR).

Played Mercy again at 2000SR (As no one wanted to heal and I wanted to actually win the game). Whoop, I'm on circa +25/ -17 SR gains and losses. Bear in mind I'd gone up 300SR in circa 6 hours, after 30 hours of not moving. I think most of my gameplay improvement was in that 30 hours...

So on that basis, Silver Mercy's are better than gold ones?

or maybe the system is a fat crock?

I completely get where you're coming from, but I could attribute you having a hard time climbing to people not doing as much damage in silver as there are in gold. Gold players are different from silver players in a fundamental way. So "silver Mercys are better than gold ones" is not true, but silver mercys will not do as much healing because there is not as much damage being thrown around. I will check through some of your stats to see if I can find a reasoning and bring it back here :) Ty for your constructive response ill be back with answers
12/09/2017 01:15 PMPosted by Flash
The fact of the matter is that performance based SR adjustments are actually good for platinum rank and below.

Let me first explain why the performance based sr is good. It let’s you escape your rank by playing well.


No. It is not.

No. It does not.

Performance Based SR biases the system and DOUBLE COUNTS the statistical affect of the measured "stats" in your SR adjustments.

This biases SR to favor those stats over other unmeasured and possibly unmeasurable qualities which are as or more important to winning.

Suppose you get much higher than average K/D ratio. But suppose you do that while focusing on the wrong targets, so you actually hurts your teams' chances of winning. Your rating should not go up. Same goes for any stat or combination of stats you want to look at.

It is not the stat that matters. It is the impact you have on that game, with, or without, a high score in that stat.

If you have a positive impact, you will win more often, your SR goes up.

There is no need to DOUBLE COUNT the effect of personal performance stats in this.

There are other ways to quickly place a player in the correct rank, and looking at performance stats can help with that. The easiest way, which does not bias or double-count the SR system is to increase the ABSOLUTE adjustment (a multiplier) for wins and losses.

If you stats seem very low OR very high for your rank, then:

SR Adjustment = +/- multiplier * 25 * overdogUnderdogEffect.

There is no bias in this. If your "high stats" truly indicate that you should be at a higher rank, you will win more than you lose, and the multiplier will help you get there faster.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum