View Poll Results: Should we add ranks to the user list?
Yes
20 Votes / 100.00%
No
0 Votes / 0%
Voters: 20. You may not vote on this poll
View Poll Results
View Poll Results
Originally Posted by Dscigs
Average rank doesn't matter, only the highest rank.
That's not true at all mate.
I have no idea where you pulled that from.
When I'm queuing with LE/LEM players I usually get mostly eagles and few supremes and when im queuing with mostly supremes and few globals thats what I get from opponents. You almost always get players with one or two ranks higher/lower in your matches, thats my first time getting silvers or even gold novas. If it was the case that highest elo mattered only I wouldve seen that happen before.
MM Calculates hidden elo of team #1 vs hidden elo of team #2 and matches them together to be equal so if you have one global with high hidden elo you will propably get a supreme with lower hidden elo as well. If it calculated only the highest elo you would never get higher rank players in your matches. What you said is simply no true.
Last edited by panttersin; Feb 20, 2016 at 10:12 AM.
Your screenshot literally disproves that.
How would a supreme + 3 silvers + an unranked go up against 4 supremes and an lem? Judging by what you said, a supreme playing with 4 silvers should go up against mg, possibly even nova, which clearly isn't the case. Your match is determined by the highest rank, the others are simply minor factors. The only reason you haven't seen this before is because of pure chance; not everyone plays with silvers on their main; that's what smurfs are for.
How would a supreme + 3 silvers + an unranked go up against 4 supremes and an lem? Judging by what you said, a supreme playing with 4 silvers should go up against mg, possibly even nova, which clearly isn't the case. Your match is determined by the highest rank, the others are simply minor factors. The only reason you haven't seen this before is because of pure chance; not everyone plays with silvers on their main; that's what smurfs are for.
Originally Posted by Dscigs
Your screenshot literally disproves that.
How would a supreme + 3 silvers + an unranked go up against 4 supremes and an lem? Judging by what you said, a supreme playing with 4 silvers should go up against mg, possibly even nova, which clearly isn't the case. Your match is determined by the highest rank, the others are simply minor factors. The only reason you haven't seen this before is because of pure chance; not everyone plays with silvers on their main; that's what smurfs are for.
"Your screenshot literally disproves that."
Flukes never happen? That's why I posted it, because it's weird. One weird case disproves the hundreds of times it has been the complete opposite?
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfil.../?id=312582297
Here's an explanation of the rank system with actual research and "data". Might not be absolutely 100% accurate since valve are quite secretive but mostly accurate since almost all competitive games have a similar matchmaking system and he also has collected some data. You are just pulling that "only highest rank matters" out of your ass without any kind of backing up.
In almost every discussion regarding the matter, backed by data or personal xp, people point it to being collective team elo instead of just the highest elo.
-----
Originally Posted by Dscigs
Your match is determined by the highest rank, the others are simply minor factors. The only reason you haven't seen this before is because of pure chance; not everyone plays with silvers on their main; that's what smurfs are for.
From personal exp queing with some MGs, opponents usually only ever have max 1 supreme. Most of the times none, usually LEs. That's from personal xp only tho. Never have I had a game queing with MGs where the opponent would have 2 supremes.
Last edited by panttersin; Feb 20, 2016 at 11:38 AM.
Reason: <24 hour edit/bump
[!] FINAL UPDATE (12 Apr 2015)
WARNING: Due to some unknown recent changes to the Ranking Algorithm, this guide might no longer be accurate or valid at all and may or may not be updated. -RetriButioN (12 Apr 2015)
Nice, really supports your argument. Nearly a year ago OP said that it could not be accurate.
Originally Posted by Dscigs
Nice, really supports your argument. Nearly a year ago OP said that it could not be accurate.
yes? I just said its prolly 100% not accurate, while you're just stating a thing with nothing to back it up with. Im done with trying to argue with someone like you lol.
