Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Matches that don't start with all 10 players are an issue, but this is because people leave the match or cancel matchmaking in the very last second. Not much can be done but issue penalties, the double or triple mmr would upset people, but it would be good.
The mmr system is wonky, and I agree with lessening the penalty of having less players.
HOWEVER, as much as I agree with your ideas, fixing the game isn't that hard. Coding a game can be very hard, especially considering the spaghetti code siege has, thus coding in an match cancellation system can be difficult. A potential bug that would arise would be that people who were apart of cancelled matches could suffer from mmr loss. This is also ignoring the fact that no matter how well they fix ranked, or how good they make it, someone will complain.
Ranked isn't terrible as it is, and demanding for ubi to fix it without providing the solution is a little bit hypocritical.
They could also make it a vote, but that would be open to trolls of all sorts. For example, if somebody disconnects, it needs 3 out of the 4 remaining players to vote yes to end the game. Otherwise, the game continues as normal. If the game continues, the team with less players could have a chance to gain more MMR for winning.