Replace MMR with a Tiered system.

[Dappa]

MMR is only good for Chess.

There is a reason every game in the similar genres uses a tiered ranked system. It is because moving up the tiers feels achievable, there are also places you cant fall below which allows players times of lower stress gameplay. And a bunch of other great reasons I dont think i need to explain how much better these systems are.

MMR sucks. It is killing this game. I want this game to be a success, try something else please.

[Fishy]

I believe that most of these systems are running on a hidden MMR, for the actual matchmaking, with your rank or tier being an unconnected progression system.

This allows them to do stuff that manages to make everyone feel like they are moving up, or progressing generally, which is obviously impossible with any real MMR system. However the MMR system has to still be there under the hood, in order for the matchmaking to work properly. They just hide it.

Different people have different appetites for ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ progression systems. Adding one probably wouldn't hurt, if that's what keeps you coming back to a game, but it's always a shame for people who actually care about getting better and increasing their MMR rather than just grinding out "progression" every season, as they have to hide the MMR score to keep the illusion of everyone progressing.

This is probably a minority view though. Most people won't continue to play a game if they can't keep increasing their MMR, which is obviously impossible for everyone to do simultaneously.

Isn't this basically what CP is though?

[same]

Chess uses Elo (which is zero-sum) not MMR (which may or may not be zero-sum, but most are as they are modeled after the Elo system) but I might be splitting hairs.

A couple examples off the top of my head of similar games with MMR/Elo:

I haven't played Hearthstone Battlegrounds for years but when I did, it used MMR and not a tiered ranking system. This could have changed since I stopped playing, I'm not sure.

AoE2:DE (which I will admit is less similar to Mechabellum, but still a strategy game) uses Elo and not a tiered ranking system.

For what it's worth, I play games because I think they are interesting and/or fun, not because I care about some points or going from 'Platinum League' to 'Diamond League'. I couldn't care less how Mechabellum is handled with regards to MMR/Elo/Tiered ranks so long as the ranked matches are aimed to be balanced in terms of skill. Maybe I'm in the minority there.

*EDIT* Another example that slipped my mind is DotA2 Auto Chess (the original mod for DotA2 that popularized the Auto Battler genre) used MMR, at least initially when I was playing. While it did have something akin to a tiered ranking system (Pawn, Knight, Rook etc.) they were representations of MMR within the system (there were no 1k MMR Queens).

[Fishy]

Originally posted by same:

Chess uses Elo (which is zero-sum) not MMR (which may or may not be zero-sum, but most are as they are modeled after the Elo system) but I might be splitting hairs.

A couple examples off the top of my head of similar games with MMR/Elo:

I haven't played Hearthstone Battlegrounds for years but when I did, it used MMR and not a tiered ranking system. This could have changed since I stopped playing, I'm not sure.

The MMR system in Mechabellum is just ELO, and that's basically what all these systems use behind the scenes for the actual matchmaking.

Hearthstone's systems aren't a real MMR, even if presented as such. They are a progression system. You get your rank reset every season and generally only ever move UP. Not played Auto Chess, but I suspect it might also be progression, as basically everything is these days. People don't like to see their real MMR, they like to see a number go up every time they play and have a reason to come back next season.

[Mivo]

I haven't enjoyed tiered systems in games that used this approach, and I feel it doesn't benefit a game's community. A simple leaderboard is more straight forward without the segregation that tiers introduce. I'd rather see a return to the previous CP system (with only the top-x losing points) than a tier system.

[same]

Originally posted by Fishy:

Originally posted by same:

Chess uses Elo (which is zero-sum) not MMR (which may or may not be zero-sum, but most are as they are modeled after the Elo system) but I might be splitting hairs.

A couple examples off the top of my head of similar games with MMR/Elo:

I haven't played Hearthstone Battlegrounds for years but when I did, it used MMR and not a tiered ranking system. This could have changed since I stopped playing, I'm not sure.

The MMR system in Mechabellum is just ELO, and that's basically what all these systems use behind the scenes for the actual matchmaking.

Hearthstone's systems aren't a real MMR, even if presented as such. They are a progression system. You get your rank reset every season and generally only ever move UP. Not played Auto Chess, but I suspect it might also be progression, as basically everything is these days. People don't like to see their real MMR, they like to see a number go up every time they play and have a reason to come back next season.

I think Hearthstone Battlegrounds' MMR system is 'real' it's just not zero-sum like Elo. It's plus-sum, meaning that the total amount of MMR in the system goes up as more games are played and isn't limited purely by the number of players in the system. When it resets, everyone starts at 0 MMR and it goes up from there, no one is losing MMR to start. I don't think that means it's fake or that the number is meaningless though.

As a small aside, Elo is the surname of the man who invented the system named after him. it doesn't stand for anything like MMR does.

[Fishy]

I think Hearthstone Battlegrounds' MMR system is 'real' it's just not zero-sum like Elo. It's plus-sum, meaning that the total amount of MMR in the system goes up as more games are played and isn't limited purely by the number of players in the system. When it resets, everyone starts at 0 MMR and it goes up from there, no one is losing MMR to start. I don't think that means it's fake or that the number is meaningless though.

You might be right, and it can be very hard to tell either way unless the devs speak about how they are matchmaking behind the scenes. I would suspect though that on reset day, it knows the difference between a 1st time player and a pro who just got reset, and doesn't just chuck them in the same lobby.

It would be trivial for them to have a behind-the-scenes raking that was designed to more closely measure skill. Progression based systems don't do that so well, so there's not a great incentive for them to use it for the actual matchmaking, even if they give that appearance on the surface.

But I could be wrong!

I certainly wouldn't recommend using a progression-based MMR (like CP in Mechabellum) for matchmaking though.

[same]

Originally posted by Fishy:

You might be right, and it can be very hard to tell either way unless the devs speak about how they are matchmaking behind the scenes. I would suspect though that on reset day, it knows the difference between a 1st time player and a pro who just got reset, and doesn't just chuck them in the same lobby.

It would be trivial for them to have a behind-the-scenes raking that was designed to more closely measure skill. Progression based systems don't do that so well, so there's not a great incentive for them to use it for the actual matchmaking, even if they give that appearance on the surface.

But I could be wrong!

I certainly wouldn't recommend using a progression-based MMR (like CP in Mechabellum) for matchmaking though.

It seems plausible, even likely, that there is another hidden MMR being used in HSBG to identify new or experienced players. I agree it would be trivial to have such a system. As for how they are actually matchmaking the lobbies, it's anyone's guess I suppose.

And yeah, if your goal is to balance matches in terms of skill level (to make them more competitive), then matchmaking based off progression rather than using a method of determining relative skill level (like Elo) would seem like a mistake.

I think that comes back to what OP has called for, to replace MMR with a tiered system and why the suggestion seems off to me. The point is to balance matches, not to give a sense of progression. It's like someone giving you a sandwich for lunch and you saying you'd rather play basketball. You can't play basketball for lunch, at least not if the point is to get something to eat.

[Vegas Dad]

Feel like an obligatory "i told you so" spot. I was a vocal critic of swapping to ELO/MMR, even though i am a very competitive player who loves ladder climbing. I just have seen so many negatives from MMR rating systems, and most of the arguments and complaints of the CP system I knew would not be fixed by MMR like everyone insisted. The most common whines were CP doesnt mean anything, well MMR doesnt either you get the same log jam around 1900-2k which anyone can reach at some point, people squat the top inactive
polluting the game with alts making the rating system worthless anyways (all the top players got there in the first 2 weeks of the system praying on high CP players then they stropped playing and made alts) people insisted they would get quality matches turns out you don;t 2200's get matched with with 1700's still, i could go on and on but it doesnt matter the sad truth is the MMR system is destroying this incredibly fun game's population making it less fun.

But I told you so, you kids need to learn to listen to wiser people. Most everything i have said about this game and it's issues is coming to pass and every person who argued against me is simply being proven wrong and naive as the population withers away.

[Shakajolt]

Play a few 2v2 games, wind up with MMR way too high for 1v1, never get to play anything reasonable in 1v1 again.
Hell, even playing at what feels like a middling/lower MMR against someone with half my MMR, game still feels like ♥♥♥♥ with nothing but losing streaks. IDK if the game is too vague, unbalanced, or what, but it definitely doesn't feel fun. After a certain round, it feels like you're just sitting there waiting for the match to be over no matter what you do.

[same]

Originally posted by Vegas Dad:

Feel like an obligatory "i told you so" spot. I was a vocal critic of swapping to ELO/MMR, even though i am a very competitive player who loves ladder climbing. I just have seen so many negatives from MMR rating systems, and most of the arguments and complaints of the CP system I knew would not be fixed by MMR like everyone insisted. The most common whines were CP doesnt mean anything, well MMR doesnt either you get the same log jam around 1900-2k which anyone can reach at some point, people squat the top inactive
polluting the game with alts making the rating system worthless anyways (all the top players got there in the first 2 weeks of the system praying on high CP players then they stropped playing and made alts) people insisted they would get quality matches turns out you don;t 2200's get matched with with 1700's still, i could go on and on but it doesnt matter the sad truth is the MMR system is destroying this incredibly fun game's population making it less fun.

But I told you so, you kids need to learn to listen to wiser people. Most everything i have said about this game and it's issues is coming to pass and every person who argued against me is simply being proven wrong and naive as the population withers away.

I don't think players camping the leaderboard and making alts is as much a problem with MMR as it is a problem with having a leaderboard for it.

2200s being matched with 1700s is a population problem, not an MMR problem. They could tighten the range of acceptable matches with the matchmaker but that would lead to some players waiting considerably longer for a match, which might cause some people to stop trying to queue up, or maybe just log into an alt account with lower MMR so they could actually find a match.

Check steamdb for the stats. The player population has been in fairly steady decline since before the introduction of MMR and I don't really see how you could make the case that the reason for the decline since the introduction of MMR is directly due to it while the decline that had been happening before the introduction clearly had nothing to do with it.

*EDIT* typo

[Fishy]

Originally posted by Vegas Dad:

Feel like an obligatory "i told you so" spot. I was a vocal critic of swapping to ELO/MMR, even though i am a very competitive player who loves ladder climbing. I just have seen so many negatives from MMR rating systems, and most of the arguments and complaints of the CP system I knew would not be fixed by MMR like everyone insisted. The most common whines were CP doesnt mean anything, well MMR doesnt either you get the same log jam around 1900-2k which anyone can reach at some point, people squat the top inactive
polluting the game with alts making the rating system worthless anyways (all the top players got there in the first 2 weeks of the system praying on high CP players then they stropped playing and made alts) people insisted they would get quality matches turns out you don;t 2200's get matched with with 1700's still, i could go on and on but it doesnt matter the sad truth is the MMR system is destroying this incredibly fun game's population making it less fun.

But I told you so, you kids need to learn to listen to wiser people. Most everything i have said about this game and it's issues is coming to pass and every person who argued against me is simply being proven wrong and naive as the population withers away.

Not seeing any evidence of people quitting because of MMR.

The bad weighting is obviously an issue. Leaderboard camping is an easy fix (just hide inactive accounts), and probably fixes the majority of the alt issue too. Not seen anyone on here complaining about the existence of MMR itself except you (and your "friend").