cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Chiram
Founder
Founder

3 Letters that kill a "game"- MMR

:nauseated_face:MMR:thumbs_down: 

It's astonishing how those three letters added to a game mechanic can amplify not only the stupidity of gamers but bring about a sense of "elitism". 

On top of that, if the game forces your ONLY play channel into an MMR dynamic and just by being "naturally good" and enjoying the game. ( Shocker --- Some people play for fun) you start to Organically move into forced play styles of people you'd rather..... not engage with?. 

See below picture.

Chiram_0-1634486542711.png

I've got well over 2k+ hours on the game... but I'd never join with these types of people ( I don't classify them as gamers tbh). Image being in a lobby of people who want to try hard at a game ( particularly in DBD ) where the mechanics on both sides are such an RNG factor that even the best of the best have a poor W/L ratio. I'll never understand the mentality. Why even act like this in a game that... technically doesn't even have a win/loss worry until you get into higher brackets anyways? Plus it's only technically a loss if you care about your MMR rating?

Never once did I "TRY HARD" to reach what used to be tier 1 ranks... it just happened passively. 

So I think the misconception is - Being higher "rank" makes the game more fun and challenging? In reality, I've never had an MMR based system where higher ranks became more fun. Challenging? Actually no; because at high meta, everyone runs the same meta. It becomes a boring mundane drudge where mechanics are abused and often moves people into a  poor attitude section of the games community. 

Anyone else feel this way about MMR systems?

¸¸.•*¨ What you walk by is the standard you accept¸¸.•*¨*•
0 Kudos
2 Replies
Chufu
Platinum Stadia Guide
Platinum Stadia Guide

I feel MMR in games is always a double-edged sword.

Usually I feel it makes sense, when you're a team that wins a lot against "newbies", then MMR makes sense to give them harder opponents. So the base idea of MMR is not too bad in games I think, because high-end-players would probably also get bored when they only play against people that they win easily against. The downside of MMR is that sometimes it can happen that you don't get any opponents, depending on the game of course and the playtime (and if it's globally).

I can see your points though that higher ranks often just end in boring builds that everyone "has" to play to compete with the others in high rank...so far this happened in all games I've played that have MMR.

On the other hand side, if MMR would not be there, then some players could be very lucky always winning against newbies and push their ranks this way. I think this would also be not only boring, but also kind of unfair, because then if you are a team that can play 24/7, you just play as often as you want, always hoping you get easy targets. So from that point of view, I think we should rather accept MMR being a thing there, because then this is not happening and new players don't have the horror of possibly having to fight against very good people always.

I think game-studios can not please everyone anyway ^^

1 Kudo
Chiram
Founder
Founder

I see your points. I do think though that if a company is going to place an MMR based system into the game... they don't force everyone into the same MMR channel. There should always be a RANKED/MMR play and a FREE PLAY mode. 

¸¸.•*¨ What you walk by is the standard you accept¸¸.•*¨*•
1 Kudo