The youtuber is not responsible for the quality of videos, jokes, gameplay, edits, pictures, thumbnails, comments, or statements made between the hours of 3 to 5 AM.
For anyone who actually is keeping track, the overwatch-centered video I said I was going to make is possibly not gonna happen, cause at the moment, I'd rather rip out my finger nails with my own teeth than play overwatch for another day
I just finished the vid, this was really well made and entertaining I think trying to calculate a team member's amount of contribution in a ranked multiplayer match may be difficult, especially in games like overwatch where having certain high things (like amount of kills) might not be reflective of the actual interactions in the match Eg in a valorant tournament there was a pro player with very bad Kill to death ratio that actually contributed massively to the match through his smokes and blinds vs that sniper on your tf2 team that's top scoring with kills but can't help the team push and catch the objective
I get it why they made this convoluted ranking system in OW2. It is much less frustrating to see your ranking points drastically going down after a horrible match (League of Legends moment). It also keeps you motivated to "play one more match" so as to see what change to your rank is going to be. Yeah, it ain't perfect, it would be cool to *actually know what the hell constitues a good player*. Also, the game already tracks a multitude of stats (kills, assists, saves, ultimate blocks and such), why not make a transparent system that would encourage players to ACTUALLY PLAY THE GAME?
I don't know if this is true for all games, but many also take into account all kinds of random factors like your KDA, your account level, etc etc when trying to make matches or assign rating gain and loss. Every deviation you go from pure win and loss adds more variance in people's ranks and less confidence in their "true skill". There may be worthwhile tradeoffs to make, for example, if someone has an exceedingly high or low KDA it may be worth extra punishment or reward to dissuade smurfs and throwers, but generally no person can know the secret sauce that went into a game being won. Sometimes it can be your babysitting skills with a bunch of angry people who don't want to get along!
I think the reasons why the Elo rating in team based games is usually obscured is understandable. If you lose a game of chess and your elo goes down by 100 points, you have noone to blame but yourself. If you lose a match of CS:GO and lose 100 elo, it would demoralise a bunch of people thinking it was to no fault of their own,when you have the immediate result obscured people will be more likely to keep playing instead of quitting. And secondly, if the elo rating system is transparent, it will invite exploits with people deliberately making suboptimal choices because they are favored by the ranking algorithm. After all, these algorithms are much more complex than in chess (with only a win, loser or draw outcome) since they have to take team and player performance into account and thus there will be always biases in the system, intentional or unintentional.
I think for multiplayer games, the best system of ranking would be your score/dmg/kills/heals whatevs, and compared to others in your team. That would be one of the best ways to ensure that skill is taken into account properly. Or, at the very least, this is how I see it
see, the problem with this is, especially in team based games, your stats dont matter. a common example of this is the character moira from overwatch. moira is very good at doing small amounts of consistent damage and fairly large amounts of healing. she often has stats that top the leaderboard, especially in lower ranks. however, moira has basically no abilities that can actually make the difference in a team fight. overwatch is an ability centric game, and basically every support has "play making abilities" that can set up or cancel massive potential plays. as an example of a play making ability, the character ana has a grenade that denies enemy healing for a few seconds. when used correctly, this can flip the entire team fight on its head. however, theres basically no way to record the impact someone has on the teamfight. this is why moira is so bad despite having good stats; she has no playmaking abilities and therefore doesnt have as big of an effect on a teamfight.
this works in some games, but team oriented games, especially ones with utility and ability... (CS:GO and Valorant) cant just say, oh you won have some points, and they cant just say, oh you got kills have some points/lose less points, they also need to factor in your overall effectiveness in the match, say you do really good smokes that completely lock down the map, they need a system for that. my main issue with rank systems is TRANSPARENCY, why the fuck did i derank after losing a game, ohhh i did shit in the game i won and also my *shudders* hidden MMR is apparently low. valorant solves both these issues for me, hence why it sucked up hours and hours of my life as it felt rewarding and made sense, even for someone like me who at the time couldn't hit the broadside of a brimstone cheek and had to rely on helping the team instead of getting kills could easily win, get good RR and rank up.
How can you make a video about ranking systems without talking about the Elo system for chess? It sounds very similar to the one you described for Street Fighter
That's why I don't play overwatch ranked, I'm here to have fun with a game not get a degree in mathematical physics to understand if I am good or bad at the game.
Yeah, EOMM has been implemented into basically every major AAA multiplayer game for a little while now. I should probably do a dedicated video on it cause it's terrible, but could also be used in a constructive way that big studios simply refuse to do. Obviously it's not the only reason a match goes one way or another, but it has a non-0 percent influence on the outcome, so it's important to know about.
1v1 games are infinitely easier to determine why the winner won than team games, doubly so because utility moves like CSGO smoke grenades, denying Uber via airblast in tf2, or baiting away the enemy’s anchor player are all things that can absolutely turn matches that are hard to quantify for a ranking system
O2 skewing matches is... very annoying, to say the least. I'm not a competitive person at ALL. However, I fully enjoy ranked and competitive systems in game, because I prefer being able to know where my skill in playing the game lies, and being able to play against people of similar skill levels. In most PvP games, this matters greatly to me, because casual can be a moshpit of people who just installed the game, or people who have been playing for years on end just wanting to roll a public lobby for fun. However, even the best ranked systems are complete trash at a fundamental level. Apex Legends was mentioned, and while yes, I fully agree that it's better than most ranked systems, it's impossible to get out of Silver unless you're a hard carry on most matches, or persist through 100 or so unbalanced matches. Ranked Arenas is HORRIBLY broken, because when you're in bronze/silver, you can be put into a DIAMOND match with absolutely no indication of it. The reason I know? My SO and I played through twenty matches of ranked arenas, and asked every teammate we came across, since we could only play in trios. Over half of the people that replied were in platinum or above. In fact, a teammate wanted to play with us after a match, but when he joined our party, he was a diamond player. We could randomly match with him, but due to the sheer difference in ranks, we couldn't play in a party with him. Apex Legends ranked matchmaking is horrendously broken, as it seems to prioritize fast matches over properly balanced matches. The few times we got into a match based around our rank, it felt unfair because of how terrible the enemy team was playing. And then the game right after, it said "You did too well in this match, so we're gonna put you in a diamond match instead" and got our shit rolled. Having ranked is perfectly fine, and I fully want a good ranked system in games. But when the game is going out of it's way to put you in matches that are leagues above your rank, that's when it's a huge issue.
That is a reference to Low Tier God, the "Kill yourself now" guy, who is a literal maniac narcissist who insists that he has a "perfect peanbut butter complexion".
If we simply explain how the ranking system works, that might mean that some people could contest their rank. However, by using a completely impenetrable system that mysteriously places anyone with a twitch stream in diamond, any complaints can easily be ignored as mad-cuz-bad whining!
MMR is so shit I can’t stress it enough. Remember dead by daylight? Yeah they started using mmr and you can play for the first time and get put up against the best players in the world.
Honestly I don't think a lot of TF2 players really care about competetive matchmaking. Barely anyone cares about the objective, the meta or anything, they jsut play for fun, which the game was seemingly designed around with all the random bullshit that gets thrown at you in a 12v12 free for all clusterfuck, instead of 6v6 and highlander, which the competetive side of the game is centered around. It's almost like 2 entirely different games all within the same game.
I agree with you on the most part, however: 7:00 i have to defend game developers on engagement based matchmaking, as games are a business, so they need people playing the game you know. Furthermore, you dont feel yourself getting better at the game, unless you have those matches where you stomp to see how far you come, or get stomped, to see how much you grow. A simple elo system like in Chess or variants like in street fighter dont work well in most games, because they are very slow in determining a players skill. On launch day, players usually only play a few games, and then determine if they want to keep playing the game. Therefore, it is important to rank players quickly, to retain a larger playerbase. Furthermore, it is hard to give players a public rank number, as many games give you a different rank based on if you play alone or in with friends. But overall, i agree with your points.
I don't have a problem with EOMM as a concept, I mostly have a problem with EOMM that's not being disclosed - which is apart of a larger problem with matchmaking in general in a lot of modern games. I know that developers have to try and keep how MM works a secret so people can't abuse it, but I think uploading dev blogs or making certain things more clear when it comes to how matches are made is something that needs to happen more frequently. EOMM, conceptually, I don't really even hate. Keeping games even is fine, I just think players should know how it works to avoid the frustration of getting an imbalanced match, partially because of EOMM. If a 1v1 game told me "Hey, you're on a 5 win streak, we're placing you against tougher opponents" or something similar, I would actually quite enjoy that - it's like an achievement. Thanks for your comment though, very rare treat amid lots of people posting before watching the video.
For ow a few days ago the devs said there is engagement match making or winers/losers que, it's a myth brought by perception because the match maker tries to place players in a match that they have a 50% change to win. With a 50% chance you can win or lose 10 times in a row it's like flipping a coin.
![[Skyrim], [TF2], [OW], and the importance of Modding](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/u0VFx8yu9p4/mqdefault.jpg)
![[Skyrim], [TF2], [OW], and the importance of Modding](/img/tr.png)
![[Tf2] And It's Worst Class](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/5ZmgTOYggTE/mqdefault.jpg)
![[TF2] The Stun Wars](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/pOcBDq9o3pE/mqdefault.jpg)
For anyone who actually is keeping track, the overwatch-centered video I said I was going to make is possibly not gonna happen, cause at the moment, I'd rather rip out my finger nails with my own teeth than play overwatch for another day
True
Relatable as fuck ngl
I just finished the vid, this was really well made and entertaining
I think trying to calculate a team member's amount of contribution in a ranked multiplayer match may be difficult, especially in games like overwatch where having certain high things (like amount of kills) might not be reflective of the actual interactions in the match
Eg in a valorant tournament there was a pro player with very bad Kill to death ratio that actually contributed massively to the match through his smokes and blinds vs that sniper on your tf2 team that's top scoring with kills but can't help the team push and catch the objective
the office dox into the frame 4 disclaimer link is an insane strat
I’m surprised to see so few views, good editing, relevant information and a meaningful statement made for an enjoyable video to watch.
I’m a sfV player …instant sub!! Also your last tf2 vid was awesome . Keep up the good content !
I get it why they made this convoluted ranking system in OW2. It is much less frustrating to see your ranking points drastically going down after a horrible match (League of Legends moment). It also keeps you motivated to "play one more match" so as to see what change to your rank is going to be. Yeah, it ain't perfect, it would be cool to *actually know what the hell constitues a good player*.
Also, the game already tracks a multitude of stats (kills, assists, saves, ultimate blocks and such), why not make a transparent system that would encourage players to ACTUALLY PLAY THE GAME?
"my 1th match back" lmao that one got me for some reason dunno
Cause its real af lmao
Homie get out of Der Eisendrache and buy property.
i would but rent's free and i can use the tesla coils as a mosquito zapper
I’ve never heard of this channel before but SFV is pretty cool and so, it seems, are you. Looking forward to stumbling upon you again :)
I don't know if this is true for all games, but many also take into account all kinds of random factors like your KDA, your account level, etc etc when trying to make matches or assign rating gain and loss. Every deviation you go from pure win and loss adds more variance in people's ranks and less confidence in their "true skill". There may be worthwhile tradeoffs to make, for example, if someone has an exceedingly high or low KDA it may be worth extra punishment or reward to dissuade smurfs and throwers, but generally no person can know the secret sauce that went into a game being won. Sometimes it can be your babysitting skills with a bunch of angry people who don't want to get along!
I think the reasons why the Elo rating in team based games is usually obscured is understandable. If you lose a game of chess and your elo goes down by 100 points, you have noone to blame but yourself. If you lose a match of CS:GO and lose 100 elo, it would demoralise a bunch of people thinking it was to no fault of their own,when you have the immediate result obscured people will be more likely to keep playing instead of quitting.
And secondly, if the elo rating system is transparent, it will invite exploits with people deliberately making suboptimal choices because they are favored by the ranking algorithm. After all, these algorithms are much more complex than in chess (with only a win, loser or draw outcome) since they have to take team and player performance into account and thus there will be always biases in the system, intentional or unintentional.
I think for multiplayer games, the best system of ranking would be your score/dmg/kills/heals whatevs, and compared to others in your team. That would be one of the best ways to ensure that skill is taken into account properly. Or, at the very least, this is how I see it
see, the problem with this is, especially in team based games, your stats dont matter. a common example of this is the character moira from overwatch. moira is very good at doing small amounts of consistent damage and fairly large amounts of healing. she often has stats that top the leaderboard, especially in lower ranks. however, moira has basically no abilities that can actually make the difference in a team fight.
overwatch is an ability centric game, and basically every support has "play making abilities" that can set up or cancel massive potential plays. as an example of a play making ability, the character ana has a grenade that denies enemy healing for a few seconds. when used correctly, this can flip the entire team fight on its head. however, theres basically no way to record the impact someone has on the teamfight. this is why moira is so bad despite having good stats; she has no playmaking abilities and therefore doesnt have as big of an effect on a teamfight.
like tf2's score system?
Pretty sure the stats could be manipulated one way or another to get easier matches or troll high skill matches
5:10 the best joke in the video
Bruh why the quality unavailable 💀
UA-cam processes HD qualities over the course of an hour
@@kalukagamingfellaguy aight I'll watch the video a second time in an hour
this works in some games, but team oriented games, especially ones with utility and ability... (CS:GO and Valorant) cant just say, oh you won have some points, and they cant just say, oh you got kills have some points/lose less points, they also need to factor in your overall effectiveness in the match, say you do really good smokes that completely lock down the map, they need a system for that.
my main issue with rank systems is TRANSPARENCY, why the fuck did i derank after losing a game, ohhh i did shit in the game i won and also my *shudders* hidden MMR is apparently low.
valorant solves both these issues for me, hence why it sucked up hours and hours of my life as it felt rewarding and made sense, even for someone like me who at the time couldn't hit the broadside of a brimstone cheek and had to rely on helping the team instead of getting kills could easily win, get good RR and rank up.
How can you make a video about ranking systems without talking about the Elo system for chess? It sounds very similar to the one you described for Street Fighter
chess is for nerds there's no explosions
That's why I don't play overwatch ranked, I'm here to have fun with a game not get a degree in mathematical physics to understand if I am good or bad at the game.
Huh, didn't know that O2 deliberately skews Ranked matches. Makes....a lot of sense. I either roll or get rolled.
Yeah, EOMM has been implemented into basically every major AAA multiplayer game for a little while now. I should probably do a dedicated video on it cause it's terrible, but could also be used in a constructive way that big studios simply refuse to do.
Obviously it's not the only reason a match goes one way or another, but it has a non-0 percent influence on the outcome, so it's important to know about.
They always used a hidden MMR system in OW, to be clear.
I like the way tekken does it, I dont know why fighting games have such a good ranked system compared to other genres
1v1 games are infinitely easier to determine why the winner won than team games, doubly so because utility moves like CSGO smoke grenades, denying Uber via airblast in tf2, or baiting away the enemy’s anchor player are all things that can absolutely turn matches that are hard to quantify for a ranking system
O2 skewing matches is... very annoying, to say the least.
I'm not a competitive person at ALL. However, I fully enjoy ranked and competitive systems in game, because I prefer being able to know where my skill in playing the game lies, and being able to play against people of similar skill levels. In most PvP games, this matters greatly to me, because casual can be a moshpit of people who just installed the game, or people who have been playing for years on end just wanting to roll a public lobby for fun.
However, even the best ranked systems are complete trash at a fundamental level. Apex Legends was mentioned, and while yes, I fully agree that it's better than most ranked systems, it's impossible to get out of Silver unless you're a hard carry on most matches, or persist through 100 or so unbalanced matches. Ranked Arenas is HORRIBLY broken, because when you're in bronze/silver, you can be put into a DIAMOND match with absolutely no indication of it.
The reason I know? My SO and I played through twenty matches of ranked arenas, and asked every teammate we came across, since we could only play in trios. Over half of the people that replied were in platinum or above. In fact, a teammate wanted to play with us after a match, but when he joined our party, he was a diamond player. We could randomly match with him, but due to the sheer difference in ranks, we couldn't play in a party with him.
Apex Legends ranked matchmaking is horrendously broken, as it seems to prioritize fast matches over properly balanced matches. The few times we got into a match based around our rank, it felt unfair because of how terrible the enemy team was playing. And then the game right after, it said "You did too well in this match, so we're gonna put you in a diamond match instead" and got our shit rolled.
Having ranked is perfectly fine, and I fully want a good ranked system in games. But when the game is going out of it's way to put you in matches that are leagues above your rank, that's when it's a huge issue.
Even SFV ranked has some flaws, the amount you win/lose is VERY heavily skewed by your opponent's ranked.
That algorithm is why cod is ruined
0:30 I have :D
5:31 What is a peanut butter guy?
That is a reference to Low Tier God, the "Kill yourself now" guy, who is a literal maniac narcissist who insists that he has a "perfect peanbut butter complexion".
@@kalukagamingfellaguy aaaa, ok. Thanks
I actually have played street fighter 5 so your entire point is worthless.
I agree with everything you said.
If we simply explain how the ranking system works, that might mean that some people could contest their rank. However, by using a completely impenetrable system that mysteriously places anyone with a twitch stream in diamond, any complaints can easily be ignored as mad-cuz-bad whining!
MMR is so shit I can’t stress it enough.
Remember dead by daylight? Yeah they started using mmr and you can play for the first time and get put up against the best players in the world.
Honestly I don't think a lot of TF2 players really care about competetive matchmaking.
Barely anyone cares about the objective, the meta or anything, they jsut play for fun, which the game was seemingly designed around with all the random bullshit that gets thrown at you in a 12v12 free for all clusterfuck, instead of 6v6 and highlander, which the competetive side of the game is centered around.
It's almost like 2 entirely different games all within the same game.
I actualy played SFV ranked, dele the video now
I agree with you on the most part, however:
7:00 i have to defend game developers on engagement based matchmaking, as games are a business, so they need people playing the game you know. Furthermore, you dont feel yourself getting better at the game, unless you have those matches where you stomp to see how far you come, or get stomped, to see how much you grow.
A simple elo system like in Chess or variants like in street fighter dont work well in most games, because they are very slow in determining a players skill. On launch day, players usually only play a few games, and then determine if they want to keep playing the game. Therefore, it is important to rank players quickly, to retain a larger playerbase.
Furthermore, it is hard to give players a public rank number, as many games give you a different rank based on if you play alone or in with friends.
But overall, i agree with your points.
I don't have a problem with EOMM as a concept, I mostly have a problem with EOMM that's not being disclosed - which is apart of a larger problem with matchmaking in general in a lot of modern games.
I know that developers have to try and keep how MM works a secret so people can't abuse it, but I think uploading dev blogs or making certain things more clear when it comes to how matches are made is something that needs to happen more frequently.
EOMM, conceptually, I don't really even hate. Keeping games even is fine, I just think players should know how it works to avoid the frustration of getting an imbalanced match, partially because of EOMM. If a 1v1 game told me "Hey, you're on a 5 win streak, we're placing you against tougher opponents" or something similar, I would actually quite enjoy that - it's like an achievement.
Thanks for your comment though, very rare treat amid lots of people posting before watching the video.
@@kalukagamingfellaguy yea good points, making games is hard, and players really need good communication to stay sane
For ow a few days ago the devs said there is engagement match making or winers/losers que, it's a myth brought by perception because the match maker tries to place players in a match that they have a 50% change to win.
With a 50% chance you can win or lose 10 times in a row it's like flipping a coin.
First non bot account