Ranks DON’T mean talent. It just means ppl who play a bit more often.
But keep in mind that with those ranks came a toxic type of player:
the rank farmer.
Those players will actively follow trends and ONLY pile up in most popular factions. They will desert as soon as there’s meaningful opposition as well.
which also mean THOSE AREN’T GOOD PLAYERS!
A silver rank in a less trendy faction that lose often, might play BETTER than a golden rank farmer!
Do you get it now? Those ranks are NOT an indication of talent or skills. Unless you call blindly following trends like a sheep, talent.
also idk how that would work when you would have e.g. 100 marshals in US BR V queue and 10 marshals in axis queue. you would still get unequal matches cause people stacked one side heavily.
SBMM works in games like CS2 cause you are not limited by BR and by side you chose before you got to play.
It does. I do quit on daily bases, especially if I encounter incopemtent team. I am tired of always trying to carry the team. I kind of realized that if I just leave the match, that’s the best punishment for my team.
And since I am nolifer, I do have pretty high rank anyway.
Do you have data to back that up? You say it doesn’t matter and that an unknown but apparently significant percentage of players with high rank are actually really bad players, but from hundreds of games I’ve played, and multiple posts on the forums, I find that to be inconsistent with the reality of the game.
It’s a cool theory and all, but why do teams with more high ranking players win more games? I’m not suggesting that they’re “better,” “more talented,” or whatever adjective you want to use to describe them, but I am suggesting that there is a trend that seems to depart from your assertions.
Ok last attempt to make you understand the obvious then you’re on your own.
Remember Tunisia? Was always “one side” yeah? One side full gold, the other empty?
Remember what happened when even just TWO veterans went into the unpopular faction against all those “seemingly” invulnerable “golden boys”?
Well the 2 vets won. Because the majority of players in Tunisia just FARMED ranks. They obtained ranks with no effort or challenge, and most even deserted against a few real vets. Their gold ranks, were duds.
Now if your memory is too short to remember that good example, I’m just calling it a lost cause and let you believe what you will.
Are you going to mention all the other times Napthalate was crushed? He and his posse were bailing just as much as the undetermined jokers on the Allies.
This joker would go into Tunisia Axis at the prime of the Allied team stacking there and grind the Italians. He was unironically the sweatiest player I have ever played against. He would have three or four guys that he would squad up with and speedrun Tunisia maps pre-paratroopers. But even then, he still got whooped a lot because the Allies were too stacked. He did his share of feeding off weak teams who were not blessed with five or more Marshalls.
Lol using extreme cases like Tunisia can’t reflect the real situation, it is filled with bots on one faction. I was playing Normandy campaign that has mostly real players on both side at that time. The rank did represent their score in most of the cases.
Now most of the match are filled with real player, so Tunisia situation is no longer relevant.
I am not saying that there will be absolutely no dud gold rank, but without independent campaign like Tunisia to breed and contain dud gold rank player, their number will be really low.
As I wrote. Make join any team more attractive and MM could than be used to distribute players better. Now with the merge is not that hassle as when you would grind 12 independent lines or even more.
It could give more silver and xp that could be used in any nation.
