Unify TMM rankings & leagues

[Sainse]

There are 2v2, 3v3 and 4v4 team match making. They all are pretty similar - automatically created team games. Currently they all have separate rankings.

In TMM more than 90% games are played in 3v3, rougly 8% in 4v4 and less than 2% in 2v2. Thus 2v2 and 4v4 rankings does not represent any value. There are numerous examples of people actively searching all tmm options, getting only 3v3 team games and being unable to calibrate their 2v2/4v4 rankings.

Since it's very rare to find and 2v2 & 4v4 game, those rankings do not represent any value. They are not realistically achievable and are not correct. The mere calibrating to get gold or diamond badge can take up more time searching in queue than in game.

Rankings would be more accurate and less streched out if all TMM games (except 1v1 ladder) had unified ranking. When players have the same ranking in 2v2, 3v3 and 4v4, whichever they find first.

[Dorset]

This would be nice because as it stands I always have to play another 10 games on each mode just to re-establish my ranking every 3 months and I have grown so tired of that I refuse to play TMM anymore. Really don't understand why ranking is lost every 3 months but I don't need to worry about it because I've abandoned TMM

If the rankings were unified I may pick it up again but if the ranking was lost in 3 months and I had to do another 10 games just to get reclassified then yeah probably still would never play TMM again.

[maudlin27]

2v2 plays much more like 1v1 than 3v3 (the few games of it I've played), if the rankings were to be unified I'd rather 1v1+2v2 were combined, and 3v3+4v4 combined.

[Dorset]

@maudlin27 said in Unify TMM rankings & leagues:

2v2 plays much more like 1v1 than 3v3 (the few games of it I've played), if the rankings were to be unified I'd rather 1v1+2v2 were combined, and 3v3+4v4 combined.

This makes sense!

[Nuggets]

I agree with it being unified, but do not agree to merge 2v2 and 1v1. Its a HUGE difference if you have a teammate you can maybe even rely on instead of doing everything else. I wonder why i dont search 1v1

[IndexLibrorum]

@Sainse said in Unify TMM rankings & leagues:

In TMM more than 90% games are played in 3v3, rougly 8% in 4v4 and less than 2% in 2v2.

Where do those numbers come from?

[Sainse]

@IndexLibrorum I made it up Roughly from my experience

[waffelzNoob]

@Sainse said in Unify TMM rankings & leagues:

Since it's very rare to find and 2v2 & 4v4 game, those rankings do not represent any value. They are not realistically achievable and are not correct. The mere calibrating to get gold or diamond badge can take up more time searching in queue than in game.

1v1 is easily the rarest for me but that doesn't mean it has no value. It shows my level of 1v1 the same way 2v2 shows my level of 2v2

[Sainse]

@waffelzNoob I'm pretty sure 1v1 is more popular than 2v2. 1v1 is also super distinct, I absolutely agree it has a lot of value

[Paradox_of_War]

@maudlin27 with all do respect, merging 1v1 and 2v2 is a terrible idea. Many players only queue 1v1 and those two game modes are extremely different.

[maudlin27]

@Paradox_of_War In the games ive played
Ie at the c.1k rating level 1v1 is basically just t1 tank spam managing multiple fronts at once; 3v3 is much more focused on ecoing earlier and managing your ‘lane’, and often can have a dedicated air slot. 2v2 usually has multiple ‘lanes’ to manage and requires t1 spam to fight them, and won’t lend itself to a dedicated air slot. overall 2v2 feels closer to 1v1 in terms of the playstyle required than it does to 3v3

So someone who plays well at 2v2 might play badly at 3v3 and vice versa, to such an extent that I think it would be unhelpful to merge 2v2 rating with 3v3.

I don’t have the same objections for 3v3 and 4v4 being merged as they play much more similarly to each other than 2v2 does to 3v3