What If Matchmaking Wasn't Based on MMR?
I see a lot of posts that showcase some unbalanced matchmaking. For instance recently there was a match posted where the team MMRs were close but clearly the teams were still unbalanced. Basically there were 2 gold players with mixed silver players vs 3 silver players and a bronze and unranked player. Also the second team had very low win rates except for 2 of the silver players.
Obviously it is hard for me to tell what is happening under the hood here, I don't really know the nuances of the matchmaking system but I am guessing the golds were slightly under performing and the silvers on the other team were over performing and this was the result. But even though the MMR rating was close, this is not a balanced match. The difference in skill and/or knowledge between a bronze player and a gold player is generally massive. Putting 2 inexperienced players on a team to balance out what should be a mid silver match-up does not make sense. That is not fair or balanced.
So my question is what if matchmaking was not based on MMR? Instead you would get placed in a division based on your MMR after the 10 placement matches. Then once you are in a division you would play with others who are in or around that division regardless of current MMR rating. Having an MMR rating basically eliminates the point of having divisions, because you end up not playing with people in your division. If MMR is used, the division means nothing. It doesn't make sense that losing to gold players means that someone should stay in silver or bronze... the system should and could be more meaningful and rewarding than that.
Of course there would be a lot of things to consider here, how placement players get match for one. But I would like to see the ranked system mean more, where you are actually playing others that are your skill level and/or if you are moving up it actually means you are better than that division you were placed in.
Thoughts?
*this discussion is for ranked matchmaking not normals.