MMR of the 'average' ranked player

+
MMR of the 'average' ranked player

I'm curious what MMR range the majority of players with 50+ ranked games fall into. In most games, there is a bracket that about 40% of the playerbase is in; not sure if GWENT is similiar, but maybe?

I'm assuming the 2500 - 3250 MMR is where the average ranked player is at.

Does anyone have any thoughts or does CDPR have any statistics?
 
The rank you are is kind of irrelevant at the moment. The first 1000 mmr you gain will prevent your losses from attributing to negative values of mmr and you can increase mmr while losing most of your games. So what is really relevant is how many games have you played from post patch changes, I personally played about 20 since and have climbed about 1000 mmr for doing so. I would any what is relative is what mmr did one get to before their win ratio declined to below 50%. Then there is also factored in some people haven't spent any scraps but a lot of people have spent all their scraps and are net decking with optimal decks (not that I have an issue with that at all), based off of some statistics that I saw pre patch I was idling around 1500 mmr and I think this was almost the average for most, since I've climbed to about 2500 and not started experiencing equivalent I believe the average mmr would be around 3000 somewhere though I don't know if I play more or less than the average person, how many people have hit their new decline and I'm still running geralt and don't have 6 silvers in most factions so new cards give me mmr boosts all the time. I would like to think they will change the elo system again soon given so much negative feedback.
 
Last edited:
HTMekkatorque;n9168810 said:
The rank you are is kind of irrelevant at the moment. The first 1000 mmr you gain will prevent your losses from attributing to negative values of mmr and you can increase mmr while losing most of your games. So what is really relevant is how many games have you played from post patch changes, I personally played about 20 since and have climbed about 1000 mmr for doing so. I would any what is relative is what mmr did one get to before their win ratio declined to below 50%. Then there is also factored in some people haven't spent any scraps but a lot of people have spent all their scraps and are net decking with optimal decks (not that I have an issue with that at all), based off of some statistics that I saw pre patch I was idling around 1500 mmr and I think this was almost the average for most, since I've climbed to about 2500 and not started experiencing equivalent I believe the average mmr would be around 3000 somewhere though I don't know if I play more or less than the average person, how many people have hit their new decline and I'm still running geralt and don't have 6 silvers in most factions so new cards give me mmr boosts all the time. I would like to think they will change the elo system again soon given so much negative feedback.

What negative feed back has there been? I've seen no problems in ranked play.
 
If you browse the forums you'll find that most people disagree with the large gaps in skill level between themselves and their opponent in normal unranked so many of these players will play ranked because it gives you a fairer matching but I've seen people reporting that they've hit around 3000 mmr with <20% win ratio. I personally lose a lot less elo from a loss than I gain for a win. It's very taxing on people who aren't great at the game or are new who climb to mmr ranges they shouldn't be in.

so what of the casual player who never reaches 4k mmr then, doesn't make a lot of difference in their situation if the game decides to require more than 50% win ratio for an mmr they are far from reaching.
 
Last edited:
There is no matchmaking in casual. Even with a test deck,I play ranked. At least then I'm playing someone my own "level" Player level doesn't actually mean anything, so ranked is about as close as you're going to get to an even match. I'm currently sitting around 2500-3k. I doubt I'll progress much further as I'm starting to run into more netdecks. Personally I think copying someone elses deck is pathetic. Since I won't copy some one elses success, and I lack the ability to invent a new kick ass deck on my own, I imagine I'll always be an "average" player. I'm ok with that.
 
HTMekkatorque;n9170330 said:
If you browse the forums you'll find that most people disagree with the large gaps in skill level between themselves and their opponent in normal unranked so many of these players will play ranked because it gives you a fairer matching but I've seen people reporting that they've hit around 3000 mmr with <20% win ratio. I personally lose a lot less elo from a loss than I gain for a win. It's very taxing on people who aren't great at the game or are new who climb to mmr ranges they shouldn't be in.

so what of the casual player who never reaches 4k mmr then, doesn't make a lot of difference in their situation if the game decides to require more than 50% win ratio for an mmr they are far from reaching.

Most of that feedback sounds more like special snowflake syndrome.

It seems to me the MMR changes did nothing but move the highest rank players can reach for their skill level up higher. Dropping less for a loss compared to what you gain for a win makes it easier to rank up, sure. At a certain point it stops working like this, and wins/losses cause a similar MMR change, however (around 3.9k, if memory serves). You won't get any higher by dropping more games than you win. So, quality players end up going beyond this point. Players dropping too many games get stuck just before it or improve. The only difference from the change is the MMR value this point is at is higher now.

Most of this negative feedback is likely a result of players seeing people drop a lot of games but still hit an arbitrary rank once considered "high". It's not high anymore. If the people complaining can't exceed this point after the change it isn't a ranking system issue.

I'd also point out W/L rate is meaningless without context. You could, for instance, intentionally tank a ton of games at lower MMR, then win most of every other game and hit R20-21 with a low win rate. Maybe you test decks at decent MMR in ranked. Maybe you hit a plateau, went negative and improved to push past it. Taking this line of thought to it's logical conclusion... Elitism in a virtual card game, one early into OB I might add, is pretty stupid.
 
This mmr is flawed and I can't wait for it to return to normal state.

MMR serves as indicator for skill. So when you play it you expect to play against people that near your skill. Right now it doesn't matter if you are 1k or 4k only difference is number of games played.When you have proper mmr and when you reach wall and can't climb anymore that means you found your true rating and that is when you improve most. I feel like before change there was nice skill disparity and now everything is just thrown into garbage bin.

So average mmr now is 3.5+ easy
 
Restlessdingo32;n9173520 said:
It seems to me the MMR changes did nothing but move the highest rank players can reach for their skill level up higher. [...] The only difference from the change is the MMR value this point is at is higher now.

That's true, but it's not the only difference. With the old MMR the players were more evenly spread across the ranks. Now everyone can finish the gold bracket, but still only a handful can finish the diamond bracket. This giant difference between only one bracket is kinda defeating the purpose of having so many ranks.
 
I'm actually an outlier perspective so I understand why you all think I'm an elitist, but I really think that the main player base that got hurt by this change is the casual that doesn't play enough to hit 4k mmr because there are so many free kegs in it. I think also why have a rank unless you make it meaningful for the elitist while it serves mainly as a secondary level system that really just holds value of games played. We don't need two measures for this.

So to understand me really you have to realise I used to play high level gaming so I used to be slightly into the elitist player base but now I'm just a casual and I was making a game but then I didn't like the direction it was going and it was unpaid so I thought well why do this. But I still have an interest in game development. I think my passions slowly dying and when I have my masters I'll probably be this obsessed about something else. But right now it's just game development.
 
The point of every online game is to make money. You make the most money not by catering to the elite, but by catering to those who want to be elite. You're "top" players, either those who came up with the meta, or the first few to copy them already have all the cards. Those who want to copy the meta need those cards so they drop a ton on kegs to get them. Those players chasing the meta will always spend way more than the elite players who invent the meta.
 
4RM3D;n9173580 said:
That's true, but it's not the only difference. With the old MMR the players were more evenly spread across the ranks. Now everyone can finish the gold bracket, but still only a handful can finish the diamond bracket. This giant difference between only one bracket is kinda defeating the purpose of having so many ranks.

I'm not saying I like the changes, for the reasons you mentioned. Getting 50 MMR for a win and losing 20 for a loss seems off. If we assume 2k players are of similar ability to other 2k players, 4k players are of similar ability to other 4k players, and increasing in MMR is an indicator of improvement, gaining rank while not performing well/not improving is flawed. It ends up giving everyone a consolation rank just for playing the game. So you end up with too wide a skill disparity across certain ranks, which kind of defeats the purpose of much of the ranked spectrum.

The thing is... It was almost the same thing before. Play enough and you can hit R15. The only difference is R15 became R18. The "good" players should have zero issue hitting R19-21+. They just put part of the carrot within grasp of more players.
 
Yeah but gwents initial draw was that it was different. They've been eating up all the wrong negative feedback and destroying things that made gwent gwent. Yeah they'll become more popular by doing so and might even be able to take over as the new blizzard and just bridge across all the genres. But then for people like me I'll probably just end up spending more of my free time playing guitar or building a rock climbing wall in the back yard which is definitely happening cause I got all this free wood from grampy, and I was going to 3d print rock climbing inserts.

that and there's politics and the environment to worry about but then so... what is the future of gaming? Dumbing down society like most mainstream television programs?
 
Every video game is different.......until they're not. By then they have a fan base, meaning people have dumped so much money into a beta game it would just be embarrassing to back out. Randomnew players will jump in, realize there is no possible way to compete with the veterans, and quit, just like every other game of this type.
 
But when I started playing weather was powerful but so highly counter able, the best decks that I saw were hybrid decks with 2-3 combos in them so you could pull out weather on turn three after they had dumped their weather clear or so these were decisions you had to make. I liked that set factions had things that were unique about them, now people complain that grave manipulation shouldn't be unique to skellige, or that st should be able to pull more than spells, if you listen to that kind of advise every faction will eventually be able to do everything and will just mesh all together and the only reason to pick a faction will be art work? The masses would love that. Then hey look at powerful creatures that give massive swings like shield maiden but then had counter ability also and you have elitist mtg players that will never tell you that big Green creatures or eldrazi are super op because every faction had its niche that you accel at. Now you have people trying to talk the deck limit to 40 cards just because that's what they feel comfortable with in other games. Small deck sizes made gwent gwent. You can see how gwent will shape already.
 
HTMekkatorque;n9173760 said:
Yeah but gwents initial draw was that it was different. They've been eating up all the wrong negative feedback and destroying things that made gwent gwent. Yeah they'll become more popular by doing so and might even be able to take over as the new blizzard and just bridge across all the genres. But then for people like me I'll probably just end up spending more of my free time playing guitar or building a rock climbing wall in the back yard which is definitely happening cause I got all this free wood from grampy, and I was going to 3d print rock climbing inserts.

that and there's politics and the environment to worry about but then so... what is the future of gaming? Dumbing down society like most mainstream television programs?

Different huh... That ship sailed the minute we left CB and started OB.
 
It's super easy to climb rank now, after the last change. The average player should get to 3.7k to 4k because you will get more MMR for wins than losses up to that point. So you can have below 50% win rate and still climb the ladder.

I never really liked the competitive nature of Ranked, but been playing it for the rewards, and it's easy to climb fairly high. I'm at about 3k MMR now, and I see the same decks all the time: consume, control, and reveal. It's kinda boring, and I have stopped GG people playing meta decks (of course I'm not, I like to play underdog decks, they surprise people). I'm surprised that people are still playing the popular decks when it's so easy to ladder. Experiment a little. Casual is better for match diversity, but less rewards.
 
HTMekkatorque;n9173640 said:
I'm actually an outlier perspective so I understand why you all think I'm an elitist, but I really think that the main player base that got hurt by this change is the casual that doesn't play enough to hit 4k mmr because there are so many free kegs in it. I think also why have a rank unless you make it meaningful for the elitist while it serves mainly as a secondary level system that really just holds value of games played. We don't need two measures for this.

So to understand me really you have to realise I used to play high level gaming so I used to be slightly into the elitist player base but now I'm just a casual and I was making a game but then I didn't like the direction it was going and it was unpaid so I thought well why do this. But I still have an interest in game development. I think my passions slowly dying and when I have my masters I'll probably be this obsessed about something else. But right now it's just game development.

Just to respond to your post since I forgot to the first time around, I do not think you're elitist. You seem like a reasonable person, so apologies if you felt that was a personal attack. It wasn't meant to be. Unfortunately, some people in this game are elitist. If you're not at rank X you're bad. If you don't run this deck you're bad. If you look up other decks you're bad. It gets stale, and has no place here. So... that comment was designed to say these type of statements are a bit ridiculous.
 
The exp gained is fixed for every rank?

Now at 16 when I lose is -22, by rank 15 it was -7. Even doing forfeit before I got -7 only , but now is a different story.
 
Kinglionsfox;n9173980 said:
It's super easy to climb rank now, after the last change. The average player should get to 3.7k to 4k because you will get more MMR for wins than losses up to that point. So you can have below 50% win rate and still climb the ladder.

I never really liked the competitive nature of Ranked, but been playing it for the rewards, and it's easy to climb fairly high. I'm at about 3k MMR now, and I see the same decks all the time: consume, control, and reveal. It's kinda boring, and I have stopped GG people playing meta decks (of course I'm not, I like to play underdog decks, they surprise people). I'm surprised that people are still playing the popular decks when it's so easy to ladder. Experiment a little. Casual is better for match diversity, but less rewards.

I don't get why this isn't a huge topic, rank 18 being the average mmr ( and anyone can get it tbh ) isn't healthy at all.
 
Top Bottom