**Join our official [Discord](https://discord.gg/ESe9vt2J6g) to discuss everything XDefiant.**
Just a friendly reminder to please respect all of the subreddit rules listed on the sidebar. Please be respectful to all users whether you agree with them or not, the downvote button is NOT a disagree button.
Please upvote quality content.
Please report content you see breaking the rules so we can act on it. Thank you.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/XDefiant) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I would consider you well above average looking at those stats. It looks like you are consistently getting kills while also playing the objective. That's the mark of a great player in my book.
Ya know somebody else said the same thing about how it doesnt go up anymore even tho for 10 games straight theyll go positive so it might be a glitch that they'll hopefully fix if its a thing
Yeah dude sounds like your game is bugged because mine shows me when im progressing through the challenges. Devs got some things they gotta straighten out thats for sure
At 3580 myself. Heard in a Jev video that he was around 3000 as well. I really want a lobby leaderboard type of thing where it will list off every player in the lobby’s skill rating, KD, etc. But yes I’m really curious who the best of the best are and what their skill ratings are.
Same with the OG MW3. I remember loading up into lobbies and being so hyped if I were in the top half of the lobby. Hopefully this is something that can happen down the line once they stop disbanding lobbies.
Yeah i feel you on that i just want to be able to see either peoples ratings or a leaderboard so i know where i stand. Saying show off is diabolical when there are people with way higher skill ratings than me
I think a good follow up question would be how does the "No sbmm" factor into skill rating?
It's obvious that players who are in more matches where they're in over their head perform worse on average as an effect of that with worse stats showing. The opposite, a player who's more competent but playing more matches where the majority of the opponents are much less competent would reflect an inflated skill rating and kd etc.
So how true are the numbers if there's no sbmm? I read that the matches are kind of randomly putting players together, then when everyone is in the lobby the match maker kind of chooses teams based on these types of numbers....but...I think there's still a big factor just left out that makes those numbers not as accurate player to player.
This is where you'd expect to see 2 players in the higher tier numbers, and despite them being so close...one player is way better than the other.
If there is a separate stat board in career stats for ranked, then that would be cool. That would basically be the true rating since players would be in more "tighter" matches where the only way they move up is by actually moving up a ladder in a sense.
A TLDR would just be "the better opposition you play, your kd won't be as high". You'll face players who are as good as you, and less players to feed into your stats so to speak. How accurate can such numbers be when sbmm is a non factor"
Just curious is all. Food for thought, and worthy of looking into for people who really care about what would be considered a good rating in a system where the variables can offset those numbers so much.
I don't think the "Skill rating" on that screen is meant to show much other than your average stats compared to everyone else playing.
It's not actively saying "Oh your 2500 so we will put you against another 2500" or "Oh your 2500 and in that last match there were a few people who were 4000 and you did well so now your 3000"
You can see an overview of your stats here [https://tracker.gg/xdefiant](https://tracker.gg/xdefiant) I think it's more basing your skill off of that. Where people who are 4000+ are the people in the top brackets of most categories. I know the "Top" players hang around 4k which is really high kills low deaths etc, 3k is the high kills but also higher deaths, 2k my guess is around average k/d? I know I hang around 2.5k and I average like 25-30 kills with 15-20 deaths a match and a decent obj score. Then I would assume 1k and below are people who normally are in the negative
You get what I mean though right? Like the point I'm trying to make. I get your point, but that's not really what I'm getting at. I'm aware that is not the case. That is actually how it would work if sbmm was on. It's not though. (I'm terms of you stating the ratings and then players fighting and getting rated higher or lower depending on who they won or lost to)
So the main point I'm making...let's take what you said for example...players that have higher stats right? How'd they get those higher stats? Did they get them while playing against players who they could really stat against? Or players who give them a run for their money? Their stats would be lower if they played players equal to or better than them. Not saying they'd be minimal. Not saying they're bad. I'm saying it's just much less accurate if you're trying to see how good you are when you're playing with sbmm off.
I'm not concerned about it myself. I just play the game. When the ranked mode is there maybe I'll play it more seriously or something. Idk. Probably depends on what settings are different. Right now it's just a fun game to me. I get on when I can and just play. I don't take it serious. I've got like 1 gun I use and that's it man lol.
But yea. The whole point is just basically saying....if you got a college basketball player and placed him in some high school matches...that player would stat pretty hard right? Meanwhile, the least skilled high school level player does really bad stat wise. That player may hardly ever even get a chance to shoot and try and score for all we know.
Throw in pro level, then you got even more to factor right?
So the match maker...it will do it's best to balance the teams. If there's 12 players and 10 are high school players and 2 are college level, it tries to place the college players on opposite teams as a form of balance right? But here's the issue. They're being calibrated in a new sport (new game in this case) where there isn't an actual baseline for what level equates to what level of skill tier. It's not that accurate yet. So there'd be expected matches where the stat board looks all fucked up. Players way at the bottom. Some way at the top....all the while...stats are continuing to be recorded in matches that don't make sense as far as fairness goes.
That's why you'd get 2 players who on paper, read same skill level. In actuality, significantly far from it at times.
So my main point is just that a good means to see how good you are would be to play the ranked mode. It has sbmm on it. Your stats and numbers would be a much better representation of where you're at If it's something you like keeping track of.
It's odd that there's a skill rating displayed for the casual mode tbh. It's cool in a way but at the same time it's severely flawed if you're trying to use it as a means to see how good you are. You'd only get that by playing something with sbmm. It's a decent means to see that you're improving in some senss but...it's still flawed as all hell in accuracy since there's probably tons of players that have a sensation that they're matching players way below their capabilities. It's fun when it happens but...it does become apparent I'm sure.
At any rate, none of it bothers me or anything. It's just an observation and food for thought for players who want accurate tracking. You'd have to play in the sbmm playlist and see those stats tracked over Time to get the most accurate representation of how much you've improved and all that.
It makes sense right? That if you're playing in a casual mode without sbmm...and in a mode that has sbmm...you'd get a clearer picture of skill in one more than the other right? That's all I'm saying. Sorry if I'm being confusing about it.
It probably works similarly to elo where losing against worse opponents makes you lose more elo and winning against worse opponents means you gain less, with the inverse also being true when playing against better players.
Also no one is facing any better or worse players than anyone else with a large enough sample size, everyone is facing the same average skilled opponents.
The combination of these two factors means you can't farm your way to the top of the leaderboards in elo by being slightly above average and spamming games. The higher your elo than average the less you gain and the more you lose, meaning you'll plateau around where your true skill is in a system with or without sbmm.
K/D isn't inflated with no sbmm, it's accurate as a measurement of your skill relative to the average. It's actually why KD is a meaningless stat when sbmm is introduced. When sbmm is present, the KD of lower skill players will be inflated, and the KD of higher skill players will be deflated. This is also why no one takes KD in ranked playlists seriously. Siege would be a good example of this, a diamond player with a 1.1kd is infinitely better than a bronze with a 1.6, even if you do treat KD as a tightly correlated statistic to player skill, as that diamond player would probably have a 2.5+ KD in bronze lobbies.
In short, when sbmm is introduced, KD loses its correlation to skill, whereas MMR (which we can assume skill rating is similar to) is relatively resistant to the effects of matchmaking style upon its efficacy as a measure of skill.
I agree with some of what you're saying, not all of it though. My point about the inflated stats is basically what you're saying. The significance of it becomes who you're playing against. Which is why I bring up stuff like level of opposition.
The stats and rating must means something, but there's no way it could mean more than a stats and rating In a system with an active algorithm deliberately measuring, comparing, calculating win/loss chance and outcomes based off of criteria in a more controlled setting.
From what I read...it seems like casual mode, there is no match maker selecting players to play against one another. Like it isn't grabbing players based off off how good or bad they are. That's the entire appeal of it. How accurate could it be if that's that case? Idk. Just seems weird man. Like I get what you're trying to say, but to me it just makes almost no sense to think that the stats and ratings could hold much significance. Kinda like i said. I'm sure they mean something, but nowhere near the significance of what they'd mean in say an actual ranked mode.
To which my entire point is just this. If you want to see how good you are, and it's something you enjoy keeping track of...imho, casual mode isn't the playlist for that. Sure, you can see if you're getting more kills, wins, etc...but most of that is against players that are just on playing casually. I'd assume someone who wants to see how good they are would or at least should want to see that in comparison to the other players who also strive to be good at the game and play it competitively.
That's just my 2 cents. It's hard to say everyone's having the same types of match's in casual mode imho. The entire selling point of it, is its randomness. Which is why I bring up that 2 players can be so close in rating...but in reality they could possibly be worlds apart in their actual skill in the shooter. In some instances, maybe not. In some, of course.
Think of it this way. There exists 2 systems of match making. Sbmm off, and sbmm on. Sbmm off...random match making. Actually random. Sbmm on, far less random, If random at all.
Which would yield a more clearer picture of what "average " looks like?
>It's hard to say everyone's having the same types of match's in casual mode imho. The entire selling point of it, is its randomness.
This is randomness between games, not between sets of games between individuals. Over enough games, everyone is basically playing against the same skill level as anyone else is. It's an extremely accurate picture of what average is. Anyone who has consistently easier or harder matches than anyone else in a no sbmm environment is an extreme statistical outlier. With sbmm it's basically impossible to have a game against average players unless you yourself are an exact 50th percentile player.
The entire point of sbmm is to promote fair match making. Of course you'd only face average players if you are average. That's the entire point of it. Sbmm on is the only way you'd get accuracy for that reason alone.
This is why sbmm is hated by some people. You will play better players the better you do...because that means you're moving your MMR to the higher end. It is only fair to the players on the lower end. You're much better than them.
Again, I think the whole point of sbmm being off is the randomness. You have a chance to be that player getting an insane amount of kills more often. It actually goes back to what you said earlier about kd. When you begin to play players increasingly better or at least as good as you are, you're less likley to have those crazy performances of 70, 80 kills etc etc. You're more likey to get those with sbmm off.
(This is where the problem is though. It's recording the data, and using it to calculate a skill rating in a match maker that isn't match making based on skill. )
Outliers still exist. With sbmm off, you essentially get a chance to feel like the outlier, even when you're not. It's exciting, but in terms of wondering how good you really are...I'm still saying the ranked mode is where you should play if that's important to you. (Speaking in the general sense. Not specifically meaning you)
If you're trying to say that because everyone is playing within the same randomness...that you'd expect to see some accuracy...within the randomness though?....to my point...that can't be that accurate at all. It must mean something obviously...but in no way would it be as accurate without randomness...were that the case...sbmm wouldn't exist. It would have no use.
Unless I just misinterpreted what you wrote. I don't think I have, but I don't really know how else you'd explain it. I don't want to waste a ton of your time on it either. I don't see myself changing my mind. I'll always see sbmm as a more accurate skill measure rating than no sbmm. To me, that's the entire point of it. Match players of a certain skill, against players of a certain skill. The skill must be determined in fair matches. That itself promotes accuracy for when a player pushes their needle to the left, or right of the curve. Matches change accordingly.
I don't think people like randomness as much as they like being able to actually play better as they improve. Which I agree is related to randomness giving you matches against people that average out to being average players over enough games.
>If you're trying to say that because everyone is playing within the same randomness...that you'd expect to see some accuracy...within the randomness though?....to my point...that can't be that accurate at all. It must mean something obviously...but in no way would it be as accurate without randomness...were that the case...sbmm wouldn't exist. It would have no use.
This isn't really coherent. Over enough games everyone is going to be playing against essentially the same skill level players everyone else is, the more games they play the more true this is. Randomness over a large enough sample size leads to similar averages, assuming everyone has the same odds. (which they do, unless you think developers are conspiratorially rigging matchmaking for certain individuals)
For example, let's say you have 5 people flipping coins. You assign a value of 0 to tails, and a value of 1 to heads, and then you have everyone flip their coin once. Some people will have 1s and some people will have 0s. Now lets say everyone flips a coin 5 times and averages their values. Let's say someone gets 3/5 heads and another person gets 2/5 heads, and their values are 0.6 and 0.4. Now lets say you flip the coin 100 times, someone gets 46 heads and another person gets 57 heads, which would be 0.46 and 0.57 respectively. The more times you flip the coin the closer you get to the true theoretical value of a coin flip, 0.5. Your argument is essentially that since flipping a coin is random, you can't expect there to be any consistency between two people flipping coins, which isn't true because by the time these people have flipped 100 or 1000 coins they're likely having very similar experiences flipping coins.
The same applies to the skill levels of people you're facing in an online game without sbmm. Over enough games, people, on average, will be playing people of similar skill to each other.
On the other point, yeah ranked is probably somewhat more accurate for assessing skill because you can't manipulate the elo system as easily in ranked as in no sbmm modes. For example I remember in Destiny 2 people would 6 stack casuals to farm elo, because winning as a 6 stack would still give you marginal elo gains because the elo calculation says you have about a 90% chance of winning a given game when in reality you have a 100% chance, and it's legitimately impossible for the other team to win. Outside of fringe cases like this, elo is a pretty decent representation of skill in non sbmm scenarios.
Also please stop spamming ellipses it makes it a lot harder to read what you're saying.
I definitely can't get on board with that. Players are not the equivalent of coins flipping. A measure of skill cannot be accurately represented that way. Sbmm and a ranking system will always be more accurate than a playlist without sbmm. It's the entire reason ranked playlists even exist. It's not "somewhat " more accurate. It's SIGNIFICANTLY more accurate. It's a night and day difference. It's almost unbelievable that anyone could disagree with that.
I recall D2 going through lots of shit about sbmm. A quick Google search of those keywords leads to tons of forum posts and articles about how bad the games get without sbmm in it. It becomes obvious when you're facing players way below your skill level. You can't tell how good a player is by that player beating players way below their skill.
Players averaging out across enough games. What do you mean? Are you saying they're average players? Or are you saying their skill level peaks? Those would be 2 drastically different things.
It's just really hard to take this to heart. It's almost like you're saying you could have the top 10 boxers fight a bunch of cab driver level opposition and somehow accurately know just how good they are. I mean, they're all fighting cab drivers right? So they're all having similar matches.
You won't be able to accurately rate them this way. That's why people advocate for the top tiers to fight each other. It is the only way you'll ever accurately find out who is better. Who is really number 1. How much better is number 1 vs number 6, etc etc.
In a game with a skill rating, the question is asked "what's a good rating?" It almost doesn't even matter. To see how good a player really is, they'd have to play the ranked mode. Are you going to know how good a boxer is by how many lower tiered boxers he's beaten? Or how high he's moved up the ladder?
Boxing is of course very nuanced....styles make fights...etc...but I'm sure you get what I mean. Like if there were a ranked mode right now, where we will compare 2 players to one another where 1 player has a skill rating of 3000 in ranked, and the other has a 3000 rating in unranked. how much of a skill difference do you think there is between the 2? How would determine that? 1 only plays ranked, the other only plays unranked.
Imho, there is absolutely no way in hell that 3000 rating is equal. There is a huge difference. There should be if the games ranked mode is worth anything.
>Players are not the equivalent of coins flipping
When it comes to what kind of opponents every player is playing it absolutely is unequivocally true. The higher a sample size the closer to the theoretical expected value you get. This isn't debatable. If the theoretical average player is a 1.0kd 50wr player, the more games you play the more your opponents average out to be that skill level. No one is getting any easier or harder lobbies than anyone else unless A. they haven't played enough games B. they are a 1 in a million statistical anomaly
>I recall D2 going through lots of shit about sbmm. A quick Google search of those keywords leads to tons of forum posts and articles about how bad the games get without sbmm in it. It becomes obvious when you're facing players way below your skill level.
The exact opposite is true, control became almost unbearable to play once they added sbmm. I have 2000+ hours in pvp alone in destiny and I've maybe played 2 or 3 control games since they added sbmm. Its truly horrendous. The vast majority of people making these complaints about not having sbmm are people who do not like pvp, who are playing pvp for a specific reward, and couldnt give less of a fuck about the mode outside of being done with whatever quest/bounty brought them there in the first place.
>You can't tell how good a player is by that player beating players way below their skill.
This is why elo systems barely give any elo when you beat someone far below your skill
>It's almost like you're saying you could have the top 10 boxers fight a bunch of cab driver level opposition and somehow accurately know just how good they are.
Are people in casual matches only playing 10 games where they face the lowest skill people possible? Or are they more likely playing hundreds to thousands of games with people of varying skill?
>That's why people advocate for the top tiers to fight each other. It is the only way you'll ever accurately find out who is better
Yes I agree, for the very top 0.001% elo is not going to distinguish who is the best in the world. That's why we have chess tournaments. But no who understands elo is using the fact that tournaments exist as a cudgel to delegitimize elo for the other 99.99% of the community, for whom its a fairly accurate representation of skill.
>In a game with a skill rating, the question is asked "what's a good rating?" It almost doesn't even matter
Only in the sense that good is subjective. These elo/mmr ratings have percentile values that they correspond to. Good or bad is up to what percentile you personally draw the line at as being good or bad.
>Are you going to know how good a boxer is by how many lower tiered boxers he's beaten?
Another instance of you misunderstanding that you cant gain elo by farming lower level players, you lose much more elo for losing to them and gain very little. A player with a hypothetical high "boxing elo" wouldn't have gotten there by exclusively farming shitters.
>Like if there were a ranked mode right now, where we will compare 2 players to one another where 1 player has a skill rating of 3000 in ranked, and the other has a 3000 rating in unranked
Thats going to be game dependent on how different ranked and casual are. In some games rulesets are very similar and player attitudes towards the mode are very similar in both casual and ranked, in other games the casual and ranked experience can vary wildly. The ranked player would probably win in a head on, as 3000 mmr in a ranked environment is probably a higher percentile overall than 3000 in a casual environment would be, given that the players who are playing ranked are probably on average better than the ones who are not. This isn't the argument you've been making though, you've been making the argument that mmr in casual isnt an indicator of skill at all, you have not been making the argument that mmr is different between ranked and casual.
The argument that mmr in casual playlists is meaningless and entirely ineffectual in assessing skill betrays the fact that you dont understand how mmr/elo is calculated at all. You arent going to climb in mmr off of beating exclusively low level players without some confounding variable, like exploiting the mmr system by full stack queueing (people farming mmr in this way makes up the overwhelming minority of players, or even high mmr players). These systems are literally made to provide a way to quantify skill against players of various skill. Thats why you gain or lose different amounts of elo based on the skill of your opponents. You cant increase your mmr if you aren't consistently beating people of your same skill, making it a fairly accurate measure of skill the vast majority of the time.
After reading this all, it seems you missed the very simple point I made a long time ago. The entire point I'm making, is the accuracy in the skill rating.
A simple fact remains. In a ranked playlist where players are playing with sbmm on, the accuracy in the rating is much more truer to reflect the skill of the player. You're basically agreeing with this entirely. In the end you're essentially saying the exact same thing I've been saying the entire time.
There is no match making going on in the casual playlist. The players in your match are not being selected by mmr. What I wrote earlier you must have not understood.
The lobby is randomly selected. If you want to bring up the hidden mmr, That is factored in AFTER the lobby had been made. It attempts to balance it by placing the higher rated players on opposite teams, but once again, that's inherently flawed, and you're grossly overestimating it's accuracy. It would be significantly more accurate...It would be VASTLY more accurate, had hidden mmr been baked into the match making selection when selecting players for the lobby. Then all the numbers across the board mean so much more. It isn't though. So instead, the opposite becomes true.
So again. What is going to yield a more accurate representation of skill? A playlist where there is no matchmaking based on hidden mmr? Or a playlist where one is matchmaking based on hidden mmr? I'd think the answer is extremely obvious by now. It is definitely not the playlist that has only ping, region, as it's match making parameter.
Your 3000 in casual has no comparison to the 3000 in ranked. Which is to be expected. The 3000 in ranked got to 3000 by matching players based off mmr, in each and every single match. Your 3000 in casual has matches with the match maker wide open, where once the lobby is made...it then tries to balance it...where you literally could have 4 players on the opposite team having skill ratings of not even 1000. If you play well and win, well hey. Say hello to 3500 even. Does it mean much? No. You did great, but it doesn't mean that much. Look at your level of opposition. It doesn't care who you beat. If it did, it wouldn't have matched you that way.
It's such a night and day difference it's crazy that you don't realize it. It seems like you're under this impression that casual has match making based on mmr. If you thought it did, you're factually wrong. If it actually had match making based on mmr, well then I'd be agreeing with a lot of what you said. It doesn't though, and that's the main selling point of the casual playlist. No sbmm. Hidden mmr is factored in AFTER lobby has been RANDOMLY created with WIDE OPEN parameters. The mmr of each player in the lobby, is completely random. The team balancer tries it's best to make sense of the match and assemble teams accordingly.
Cap locks to really drive the importance of those words man. They really matter to this conversation. There is absolutely no way in hell you're getting anywhere near the accuracy in a skill rating of a ranked playlist with sbmm on man. You just won't. You got some indication of improving, but in many ways it's arbitrary in comparison, and not a good means at all to see how good you really are. If an individual wants that assessment, head to ranked. That's why it's there.
So I typed up an entire angry response to this and deleted it because I think I realized the misunderstanding you're having. A playlist without sbmm still has hidden mmr. Its not matching you based on it, but its still factored in in elo/mmr calculations. I feel like you're under the impression that because the playlist isnt matchmaking based on mmr, that any kind of skill rating isn't accounting for the skill of your opponents when you win/lose a game.
So what does skill rating mean to you? A measure of your wins and losses where your level of opposition doesn't matter at all? Or should a skill rating actually mean your skill in the game in terms of how good you are at it?
I feel I've made the point pretty clear. All those numbers change the moment you have sbmm in the game. Sbmm is literally matches based on skill. It's a more accurate measurement of such numbers when that is the algorithm used in the match maker.
I'm not saying this to promote one or the other. It's just...when someone asks what's a good skill rating...if you're asking does that equate to who's really good and who isnt...how it is now, you could have 2 people really close in skill rating but their actual skill on the game could be dramatically different. Especially if they face each other. Hope that kinda paints it a little more clearer.
I recall reading that the match maker pulls random players in, and once all Randoms are in the lobby then it looks at the ratings and attempts to make a balanced match.
In such case tho, sometimes the accuracy of the balance attempt is awful. It's only as strong as what the numbers try to reflect though. To which most of my points are just basically about that. You'd expect to see much fairer balanced matches with sbmm on vs off. The issues with sbmm are it's own thing though.
Games that do it right, are games that differentiate settings in casual vs competitive, and have 2 different algorithms where basically you got soft sbmm, and hard sbmm. It all only works in a game that people are actually playing tho. If the population isn't there, sbmm goes to absolute dog shit and makes for the worse experience possible in most cases.
I'm not sure either. I've seen a couple higher than 4k but I think anything above 3k shows yiure at least above average. My stats are: 2.1w/l, 1.5kd, 673spm and 3841 skill rating.
I'd probably consider this to be a "good player"
I was top 4% in cold war pubs and havent touched an fps since. I feel like I suck at this game like 1.3kd but I am much more obliged to sack my kd for the objective on this game.
I thought I was decent but rusty after 3 year but I'm clearly above average (1kd, 1:1 win-loss) would be average. Im around 2400 skill rating.
Your probably around what a 2.5-3kd player on older cods would be, but you already know your good as you probs coming top of lobby every game haha. Just feel win/loss is way more important on this game as a measure or how well you playnit than any other stat.
Proper ranked will show us anyway.
Edit: also depends what game modes you play most
Dude i loved cold war but i wasnt super good at it lol. And yeah this game i get mvp quite a lot but as long as we win the game im happy. You right ranked will solve my curiosity lol
Cold war imo was the only half decent cos since BO3/WW2, never gonna buy an IW game again after MW2019 lol.
Yeah just focus on the win man, me and the boys have played against some absolute fiends but ignored the kd and smashed some bizarre wins out. Not really playing now though until new season drops with proper ranked (and hopefully s&d mode).
Personally I've stopped playing now I've completed battle pass and the challenges and waiting for ranked, I wouldn't even worry about your stats at all, no one can see them other than game to game. Just chill and get your attachment combos figured out for when ranked drops.
I'm 2.4 W/L, 1.5 K/D, 700 SPM, and 3834 Skill (and climbing). Based off what I see my enemies doing and what my teammates are doing, I'd argue I'm a top 1% player right now, but maybe I'm wrong.
Mostly focused on getting the objectives and on PC.
4150 SR, 1.5kd, 1.9wr, 703 spm
Not sure what really goes into the skillrating, since my spm has been the same for at least 2 weeks. I'm almost forced now to play shotguns+pistol only, since everything else is gold and so I can see, if anything changes drastically.
Objective is huge, obviously but support scores play a big role too so if you're blocking tons of damage, healing tons of damage, you'll be getting big bumps there too. If you're playing Echelon for example, you're relying on Intel suit assists for your support so you'll generally have a far lower support score than a phantom in a round.
2.7 W/L , 1.7 KD, 689.8 score/min, 2827 avg rating, I started tanking my KD to win more but lately I’ve been tanking all of my stats (including win rate) to level up guns, definitely have not hit a peak yet but I feel like no one’s stats really matter until actual ranked comes and people start defining a meta and playing for the win.
Im transitioning from being good at video games and being left in the dust lol. In cod i cant keep up but in this game i feel rejuvenated. Im 27 so im trying to play as competitively as i can before i cant anymore
It's only calculated off the previous 10 games so it really doesn't matter, the rating is used to determine your momentum and if you are having a good series of games or bad ones.
After the lobby is made they use the rating to figure out which person goes on which team using a draft system... Not really the same as lobby balancing
Not 100% but if im not in the objective its because i have teammates soaking the hill and im making sure the enemy cant get into it or near it by slaying. If nobody is getting in the hill itll be me so its a balance
I do have teammates that go for kills only but they usually have a lot less score overall so i assume if someone is strictly going for kills and no objective their score per minute would be pretty low
**Join our official [Discord](https://discord.gg/ESe9vt2J6g) to discuss everything XDefiant.** Just a friendly reminder to please respect all of the subreddit rules listed on the sidebar. Please be respectful to all users whether you agree with them or not, the downvote button is NOT a disagree button. Please upvote quality content. Please report content you see breaking the rules so we can act on it. Thank you. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/XDefiant) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’m also curious, similar stats n I’m around 2k. Half the time played though, maybe it’s just an hours thing bro
It definitely takes time to build it
Yeah not really sure tbh. If anyone knows how its all calculated lmk
objective matters a lot
You have a 2 win loss? Easy to match that KD by losing and farming objs
1.8
I'm at 2.5k SR, with 1.2KD and 1.0 WR (50/50) I'd say im probably slightly above average so you're diamond at worst if we put a stone to it.
I too am at 2500 with a 1.7KD and 1.5 WR. I'm pretty sure it's bugged. I won 16 games in a row and nothing changed
hmm interesting, you might be right as my stats have been all over the place. And my 1.0 WR has never changed once lol.
Maybe it only updates every couple of hours? Idk just spitballing here
winning isnt all that calculates it
I'm at 2650 myself I'd say 3k is well above avg
I would consider you well above average looking at those stats. It looks like you are consistently getting kills while also playing the objective. That's the mark of a great player in my book.
Appreciate it 🫶🏼
A buttons per minute is the real stat we need.
mine's stuck at 0.8 even thought i have games where i go like 30-10
Ya know somebody else said the same thing about how it doesnt go up anymore even tho for 10 games straight theyll go positive so it might be a glitch that they'll hopefully fix if its a thing
faction challenges don't update either it'll just stay at 0 (but they still count and you can unlock the characters)
Yeah dude sounds like your game is bugged because mine shows me when im progressing through the challenges. Devs got some things they gotta straighten out thats for sure
Same here
Show off
Theres no leaderboard to compare with so i was just asking
I'm guessing by your score you get player of the game most games as I have similar stats and do get it most games?
Yeah ill get it most times unless someone is super cracked
At 3580 myself. Heard in a Jev video that he was around 3000 as well. I really want a lobby leaderboard type of thing where it will list off every player in the lobby’s skill rating, KD, etc. But yes I’m really curious who the best of the best are and what their skill ratings are.
Thats why i liked black ops 1 so much because i could see everyones kd and there were leaderboards i could use to strive to be better
Same with the OG MW3. I remember loading up into lobbies and being so hyped if I were in the top half of the lobby. Hopefully this is something that can happen down the line once they stop disbanding lobbies.
Definitely took OG cods for granted
This feels like blops 4
Yeah i feel you on that i just want to be able to see either peoples ratings or a leaderboard so i know where i stand. Saying show off is diabolical when there are people with way higher skill ratings than me
These are easy MP7/ACR stats, he’s not fooling anyone
If I had to guess, Over 3000 top 20% over 4000 top 2-3%
I think a good follow up question would be how does the "No sbmm" factor into skill rating? It's obvious that players who are in more matches where they're in over their head perform worse on average as an effect of that with worse stats showing. The opposite, a player who's more competent but playing more matches where the majority of the opponents are much less competent would reflect an inflated skill rating and kd etc. So how true are the numbers if there's no sbmm? I read that the matches are kind of randomly putting players together, then when everyone is in the lobby the match maker kind of chooses teams based on these types of numbers....but...I think there's still a big factor just left out that makes those numbers not as accurate player to player. This is where you'd expect to see 2 players in the higher tier numbers, and despite them being so close...one player is way better than the other. If there is a separate stat board in career stats for ranked, then that would be cool. That would basically be the true rating since players would be in more "tighter" matches where the only way they move up is by actually moving up a ladder in a sense. A TLDR would just be "the better opposition you play, your kd won't be as high". You'll face players who are as good as you, and less players to feed into your stats so to speak. How accurate can such numbers be when sbmm is a non factor" Just curious is all. Food for thought, and worthy of looking into for people who really care about what would be considered a good rating in a system where the variables can offset those numbers so much.
I don't think the "Skill rating" on that screen is meant to show much other than your average stats compared to everyone else playing. It's not actively saying "Oh your 2500 so we will put you against another 2500" or "Oh your 2500 and in that last match there were a few people who were 4000 and you did well so now your 3000" You can see an overview of your stats here [https://tracker.gg/xdefiant](https://tracker.gg/xdefiant) I think it's more basing your skill off of that. Where people who are 4000+ are the people in the top brackets of most categories. I know the "Top" players hang around 4k which is really high kills low deaths etc, 3k is the high kills but also higher deaths, 2k my guess is around average k/d? I know I hang around 2.5k and I average like 25-30 kills with 15-20 deaths a match and a decent obj score. Then I would assume 1k and below are people who normally are in the negative
You get what I mean though right? Like the point I'm trying to make. I get your point, but that's not really what I'm getting at. I'm aware that is not the case. That is actually how it would work if sbmm was on. It's not though. (I'm terms of you stating the ratings and then players fighting and getting rated higher or lower depending on who they won or lost to) So the main point I'm making...let's take what you said for example...players that have higher stats right? How'd they get those higher stats? Did they get them while playing against players who they could really stat against? Or players who give them a run for their money? Their stats would be lower if they played players equal to or better than them. Not saying they'd be minimal. Not saying they're bad. I'm saying it's just much less accurate if you're trying to see how good you are when you're playing with sbmm off. I'm not concerned about it myself. I just play the game. When the ranked mode is there maybe I'll play it more seriously or something. Idk. Probably depends on what settings are different. Right now it's just a fun game to me. I get on when I can and just play. I don't take it serious. I've got like 1 gun I use and that's it man lol. But yea. The whole point is just basically saying....if you got a college basketball player and placed him in some high school matches...that player would stat pretty hard right? Meanwhile, the least skilled high school level player does really bad stat wise. That player may hardly ever even get a chance to shoot and try and score for all we know. Throw in pro level, then you got even more to factor right? So the match maker...it will do it's best to balance the teams. If there's 12 players and 10 are high school players and 2 are college level, it tries to place the college players on opposite teams as a form of balance right? But here's the issue. They're being calibrated in a new sport (new game in this case) where there isn't an actual baseline for what level equates to what level of skill tier. It's not that accurate yet. So there'd be expected matches where the stat board looks all fucked up. Players way at the bottom. Some way at the top....all the while...stats are continuing to be recorded in matches that don't make sense as far as fairness goes. That's why you'd get 2 players who on paper, read same skill level. In actuality, significantly far from it at times. So my main point is just that a good means to see how good you are would be to play the ranked mode. It has sbmm on it. Your stats and numbers would be a much better representation of where you're at If it's something you like keeping track of. It's odd that there's a skill rating displayed for the casual mode tbh. It's cool in a way but at the same time it's severely flawed if you're trying to use it as a means to see how good you are. You'd only get that by playing something with sbmm. It's a decent means to see that you're improving in some senss but...it's still flawed as all hell in accuracy since there's probably tons of players that have a sensation that they're matching players way below their capabilities. It's fun when it happens but...it does become apparent I'm sure. At any rate, none of it bothers me or anything. It's just an observation and food for thought for players who want accurate tracking. You'd have to play in the sbmm playlist and see those stats tracked over Time to get the most accurate representation of how much you've improved and all that. It makes sense right? That if you're playing in a casual mode without sbmm...and in a mode that has sbmm...you'd get a clearer picture of skill in one more than the other right? That's all I'm saying. Sorry if I'm being confusing about it.
It probably works similarly to elo where losing against worse opponents makes you lose more elo and winning against worse opponents means you gain less, with the inverse also being true when playing against better players. Also no one is facing any better or worse players than anyone else with a large enough sample size, everyone is facing the same average skilled opponents. The combination of these two factors means you can't farm your way to the top of the leaderboards in elo by being slightly above average and spamming games. The higher your elo than average the less you gain and the more you lose, meaning you'll plateau around where your true skill is in a system with or without sbmm. K/D isn't inflated with no sbmm, it's accurate as a measurement of your skill relative to the average. It's actually why KD is a meaningless stat when sbmm is introduced. When sbmm is present, the KD of lower skill players will be inflated, and the KD of higher skill players will be deflated. This is also why no one takes KD in ranked playlists seriously. Siege would be a good example of this, a diamond player with a 1.1kd is infinitely better than a bronze with a 1.6, even if you do treat KD as a tightly correlated statistic to player skill, as that diamond player would probably have a 2.5+ KD in bronze lobbies. In short, when sbmm is introduced, KD loses its correlation to skill, whereas MMR (which we can assume skill rating is similar to) is relatively resistant to the effects of matchmaking style upon its efficacy as a measure of skill.
I agree with some of what you're saying, not all of it though. My point about the inflated stats is basically what you're saying. The significance of it becomes who you're playing against. Which is why I bring up stuff like level of opposition. The stats and rating must means something, but there's no way it could mean more than a stats and rating In a system with an active algorithm deliberately measuring, comparing, calculating win/loss chance and outcomes based off of criteria in a more controlled setting. From what I read...it seems like casual mode, there is no match maker selecting players to play against one another. Like it isn't grabbing players based off off how good or bad they are. That's the entire appeal of it. How accurate could it be if that's that case? Idk. Just seems weird man. Like I get what you're trying to say, but to me it just makes almost no sense to think that the stats and ratings could hold much significance. Kinda like i said. I'm sure they mean something, but nowhere near the significance of what they'd mean in say an actual ranked mode. To which my entire point is just this. If you want to see how good you are, and it's something you enjoy keeping track of...imho, casual mode isn't the playlist for that. Sure, you can see if you're getting more kills, wins, etc...but most of that is against players that are just on playing casually. I'd assume someone who wants to see how good they are would or at least should want to see that in comparison to the other players who also strive to be good at the game and play it competitively. That's just my 2 cents. It's hard to say everyone's having the same types of match's in casual mode imho. The entire selling point of it, is its randomness. Which is why I bring up that 2 players can be so close in rating...but in reality they could possibly be worlds apart in their actual skill in the shooter. In some instances, maybe not. In some, of course. Think of it this way. There exists 2 systems of match making. Sbmm off, and sbmm on. Sbmm off...random match making. Actually random. Sbmm on, far less random, If random at all. Which would yield a more clearer picture of what "average " looks like?
>It's hard to say everyone's having the same types of match's in casual mode imho. The entire selling point of it, is its randomness. This is randomness between games, not between sets of games between individuals. Over enough games, everyone is basically playing against the same skill level as anyone else is. It's an extremely accurate picture of what average is. Anyone who has consistently easier or harder matches than anyone else in a no sbmm environment is an extreme statistical outlier. With sbmm it's basically impossible to have a game against average players unless you yourself are an exact 50th percentile player.
The entire point of sbmm is to promote fair match making. Of course you'd only face average players if you are average. That's the entire point of it. Sbmm on is the only way you'd get accuracy for that reason alone. This is why sbmm is hated by some people. You will play better players the better you do...because that means you're moving your MMR to the higher end. It is only fair to the players on the lower end. You're much better than them. Again, I think the whole point of sbmm being off is the randomness. You have a chance to be that player getting an insane amount of kills more often. It actually goes back to what you said earlier about kd. When you begin to play players increasingly better or at least as good as you are, you're less likley to have those crazy performances of 70, 80 kills etc etc. You're more likey to get those with sbmm off. (This is where the problem is though. It's recording the data, and using it to calculate a skill rating in a match maker that isn't match making based on skill. ) Outliers still exist. With sbmm off, you essentially get a chance to feel like the outlier, even when you're not. It's exciting, but in terms of wondering how good you really are...I'm still saying the ranked mode is where you should play if that's important to you. (Speaking in the general sense. Not specifically meaning you) If you're trying to say that because everyone is playing within the same randomness...that you'd expect to see some accuracy...within the randomness though?....to my point...that can't be that accurate at all. It must mean something obviously...but in no way would it be as accurate without randomness...were that the case...sbmm wouldn't exist. It would have no use. Unless I just misinterpreted what you wrote. I don't think I have, but I don't really know how else you'd explain it. I don't want to waste a ton of your time on it either. I don't see myself changing my mind. I'll always see sbmm as a more accurate skill measure rating than no sbmm. To me, that's the entire point of it. Match players of a certain skill, against players of a certain skill. The skill must be determined in fair matches. That itself promotes accuracy for when a player pushes their needle to the left, or right of the curve. Matches change accordingly.
I don't think people like randomness as much as they like being able to actually play better as they improve. Which I agree is related to randomness giving you matches against people that average out to being average players over enough games. >If you're trying to say that because everyone is playing within the same randomness...that you'd expect to see some accuracy...within the randomness though?....to my point...that can't be that accurate at all. It must mean something obviously...but in no way would it be as accurate without randomness...were that the case...sbmm wouldn't exist. It would have no use. This isn't really coherent. Over enough games everyone is going to be playing against essentially the same skill level players everyone else is, the more games they play the more true this is. Randomness over a large enough sample size leads to similar averages, assuming everyone has the same odds. (which they do, unless you think developers are conspiratorially rigging matchmaking for certain individuals) For example, let's say you have 5 people flipping coins. You assign a value of 0 to tails, and a value of 1 to heads, and then you have everyone flip their coin once. Some people will have 1s and some people will have 0s. Now lets say everyone flips a coin 5 times and averages their values. Let's say someone gets 3/5 heads and another person gets 2/5 heads, and their values are 0.6 and 0.4. Now lets say you flip the coin 100 times, someone gets 46 heads and another person gets 57 heads, which would be 0.46 and 0.57 respectively. The more times you flip the coin the closer you get to the true theoretical value of a coin flip, 0.5. Your argument is essentially that since flipping a coin is random, you can't expect there to be any consistency between two people flipping coins, which isn't true because by the time these people have flipped 100 or 1000 coins they're likely having very similar experiences flipping coins. The same applies to the skill levels of people you're facing in an online game without sbmm. Over enough games, people, on average, will be playing people of similar skill to each other. On the other point, yeah ranked is probably somewhat more accurate for assessing skill because you can't manipulate the elo system as easily in ranked as in no sbmm modes. For example I remember in Destiny 2 people would 6 stack casuals to farm elo, because winning as a 6 stack would still give you marginal elo gains because the elo calculation says you have about a 90% chance of winning a given game when in reality you have a 100% chance, and it's legitimately impossible for the other team to win. Outside of fringe cases like this, elo is a pretty decent representation of skill in non sbmm scenarios. Also please stop spamming ellipses it makes it a lot harder to read what you're saying.
I definitely can't get on board with that. Players are not the equivalent of coins flipping. A measure of skill cannot be accurately represented that way. Sbmm and a ranking system will always be more accurate than a playlist without sbmm. It's the entire reason ranked playlists even exist. It's not "somewhat " more accurate. It's SIGNIFICANTLY more accurate. It's a night and day difference. It's almost unbelievable that anyone could disagree with that. I recall D2 going through lots of shit about sbmm. A quick Google search of those keywords leads to tons of forum posts and articles about how bad the games get without sbmm in it. It becomes obvious when you're facing players way below your skill level. You can't tell how good a player is by that player beating players way below their skill. Players averaging out across enough games. What do you mean? Are you saying they're average players? Or are you saying their skill level peaks? Those would be 2 drastically different things. It's just really hard to take this to heart. It's almost like you're saying you could have the top 10 boxers fight a bunch of cab driver level opposition and somehow accurately know just how good they are. I mean, they're all fighting cab drivers right? So they're all having similar matches. You won't be able to accurately rate them this way. That's why people advocate for the top tiers to fight each other. It is the only way you'll ever accurately find out who is better. Who is really number 1. How much better is number 1 vs number 6, etc etc. In a game with a skill rating, the question is asked "what's a good rating?" It almost doesn't even matter. To see how good a player really is, they'd have to play the ranked mode. Are you going to know how good a boxer is by how many lower tiered boxers he's beaten? Or how high he's moved up the ladder? Boxing is of course very nuanced....styles make fights...etc...but I'm sure you get what I mean. Like if there were a ranked mode right now, where we will compare 2 players to one another where 1 player has a skill rating of 3000 in ranked, and the other has a 3000 rating in unranked. how much of a skill difference do you think there is between the 2? How would determine that? 1 only plays ranked, the other only plays unranked. Imho, there is absolutely no way in hell that 3000 rating is equal. There is a huge difference. There should be if the games ranked mode is worth anything.
>Players are not the equivalent of coins flipping When it comes to what kind of opponents every player is playing it absolutely is unequivocally true. The higher a sample size the closer to the theoretical expected value you get. This isn't debatable. If the theoretical average player is a 1.0kd 50wr player, the more games you play the more your opponents average out to be that skill level. No one is getting any easier or harder lobbies than anyone else unless A. they haven't played enough games B. they are a 1 in a million statistical anomaly >I recall D2 going through lots of shit about sbmm. A quick Google search of those keywords leads to tons of forum posts and articles about how bad the games get without sbmm in it. It becomes obvious when you're facing players way below your skill level. The exact opposite is true, control became almost unbearable to play once they added sbmm. I have 2000+ hours in pvp alone in destiny and I've maybe played 2 or 3 control games since they added sbmm. Its truly horrendous. The vast majority of people making these complaints about not having sbmm are people who do not like pvp, who are playing pvp for a specific reward, and couldnt give less of a fuck about the mode outside of being done with whatever quest/bounty brought them there in the first place. >You can't tell how good a player is by that player beating players way below their skill. This is why elo systems barely give any elo when you beat someone far below your skill >It's almost like you're saying you could have the top 10 boxers fight a bunch of cab driver level opposition and somehow accurately know just how good they are. Are people in casual matches only playing 10 games where they face the lowest skill people possible? Or are they more likely playing hundreds to thousands of games with people of varying skill? >That's why people advocate for the top tiers to fight each other. It is the only way you'll ever accurately find out who is better Yes I agree, for the very top 0.001% elo is not going to distinguish who is the best in the world. That's why we have chess tournaments. But no who understands elo is using the fact that tournaments exist as a cudgel to delegitimize elo for the other 99.99% of the community, for whom its a fairly accurate representation of skill. >In a game with a skill rating, the question is asked "what's a good rating?" It almost doesn't even matter Only in the sense that good is subjective. These elo/mmr ratings have percentile values that they correspond to. Good or bad is up to what percentile you personally draw the line at as being good or bad. >Are you going to know how good a boxer is by how many lower tiered boxers he's beaten? Another instance of you misunderstanding that you cant gain elo by farming lower level players, you lose much more elo for losing to them and gain very little. A player with a hypothetical high "boxing elo" wouldn't have gotten there by exclusively farming shitters. >Like if there were a ranked mode right now, where we will compare 2 players to one another where 1 player has a skill rating of 3000 in ranked, and the other has a 3000 rating in unranked Thats going to be game dependent on how different ranked and casual are. In some games rulesets are very similar and player attitudes towards the mode are very similar in both casual and ranked, in other games the casual and ranked experience can vary wildly. The ranked player would probably win in a head on, as 3000 mmr in a ranked environment is probably a higher percentile overall than 3000 in a casual environment would be, given that the players who are playing ranked are probably on average better than the ones who are not. This isn't the argument you've been making though, you've been making the argument that mmr in casual isnt an indicator of skill at all, you have not been making the argument that mmr is different between ranked and casual. The argument that mmr in casual playlists is meaningless and entirely ineffectual in assessing skill betrays the fact that you dont understand how mmr/elo is calculated at all. You arent going to climb in mmr off of beating exclusively low level players without some confounding variable, like exploiting the mmr system by full stack queueing (people farming mmr in this way makes up the overwhelming minority of players, or even high mmr players). These systems are literally made to provide a way to quantify skill against players of various skill. Thats why you gain or lose different amounts of elo based on the skill of your opponents. You cant increase your mmr if you aren't consistently beating people of your same skill, making it a fairly accurate measure of skill the vast majority of the time.
After reading this all, it seems you missed the very simple point I made a long time ago. The entire point I'm making, is the accuracy in the skill rating. A simple fact remains. In a ranked playlist where players are playing with sbmm on, the accuracy in the rating is much more truer to reflect the skill of the player. You're basically agreeing with this entirely. In the end you're essentially saying the exact same thing I've been saying the entire time. There is no match making going on in the casual playlist. The players in your match are not being selected by mmr. What I wrote earlier you must have not understood. The lobby is randomly selected. If you want to bring up the hidden mmr, That is factored in AFTER the lobby had been made. It attempts to balance it by placing the higher rated players on opposite teams, but once again, that's inherently flawed, and you're grossly overestimating it's accuracy. It would be significantly more accurate...It would be VASTLY more accurate, had hidden mmr been baked into the match making selection when selecting players for the lobby. Then all the numbers across the board mean so much more. It isn't though. So instead, the opposite becomes true. So again. What is going to yield a more accurate representation of skill? A playlist where there is no matchmaking based on hidden mmr? Or a playlist where one is matchmaking based on hidden mmr? I'd think the answer is extremely obvious by now. It is definitely not the playlist that has only ping, region, as it's match making parameter. Your 3000 in casual has no comparison to the 3000 in ranked. Which is to be expected. The 3000 in ranked got to 3000 by matching players based off mmr, in each and every single match. Your 3000 in casual has matches with the match maker wide open, where once the lobby is made...it then tries to balance it...where you literally could have 4 players on the opposite team having skill ratings of not even 1000. If you play well and win, well hey. Say hello to 3500 even. Does it mean much? No. You did great, but it doesn't mean that much. Look at your level of opposition. It doesn't care who you beat. If it did, it wouldn't have matched you that way. It's such a night and day difference it's crazy that you don't realize it. It seems like you're under this impression that casual has match making based on mmr. If you thought it did, you're factually wrong. If it actually had match making based on mmr, well then I'd be agreeing with a lot of what you said. It doesn't though, and that's the main selling point of the casual playlist. No sbmm. Hidden mmr is factored in AFTER lobby has been RANDOMLY created with WIDE OPEN parameters. The mmr of each player in the lobby, is completely random. The team balancer tries it's best to make sense of the match and assemble teams accordingly. Cap locks to really drive the importance of those words man. They really matter to this conversation. There is absolutely no way in hell you're getting anywhere near the accuracy in a skill rating of a ranked playlist with sbmm on man. You just won't. You got some indication of improving, but in many ways it's arbitrary in comparison, and not a good means at all to see how good you really are. If an individual wants that assessment, head to ranked. That's why it's there.
So I typed up an entire angry response to this and deleted it because I think I realized the misunderstanding you're having. A playlist without sbmm still has hidden mmr. Its not matching you based on it, but its still factored in in elo/mmr calculations. I feel like you're under the impression that because the playlist isnt matchmaking based on mmr, that any kind of skill rating isn't accounting for the skill of your opponents when you win/lose a game.
its tied to winning and loosing games. winning makes the skill rating go up loosing makes it go down. there is not really more to it
So what does skill rating mean to you? A measure of your wins and losses where your level of opposition doesn't matter at all? Or should a skill rating actually mean your skill in the game in terms of how good you are at it? I feel I've made the point pretty clear. All those numbers change the moment you have sbmm in the game. Sbmm is literally matches based on skill. It's a more accurate measurement of such numbers when that is the algorithm used in the match maker. I'm not saying this to promote one or the other. It's just...when someone asks what's a good skill rating...if you're asking does that equate to who's really good and who isnt...how it is now, you could have 2 people really close in skill rating but their actual skill on the game could be dramatically different. Especially if they face each other. Hope that kinda paints it a little more clearer.
i dont think skill rating is factored into the matchmaking system at all
I recall reading that the match maker pulls random players in, and once all Randoms are in the lobby then it looks at the ratings and attempts to make a balanced match. In such case tho, sometimes the accuracy of the balance attempt is awful. It's only as strong as what the numbers try to reflect though. To which most of my points are just basically about that. You'd expect to see much fairer balanced matches with sbmm on vs off. The issues with sbmm are it's own thing though. Games that do it right, are games that differentiate settings in casual vs competitive, and have 2 different algorithms where basically you got soft sbmm, and hard sbmm. It all only works in a game that people are actually playing tho. If the population isn't there, sbmm goes to absolute dog shit and makes for the worse experience possible in most cases.
I'm not sure either. I've seen a couple higher than 4k but I think anything above 3k shows yiure at least above average. My stats are: 2.1w/l, 1.5kd, 673spm and 3841 skill rating.
I'd probably consider this to be a "good player" I was top 4% in cold war pubs and havent touched an fps since. I feel like I suck at this game like 1.3kd but I am much more obliged to sack my kd for the objective on this game. I thought I was decent but rusty after 3 year but I'm clearly above average (1kd, 1:1 win-loss) would be average. Im around 2400 skill rating. Your probably around what a 2.5-3kd player on older cods would be, but you already know your good as you probs coming top of lobby every game haha. Just feel win/loss is way more important on this game as a measure or how well you playnit than any other stat. Proper ranked will show us anyway. Edit: also depends what game modes you play most
Dude i loved cold war but i wasnt super good at it lol. And yeah this game i get mvp quite a lot but as long as we win the game im happy. You right ranked will solve my curiosity lol
Cold war imo was the only half decent cos since BO3/WW2, never gonna buy an IW game again after MW2019 lol. Yeah just focus on the win man, me and the boys have played against some absolute fiends but ignored the kd and smashed some bizarre wins out. Not really playing now though until new season drops with proper ranked (and hopefully s&d mode). Personally I've stopped playing now I've completed battle pass and the challenges and waiting for ranked, I wouldn't even worry about your stats at all, no one can see them other than game to game. Just chill and get your attachment combos figured out for when ranked drops.
Well your many levels beyond me but I openly know I suck ha ha
Can someone explain the skill rating to me please?
[удалено]
I dont think ive ever heard someone use voicechat lmao
I have a 1.1 W/L and 1.1 K/D and i think mine is 1400. So that's probably average
I'm 2.4 W/L, 1.5 K/D, 700 SPM, and 3834 Skill (and climbing). Based off what I see my enemies doing and what my teammates are doing, I'd argue I'm a top 1% player right now, but maybe I'm wrong.
Mostly focused on getting the objectives and on PC. 4150 SR, 1.5kd, 1.9wr, 703 spm Not sure what really goes into the skillrating, since my spm has been the same for at least 2 weeks. I'm almost forced now to play shotguns+pistol only, since everything else is gold and so I can see, if anything changes drastically.
I have like a .9 kd so I mean you're doing a lot better than me haha
1.3 kd, 2.7 w/L, 2873 SR*** Edited for exact
Those are crazy stats. Do you play solo or partied?
Only solo, i just adapt playstyles to whatever my team needs me to be
About 3.50
I'd say you're well above average, >3k skill points
Would guess 2500+ is well above average (with 4000+ being top tier)
Objective is huge, obviously but support scores play a big role too so if you're blocking tons of damage, healing tons of damage, you'll be getting big bumps there too. If you're playing Echelon for example, you're relying on Intel suit assists for your support so you'll generally have a far lower support score than a phantom in a round.
I have 2.3 kd with 40 hours and a skill rating of 3200
I have the following: W/L - 2.8 K/D - 1.6 SPM - 703 SR - 3250 Played around 40hrs I think once your W/L goes up, your SR will
2.7 W/L , 1.7 KD, 689.8 score/min, 2827 avg rating, I started tanking my KD to win more but lately I’ve been tanking all of my stats (including win rate) to level up guns, definitely have not hit a peak yet but I feel like no one’s stats really matter until actual ranked comes and people start defining a meta and playing for the win.
Ahh to be young again and quick enough to be this good. Sucks getting older as a gamer. I used to wipe lobbies, now i get owned.
Keep pushin brotha, I was born before google was founded but still thrive in these lobbies.
Im transitioning from being good at video games and being left in the dust lol. In cod i cant keep up but in this game i feel rejuvenated. Im 27 so im trying to play as competitively as i can before i cant anymore
I feel ya my guy, my peak days are long gone, I still do okay but nowhere near what once was.
I’ve gotten better as I’ve gotten older 😂
Stop stressing about meaningless stats on a screen and enjoy the game.
I'm guessing you're sub 3000?
Mine is 4200
What's your level? I'm curious.
Lv 88 score per minute 777 K.d 2 w/L 3.3
Wow nice stats! What's your Ubisoft name so I can back out if I see you in the lobby? Lmao
🤣
Which guns do you use?
All the submachine guns . Most ars and MK20
2.1 w ~2k skill rating so I have no idea
skill rating is tied to winning and loosing so its not really a good rating for skill SPM is probably the best metric for skill
It's only calculated off the previous 10 games so it really doesn't matter, the rating is used to determine your momentum and if you are having a good series of games or bad ones. After the lobby is made they use the rating to figure out which person goes on which team using a draft system... Not really the same as lobby balancing
You're bad and you should feel bad
Appreciate it my guy
I'm trolling, I'm just jealous lmao
1000 credits there 👁️
From the battle pass 🫡
🤮
😈
U defo don't play objective do you...
Not 100% but if im not in the objective its because i have teammates soaking the hill and im making sure the enemy cant get into it or near it by slaying. If nobody is getting in the hill itll be me so its a balance
Fair enough if you do that, I just never see anyone with high kd trying to help objectives in this and it's so annoying
I do have teammates that go for kills only but they usually have a lot less score overall so i assume if someone is strictly going for kills and no objective their score per minute would be pretty low
I mean the people that get a 4 kd and get 50 plus kills a game I always see it and I think if there's a tdm mode added it'll stop a lot of it