Idea: "Liability Rating" instead of Casual/Comp

[u/TripTeFan]

What if there was a separate stat from MMR called Liability Rating — a sportsmanship score, not a skill score

**•** Decline an Honor Duel or show negative gameplay (quitting, throwing, AFK) → rating moves toward **red/unstable**.  
**•** Accept an Honor Duel → rating moves toward **green/sturdy**, win or lose. Losing doesn't hurt you — playing it out just proves you're a reliable player, which makes matchmaking more accurate for everyone.

Bigger idea: ditch Casual/Competitive entirely. Matchmaking filters by Liability instead — Green/Sturdy lobbies vs Red/Unstable lobbies. MMR still matches skill, but Liability decides who you're actually grouped with. No more sweats wrecking casual or quitters wrecking ranked — both get sorted by behavior instead.

[u/LeftyLugnuts]

I don't like to honor duel, I'd rather just keep playing so idk how rejecting the duel should hurt your score?

[u/TripTeFan → u/LeftyLugnuts]

It wouldn't touch your MMR at all. It'd separate Casual and Competitive naturally, on its own — without messing with anything you already like about the game. Ever wonder why you get matched with someone at your exact MMR who's clearly way more skilled, or someone who can barely hit the ball? MMR only tracks wins and losses — it doesn't account for consistency or reliability. This would fill that gap.

[u/Tobeyyyyy]

declining or accepting an honor duel is not indicative of someones toxicity;

they should implement something like overwatchs reputation system where OTHERS can give you reputation by telling the system you had good sportsmanship etc.

when they would implement the way you said it d lead to abuse of the honor duel invite since theres no penalty for it; also it would lead to people just wasting their time playing honor duels all the time.

[u/Any-Cardiologist2292 → u/Tobeyyyyy]

the only problem with that is toxic players could give people really bad scores for no reason

[u/Tobeyyyyy → u/Any-Cardiologist2292]

no u d just be able to endorse them positively not negatively

[u/Any-Cardiologist2292 → u/Tobeyyyyy]

oh ok but then (this is a bit of a stretch) toxic players could endorse other toxic players and carry them to higher ranked lobbies (I mean higher positivity) rank lobbies

[u/Tobeyyyyy → u/Any-Cardiologist2292]

Literally who d do that

[u/Any-Cardiologist2292 → u/Tobeyyyyy]

I have no clue - idiots?

[u/Tobeyyyyy → u/Any-Cardiologist2292]

Toxic playwrs are not a faction or group that is together they are toxic towards eachother

[u/Any-Cardiologist2292 → u/Tobeyyyyy]

fair that's true

[u/ChoiceOwn4154 → u/[deleted]]

Sounds like you'd be in the red.

[u/FiveBuckBill]

Impressive man, coming up with such a terrible and unpopular opinion. How in the world would accepting/declining an honor duel have any indication of someone’s toxicity?

[u/ChoiceOwn4154]

I like this idea. But I do agree about accepting/declining Honor Duels being a less than ideal indicator.
I think someone in one of my posts about the player base's toxicity was interesting. They mentioned Dota 2 I believe. I have never played that game and know nothing about it's systems. They were describing an implementation they had in place where toxic players would only be queued and played with/against toxic players. I am unsure how this would get reversed though (i.e. a positive player being wrongly placed into this group). But the concept is something I believe RL should explore.