GM is a leaderboard based on rank points, not MMR. They tend to correlate most of the time as getting into Master is primarily a matter of MMR, but the number of games played also factors into it as you need to play games to gain rank points.
In this case, the MMR for players on both teams are close and the higher MMR players are distributed across both teams. The Master tier players hadn't played as many ranked games overall this season so hadn't had the time to get onto the GM leaderboard. It was a good game from a matchmaker perspective and, based on zwHydra's comment, sounds like it was an enjoyable game to play too.
This will obviously open up the question of having GM leaderboards based on MMR again, which remains something of interest to us once we have visible MMR in-game. At that point, we'd still need some factor for games played to avoid players sitting on the GM leaderboards without defending their title, but it might be more along the lines of a minimum number of games required per week to be eligible for GM instead of doing it based on rank points like it is currently. It'd be interesting to hear folks thoughts on something like that.
Does this mean the match maker does not factor in the number of games played? If the MMR distribution is equal across both teams, a more fair split would be to distribute the GMs across both teams, wouldn't it?
As is, the team on the left is filled with veterans who have been defending their title against other Masters/GM players for a while in order to maintain their top ranks, and the others might have just shown up in the Masters ranks recently and are less experienced.
The match maker uses MMR, not games played, so only indirectly takes game played into account because the correlation between games played and skill is pretty low.
You can play 1000s of games and be a solid Silver or Gold player and you can come into Heroes from another game and be a legit Diamond or Master player pretty quickly.
BlizzTravis
GM is a leaderboard based on rank points, not MMR. They tend to correlate most of the time as getting into Master is primarily a matter of MMR, but the number of games played also factors into it as you need to play games to gain rank points.
In this case, the MMR for players on both teams are close and the higher MMR players are distributed across both teams. The Master tier players hadn't played as many ranked games overall this season so hadn't had the time to get onto the GM leaderboard. It was a good game from a matchmaker perspective and, based on zwHydra's comment, sounds like it was an enjoyable game to play too.
This will obviously open up the question of having GM leaderboards based on MMR again, which remains something of interest to us once we have visible MMR in-game. At that point, we'd still need some factor for games played to avoid players sitting on the GM leaderboards without defending their title, but it might be more along the lines of a minimum number of games required per week to be eligible for GM instead of doing it based on rank points like it is currently. It'd be interesting to hear folks thoughts on something like that.
BlizzTravis
Yep. Sarcasm doesn't come across great on the interwebs.
BlizzTravis
The match maker uses MMR, not games played, so only indirectly takes game played into account because the correlation between games played and skill is pretty low.
You can play 1000s of games and be a solid Silver or Gold player and you can come into Heroes from another game and be a legit Diamond or Master player pretty quickly.