Sure, it reduces a certain kind of variance for the solo queue experience. It increases it other kinds, though. Removing player choice decreases flexibility and ability to react to changing conditions. So your team is guaranteed to fit a certain design---but it might very well be that that design is ill-fitted to conditions. It's Waterfall for video games. There were other, cleaner ways to work toward the same goal, that didn't violate the core design and cripple player freedom.
I'm a Lisp guy, so you can probably guess my opinions on whether it's "worth it" or not to aim for The Right Thing. And one thing I've found in my career is that the teams and individuals that make the best use of Lisp are fairly disciplined about it---they care a lot about functional purity, documentation, interopability, etc.
In other words, they're still operating under restrictions, but they're self-imposed rather than incidental. This foundation of order lets them do crazier things on top of it.
Reducing variance in one's play is the equivalent of writing code without side-effects---it's the fundamental principle of playing nicely with others in its respective ___domain.
Just as this is best achieved by developer education and discipline in the programming sphere, there needs to be a player ethic of reducing variance (which is why I'm glad to hear about Dallas). And without that, the problem will persist, showing its face in one form or another.
MMR accuracy is probably true, but sheesh, only in a Goodheart's Law kind of way. If it was inaccurate before, that suggests a problem with the statistic, not the game! In a complex game like OW, MMR was always going to be most accurate when applied to teams rather than individuals.
I'm a Lisp guy, so you can probably guess my opinions on whether it's "worth it" or not to aim for The Right Thing. And one thing I've found in my career is that the teams and individuals that make the best use of Lisp are fairly disciplined about it---they care a lot about functional purity, documentation, interopability, etc.
In other words, they're still operating under restrictions, but they're self-imposed rather than incidental. This foundation of order lets them do crazier things on top of it.
Reducing variance in one's play is the equivalent of writing code without side-effects---it's the fundamental principle of playing nicely with others in its respective ___domain.
Just as this is best achieved by developer education and discipline in the programming sphere, there needs to be a player ethic of reducing variance (which is why I'm glad to hear about Dallas). And without that, the problem will persist, showing its face in one form or another.
MMR accuracy is probably true, but sheesh, only in a Goodheart's Law kind of way. If it was inaccurate before, that suggests a problem with the statistic, not the game! In a complex game like OW, MMR was always going to be most accurate when applied to teams rather than individuals.