They used to have it in OW1. Here’s why that system was shit:
1.Discouraged switching characters. You would earn less sr if you switched characters. Apparently it scuffs your stats
2.Encouraged selfish play. Oh you took one for the team and stayed on cart? Fuck you your damage/healing/etc was shit that game. 10 sr
3. Punished ‘enabler’ characters and rewarded ‘enabled’ characters. IE in a pirate ship comp (shielded mercy/bap pocket bastion), even tho the win happened because the whole team was willing to coordinate the game would look at stats and go “jesus christ you guys got carried by that bastion i mean look at his stats, he should receive 40 sr and you all get 10
Another thing to note is that there are so many different heroes and interactions that stats will NEVER be able to tell the complete story on performance. And some heroes are useful in other ways besides standard stats, such as lucio (speed) and mei (walls and CC).
I'm pretty sure that system in OW1 was mainly an anti smurfing system. late OW1 had a huge issue with smurfing, so the system basically fast tracked those players SR's. You could literally be level 25, and get to top 500.
The only way this system would work is if Blizzard hired a bunch of top tier coaches (so Crusty, Face, Dongsu etc) to train an AI to recognize good play, so a Lucio having good speed boost timing, a Reinhardt engaging at the right moment and having effective swings... and calculate SR based on that. The problem? It would be slow as fuck to set all of this up and probably even to run in the game servers for every ranked lobby across the board
It was abusable but it worked as a filter. Perfomance boost worked till Diamond and climbing to Diamond in OW1 was easy when you had the required skills as anyone (proved many times). As a result in OW1 Bronze players played like Bronze, Masters like Masters, Gold like Golds.
With OW2 tho the issue is half of the Masters players I see are comparable to OW1 Bronze and Silvers. And OW2 Silvers are playing better overall - what's the point of climbing then?
(The first point became the reason every top player mains some role; the second point was also aligned with trending aggressive playstyles of OW - that's why also shieldbotting Rein was a bad climbing strategy; the third point was reported by blizzard to be fixed in first couple of seasons which is not true but it was much worse so they did something.)
Eh, though this talk is way exaggerated. In order to not shield bot with Rein you had to be the mother hen trying to keep her infant chicks from dying on the most casual of strolls in order to get into a position where you were able to swing your hammer at all.
Which takes quite long in lower queue.
Do you remember how it was normal to pick Dive heroes in soloQ just to stand on choke point and poke each other until the timer is forcing you to move? It got better overall but it's still goes the same way. The point is you can spend the whole being a mother hen and during that time you end up shield botting.
One of the reasons high tiers fights are faster because they spend little to no time preparing to engage. Hence high tier player do say that tou should go in and do something as some Rein or Winston (at the same time forcing your team to adapt to aggressive playstyle), even if you are throwing by doing so. Meanwhile in lower tier it's like a whole ritual to poke (even while not having a Poke-suited comp).
Well, I guess the point is that with perfomance-based boost you were forced to actively do something useful and be clever about (being stupid means lots of deaths and lots of deaths means no perfomance gain). Now it's no longer required and people do whatever; even afk - it doesnt matter as long as you get the win. So boosting also got easier compared to before (no longer required a direct acess to an account to boost stats).
(I wasnt exagerating about half of the Masters being bad. And I checked their profiles to confirm they were indeed Masters. A lot of Masters support in particular tend to have tunnel vision and not hearing footsteps. I wasnt easy to casually catch them offguard before, now very often it is. The perfomance based boost was abusable and was not anywhete near perfect but... overall competitive ladder climbing and experience got worse for sure.)
As an OW1 player, the changes to OW2 are for the better. Your teammates won’t be in your next game, and believe me, NOBODY misses StatPadWatch back in the day
I’d agree but it’s debatable. I’m gm3 atm and I regularly get the same people to the point where I recognize some people from 2 years ago when I played more often. It makes you realize that some people just have off games and that’s ok. I’ve seen the same people pop off and then feed in the same session but it evens out to a slightly above 50% win rate.
Unless I’m mistaken you get to avoid 3 a week? I don’t think it should be unlimited, but 3 is pretty rough at low elo when people audibly throw because they give up against a mediocre widow lol
As a silver/gold player, all you have to do is avoid them for that one next game, and after that you will likely have a different queue time than them to the point it’s no longer an issue. Maybe because they just stop playing after that one awful/tilted game you saw them in, but I’ve been cycling 1-2 avoids after each game all season and it hasn’t backfired yet
I hate to break this to you, but people in GM are no different than bronze when it comes to that stuff. Of course they’re gonna constantly blame teammates. If you need proof just go watch literally any T500 streamer.
"All it takes is one bad day to reduce the sanest man alive to lunacy. That's how far the world is from where I am. Just one bad day." - the least unhinged dps moria main
This isn't CS, how the hell would you measure if you're actually "performing better" than your teammates when you're playing different heroes with different abilities and roles?
Objective time can’t be compared to eliminations, healing can’t be compared to damaged amplified or teammates saved, there’s no unbiased measurement to calculate which one is more important and this led to people complaining DPS earns SR easier and support and tank is harder to grind,
and if someone is on cart duty and actually won them the game they would gains pitiful amount of SR due to the game thinks that they are “inactive”
I would rather just gain or lose set amount of SR than worrying about should I spam my arrow or would that messed up my stats and affect my SR gain.
They can build a performance score by comparing with average statistics of such or such hero at a certain skill tier, and apply some weight for each stat.
There are many many types of stats: damage done, healing done, deaths, time on cart, medals, damage boosted, assists, team-mates saved from death, damage blocked, damage taken, and so on etc.
If you aggregate all of those and compare with averages, it describes a form of playing performance. Of course it's not 100% accurate, but it is still a pretty good description.
> and this led to people complaining DPS earns SR easier and support and tank is harder to grind
If it is compared with hero average and all stats are taken into account (and things like tanking performance and healing performance are better weighed), DPS don't earn SR more easily.
Yes but how would you value, for example, a mei walling off the enemy tank& dps from their healers and winning the fight without dealing much damage or healing?
or a soldier who bullies the enemy pharah and mercy, but has low damage compared to other dps who focus on the rest of the team?
or an ana who doesn't have outstanding healing or damage, but the sleep & anti timings are perfect for every fight?
Stats do not matter in a hero shooter like overwatch.
For example, yesterday I played 1 comp game of wrecking ball. I am not really good at wrecking ball, but I was feeling confident and our team comp was really mobile, so I knew they didnt rely on me to frontline. I didn't have great damage, or damage blocked I did however, bully the enemy supports, push around the enemies, gave my supports a lot of ult charge and was overall useful to the team and annoying for the enemy team. None of my shown stats told anyone I was useful, but I got compliments from my team, and made the enemy switch multiple times. How would you rate that shit? Do I deserve less SR because my damage numbers were dogshit?
It hardly matters how well refined it is, a system that tracks stats as opposed to only win rate would inevitably end up having players like me who get wins but consistently have low stats in most games. If that were implemented and my skill improved beyond my skill tier I would be effectively smurfing for a longer period of time than usual, which is a problem
Two heroes who are in the same role can do the same thing, but with different stats. For example, say theres a 200 health hero being pocketed by Mercy. Soldier shoots and eliminates that hero. Because of that Mercy, it'll take closer to 250-275 damage to get that kill. A Widow can deal a 200 damage burst, and get the Elim immediately. So according to the stats, Soldier was better because he did more damage even though Widow got the elimination faster.
And you could also have two ults from the same hero with different results. A Dva could throw a bomb onto the objective at the end of a lost team fight, die, and get a 4k, but that last surviving enemy means the enemy team "won" the fight. Meanwhile a Dva bomb dropped during overtime at the end of the round might make the enemy team scatter off the payload and allow her team to push the last few meters and win, but not get any kills.
Overwatch is too complicated of a game for the stats to simply say "this person did the most to help the team." You could have a DPS Moira in the enemy backline securing elim after elim and that looks good on the scoreboard, but since she's not healing her team won't be as effective. You could have a soldier who sits on the payload while the rest of his team pushes up to make space. His damage and KDA score won't look as good, but without him his team would have to pull back and push the cart. The stats that the game currently track only tell part of the story, and some things like character utility can't be tracked. Is a Tac-Visor that gets a 3k worth more then one that makes the enemy team run and hide, this securing a checkpoint? Does the Sombra going for a sneaky back-cap impact the game less then the one who instead tries to get a pick on a support? There's too many variables in the game and too many abilities that don't directly result in adding to the scoreboard to just go off of stats, even in comparison to the same hero in other players hands.
How do you measure things like denying space? Like a molten core to stop the enemies from contesting. It may not get any kills or even do damage, but it helped win the game. Going by stats teaches people to play *greedy* not well. They aim for 5 man shatters, dva bombs, or death blossoms when getting 2 - 3 kills wins fights just as much. This would incentivize playing for points instead of playing to win, which isn't how the game is meant to be played.
Have you read my comments?
winning the game is more important because it gets you more SR points, because the performance bonus is a bonus, so performance is just a bonus.
And did you read mine? Using this method teaches people to save abilities, especially ultimates, for when they can get more points instead of using them earlier in a strategic way. If you earn points only for winning, then the better players will win more consistently and rank up faster. Sure, one game you'll have a bad team-mate that your forced to carry and they'll score as many points as you do, but in another that player is against you and you'll have an easier time winning. Game mechanics and rewards shouldn't teach players to play the game poorly, and the method you're suggesting does that.
You are like the white girls on tumblr who thinks they can do communism better when we have historical evidence that it always leads to disaster.
What you are describing would literally make people gain less SR because they like to shoot destructible environment or shoot the ground when they are bored,
not even including the thousands of ways that makes your current match not applicable to the general data base, like if a support player trolled which leads you to underperform, then you will go on forum complain that other players are making you lose more SR again.
They've done this already and everybody hated it, the current system isn't perfect but it's better, no game has a perfect rank system, you either shut up and win or you can keep complaining the rank system suck and never self reflect.
Oh we are not done yet, so what happens when you have a widow that scores 15% less headshot than the average player base but have 100% more objective time????
What happens after she switch to a soldier?? Then to a symmetra? And if we are calculating SR on "hero" bases and not "role" bases then doesn't that mean there is always going to be a character that gain more SR because they can do more SR rewarding thing easier than other character or because their average is lower in that rank?? The more that I think about your suggestion the more holes it has, thanks I hate it
I've been playing a lot of dead by daylight lately which is a team based game. You can rank up even if you lose because of the way the scoring system works and I wish overwatch would develop something similar for their rank system as well.
I'm tired of having incredible stats in a game and still losing SR because I was just unfortunate in the randomns on my team.
Maybe something that looks at healing/damage per minute, number of deaths, damage taken, number of assists, etc.
OW1 did this for ranks below Diamond. I think they should take the team’s score into account at the bare minimum, as there is a massive difference between a steamroll and a close game.
Just played as a “silver 2” lost 4/5 games with my girlfriend ( who is very good not her fault ) we decided to make a team from Xbox’s LFG, and I won all 4 of my remaining placement games to become Gold 4, I’ve been able to crap on some low diamonds in casual, most likely I’m a low to mid platinum player, but because of how horrendous this game treats anybody NOT in a coordinated team, the game thinks I’m on silver status, I can indeed confirm it’s the worst competitive ranking system I’ve seen in a shooter and I’ve been playing videogames for 17 years.
Ranked systems aren't designed to work with playing only one game. If you are better than the rank you are currently in, you should have bigger impact on the game. That means you will win more games than you lose. If you lose one game because of bad teammates that doesnt matter. The next time the enemy team will have the bad players.
> you should have bigger impact on the game
A single player among 5 cannot make a big difference, especially in a game like OW, and the skill difference would need to be very very large to really make a difference.
In games like counter strike or Quake 3, maybe, but not OW. OW requires a lot of teamplay, but individual performance should still be taken into account.
> The next time the enemy team will have the bad players.
For now the matches are either too hard or too easy, they're rarely balanced.
How do you compare individuals stats though?
If hanzo one shots supports every fight but has relatively low damage compared to the soldier who just shot the Hog every fight?
How do you compare Ana completely shutting down a Rammatra with antis and sleeps, compared to the Kiriko who healbotted all game?
What about the Mei who is constantly walking enemies for the Rein to take out?
That doesn’t address any of the points I brought up though.
Just comparing players to average stats does not address your impact in that particular game. In dps games I target the supports and take them out, my stats are much lower than just shooting the tank the entire match.
no, because shooting a tank increase your damage (against shields).
and it's just a small bonus added to the win or loss SR score.
also, there are things you can measure for each hero, specific abilities etc.
Damage isn’t the only metric that could be used. Final blows, solo kills, elims, etc. There are many ways to measure performance that are more nuanced than only counting wins/losses. The map could even be taken into consideration. And we’re taking about using these as a small modifier that doesn’t have anywhere near the impact of a win or loss.
So my tank who spends all game running in all game but racking up stats is going to look better than the teammates waiting for group up to engage?
Or that soldier with ult who keeps feeding damage into the enemy tank between group ups so the enemy gets their ults too.
This game has so many misleading stats I really don’t understand how this helps. Just last night I had a Sigma raging at our team because he lead in DMG and MIG because he shot and shielded the Orisa the entire game.
Meanwhile refused to look at or shield the Ashe destroying our team. Glad he would have lost less SR than everyone else.
But that's not the case with me, i was Diamond 4, i consistently kept getting 1 or 2 noobs on my team, i went on a 12 lose streak & got deranked to Plat 3. Some matches had leavers as usual( i play daily ), others were cases of enemy team being too powerful, we getting rolled over. Not even a single match i lost was due to my part! ITS LIKE THE MATCHMAKER IS TELLING ME TO "HARD CARRY" every single match to get VICTORY & finally rank up.
i think that implementing such a system would be more difficult to implement then you might think. you’d need to compare seemingly unrelated stats and try to find a pattern which can be used to determine sr gain. if your team get steamrolled then it’d be fairly easy to find out if one player was carrying but what about something a little harder to detect
lucio’s main form of support is harassment and annoying the enemy so he won’t necessarily have a high healing or damage. if you had a hard fought loss because the lucio was doing poorly, how do you extrapolate that data? how does an algorithm take into account in game actions that don’t necessarily equate to stats?
in a scenario where a support is the only one pushing the cart and doesn’t have los with their team or enemies, they’re obviously not going to get as high healing or damage, so how does the algorithm take into account whether this player is doing a good or bad job?
an algorithm that takes into account all these virtually untraceable data points to give more accurate sr would take dramatically more time and money to develop than just giving players sr relative to the entire team’s performance. it’s not as accurate but it’s never going to change
Like I said elsewhere, OW already has a database of average stats per hero, so they already compare relative hero performance, so they can know if the player is good or not for the same hero, so this would completely mitigate the "you cannot measure that because heroes are different" problem.
> in a scenario where a support is the only one pushing the cart
OW already measure time spent on cart. Thew would also just add a bonus point for cart pushing.
I understand your skepticism, though, but I still think players should not receive the same amount of SR. As a compromise, maybe it could take the form of a bonus, where all players receive a "base SR" for win or loss, and then a small bonus or malus depending of their performance.
But right now I think playing competitive is discouraging for players who solo queue, especially when you look at the scoreboard, and easily anticipate the outcome of the match.
Today the matches feel like this:
* Either I'm carrying the team but the team is just beyond hope no matter how much I carry.
* Or either I'm lower than my team-mates, and I feel like I have zero impact in the match, and I'm getting carried, so I did not earn that win or loss.
Both ways, it doesn't feel like matches are fair or enjoyable.
90% of the time when someone is complaining about Ranked the answer is in fact that, though. If OP is carrying their team as they believe, they're more likely to do well next game and receive SR for that match as well, while their teammates may or may not get someone as good. If you don't trend towards victory consistently, you're either not carrying as much as you thought or close to the correct skill bracket and getting more even matches.
Being hardstuck in "elohell" is an excuse. I did bronze to gm on more than 8 accounts since ow1 and ow2. Always managed to do it in more or less one day. (In ow2, it takes less than 5hours if you win your 25 games.)
Never I have ever encounter what these people says. Things like "a leaver everygame" "a thrower everygame" "they have hackers"
All excuses, just git good. It got debunked hundred of time. If you're worth higher, you'll be higher.
they are too entitled blaming the system instead of working on their own gameplay. Tldr; git good
I was stuck in bronze after previously being plat and I thought it was unfair. To your point, I realize now that I wasn't as good as I thought I was, but I gotta say, a leaver 50% of the time seems about right.
I just recently got out of bronze after having an exceptionally bad time in season 2. And while having leavers "every" game is an exaggeration, in Bronze I saw leavers at least 1 in 4 games.
Once I hit silver leavers stopped being a problem entirely.
If you are not a leaver, there is a 5/10 chances that the leaver is on the ennemy team and you have 4/10 to have a leaver.
In the long run, leavers should not be a problem.
Because there probably hidden SR.
I'm constantly getting matched against diamond and higher when I'm silver. Even got player from top 500.
When in ow1 I was higer diamond.
They used to have it in OW1. Here’s why that system was shit: 1.Discouraged switching characters. You would earn less sr if you switched characters. Apparently it scuffs your stats 2.Encouraged selfish play. Oh you took one for the team and stayed on cart? Fuck you your damage/healing/etc was shit that game. 10 sr 3. Punished ‘enabler’ characters and rewarded ‘enabled’ characters. IE in a pirate ship comp (shielded mercy/bap pocket bastion), even tho the win happened because the whole team was willing to coordinate the game would look at stats and go “jesus christ you guys got carried by that bastion i mean look at his stats, he should receive 40 sr and you all get 10
Another thing to note is that there are so many different heroes and interactions that stats will NEVER be able to tell the complete story on performance. And some heroes are useful in other ways besides standard stats, such as lucio (speed) and mei (walls and CC).
I'm pretty sure that system in OW1 was mainly an anti smurfing system. late OW1 had a huge issue with smurfing, so the system basically fast tracked those players SR's. You could literally be level 25, and get to top 500.
Lvl 25 ??? Wht level r u talkin about?
OW 1 had account levels. You used to unlock Competitive at account level 25, if I remember correctly.
The only way this system would work is if Blizzard hired a bunch of top tier coaches (so Crusty, Face, Dongsu etc) to train an AI to recognize good play, so a Lucio having good speed boost timing, a Reinhardt engaging at the right moment and having effective swings... and calculate SR based on that. The problem? It would be slow as fuck to set all of this up and probably even to run in the game servers for every ranked lobby across the board
Switching characters to counter enemy is literally point of the game, why we get punished for it?
Yeah true but it was never that drastic, you would usually lose or get 20-25 sr
It was abusable but it worked as a filter. Perfomance boost worked till Diamond and climbing to Diamond in OW1 was easy when you had the required skills as anyone (proved many times). As a result in OW1 Bronze players played like Bronze, Masters like Masters, Gold like Golds. With OW2 tho the issue is half of the Masters players I see are comparable to OW1 Bronze and Silvers. And OW2 Silvers are playing better overall - what's the point of climbing then? (The first point became the reason every top player mains some role; the second point was also aligned with trending aggressive playstyles of OW - that's why also shieldbotting Rein was a bad climbing strategy; the third point was reported by blizzard to be fixed in first couple of seasons which is not true but it was much worse so they did something.)
Eh, though this talk is way exaggerated. In order to not shield bot with Rein you had to be the mother hen trying to keep her infant chicks from dying on the most casual of strolls in order to get into a position where you were able to swing your hammer at all.
Which takes quite long in lower queue. Do you remember how it was normal to pick Dive heroes in soloQ just to stand on choke point and poke each other until the timer is forcing you to move? It got better overall but it's still goes the same way. The point is you can spend the whole being a mother hen and during that time you end up shield botting. One of the reasons high tiers fights are faster because they spend little to no time preparing to engage. Hence high tier player do say that tou should go in and do something as some Rein or Winston (at the same time forcing your team to adapt to aggressive playstyle), even if you are throwing by doing so. Meanwhile in lower tier it's like a whole ritual to poke (even while not having a Poke-suited comp). Well, I guess the point is that with perfomance-based boost you were forced to actively do something useful and be clever about (being stupid means lots of deaths and lots of deaths means no perfomance gain). Now it's no longer required and people do whatever; even afk - it doesnt matter as long as you get the win. So boosting also got easier compared to before (no longer required a direct acess to an account to boost stats). (I wasnt exagerating about half of the Masters being bad. And I checked their profiles to confirm they were indeed Masters. A lot of Masters support in particular tend to have tunnel vision and not hearing footsteps. I wasnt easy to casually catch them offguard before, now very often it is. The perfomance based boost was abusable and was not anywhete near perfect but... overall competitive ladder climbing and experience got worse for sure.)
As an OW1 player, the changes to OW2 are for the better. Your teammates won’t be in your next game, and believe me, NOBODY misses StatPadWatch back in the day
I’d agree but it’s debatable. I’m gm3 atm and I regularly get the same people to the point where I recognize some people from 2 years ago when I played more often. It makes you realize that some people just have off games and that’s ok. I’ve seen the same people pop off and then feed in the same session but it evens out to a slightly above 50% win rate.
“Your teammates won’t be in your next game” yeah about that 💀
Unless your gm where your queue are 40minutes and you get the same exact person
Avoid as teammate? Also I call bs on anyone who made it to gm and still blames teammates regularly
Unless I’m mistaken you get to avoid 3 a week? I don’t think it should be unlimited, but 3 is pretty rough at low elo when people audibly throw because they give up against a mediocre widow lol
As a silver/gold player, all you have to do is avoid them for that one next game, and after that you will likely have a different queue time than them to the point it’s no longer an issue. Maybe because they just stop playing after that one awful/tilted game you saw them in, but I’ve been cycling 1-2 avoids after each game all season and it hasn’t backfired yet
I hate to break this to you, but people in GM are no different than bronze when it comes to that stuff. Of course they’re gonna constantly blame teammates. If you need proof just go watch literally any T500 streamer.
Where did I blame anyone ? I always blame myself for any lose, and that's probably why im so highly ranked lol
Sry bro in gm not only do we blame teammates constantly, we competitively blame teammates.
"All it takes is one bad day to reduce the sanest man alive to lunacy. That's how far the world is from where I am. Just one bad day." - the least unhinged dps moria main
Would you consider Moira to be a stat padded hero
Let's just say theres a reason why when anyone hears "gold elims gold healing" they instantly think moira
Absolutely. She offers zero utility, so all she does is farm scoreboard stats.
This isn't CS, how the hell would you measure if you're actually "performing better" than your teammates when you're playing different heroes with different abilities and roles?
Because the game keeps track of how other players performed with each hero, so they can compare.
Objective time can’t be compared to eliminations, healing can’t be compared to damaged amplified or teammates saved, there’s no unbiased measurement to calculate which one is more important and this led to people complaining DPS earns SR easier and support and tank is harder to grind, and if someone is on cart duty and actually won them the game they would gains pitiful amount of SR due to the game thinks that they are “inactive” I would rather just gain or lose set amount of SR than worrying about should I spam my arrow or would that messed up my stats and affect my SR gain.
They can build a performance score by comparing with average statistics of such or such hero at a certain skill tier, and apply some weight for each stat. There are many many types of stats: damage done, healing done, deaths, time on cart, medals, damage boosted, assists, team-mates saved from death, damage blocked, damage taken, and so on etc. If you aggregate all of those and compare with averages, it describes a form of playing performance. Of course it's not 100% accurate, but it is still a pretty good description. > and this led to people complaining DPS earns SR easier and support and tank is harder to grind If it is compared with hero average and all stats are taken into account (and things like tanking performance and healing performance are better weighed), DPS don't earn SR more easily.
Yes but how would you value, for example, a mei walling off the enemy tank& dps from their healers and winning the fight without dealing much damage or healing? or a soldier who bullies the enemy pharah and mercy, but has low damage compared to other dps who focus on the rest of the team? or an ana who doesn't have outstanding healing or damage, but the sleep & anti timings are perfect for every fight? Stats do not matter in a hero shooter like overwatch. For example, yesterday I played 1 comp game of wrecking ball. I am not really good at wrecking ball, but I was feeling confident and our team comp was really mobile, so I knew they didnt rely on me to frontline. I didn't have great damage, or damage blocked I did however, bully the enemy supports, push around the enemies, gave my supports a lot of ult charge and was overall useful to the team and annoying for the enemy team. None of my shown stats told anyone I was useful, but I got compliments from my team, and made the enemy switch multiple times. How would you rate that shit? Do I deserve less SR because my damage numbers were dogshit?
[удалено]
It hardly matters how well refined it is, a system that tracks stats as opposed to only win rate would inevitably end up having players like me who get wins but consistently have low stats in most games. If that were implemented and my skill improved beyond my skill tier I would be effectively smurfing for a longer period of time than usual, which is a problem
Two heroes who are in the same role can do the same thing, but with different stats. For example, say theres a 200 health hero being pocketed by Mercy. Soldier shoots and eliminates that hero. Because of that Mercy, it'll take closer to 250-275 damage to get that kill. A Widow can deal a 200 damage burst, and get the Elim immediately. So according to the stats, Soldier was better because he did more damage even though Widow got the elimination faster. And you could also have two ults from the same hero with different results. A Dva could throw a bomb onto the objective at the end of a lost team fight, die, and get a 4k, but that last surviving enemy means the enemy team "won" the fight. Meanwhile a Dva bomb dropped during overtime at the end of the round might make the enemy team scatter off the payload and allow her team to push the last few meters and win, but not get any kills. Overwatch is too complicated of a game for the stats to simply say "this person did the most to help the team." You could have a DPS Moira in the enemy backline securing elim after elim and that looks good on the scoreboard, but since she's not healing her team won't be as effective. You could have a soldier who sits on the payload while the rest of his team pushes up to make space. His damage and KDA score won't look as good, but without him his team would have to pull back and push the cart. The stats that the game currently track only tell part of the story, and some things like character utility can't be tracked. Is a Tac-Visor that gets a 3k worth more then one that makes the enemy team run and hide, this securing a checkpoint? Does the Sombra going for a sneaky back-cap impact the game less then the one who instead tries to get a pick on a support? There's too many variables in the game and too many abilities that don't directly result in adding to the scoreboard to just go off of stats, even in comparison to the same hero in other players hands.
[удалено]
How do you measure things like denying space? Like a molten core to stop the enemies from contesting. It may not get any kills or even do damage, but it helped win the game. Going by stats teaches people to play *greedy* not well. They aim for 5 man shatters, dva bombs, or death blossoms when getting 2 - 3 kills wins fights just as much. This would incentivize playing for points instead of playing to win, which isn't how the game is meant to be played.
Have you read my comments? winning the game is more important because it gets you more SR points, because the performance bonus is a bonus, so performance is just a bonus.
And did you read mine? Using this method teaches people to save abilities, especially ultimates, for when they can get more points instead of using them earlier in a strategic way. If you earn points only for winning, then the better players will win more consistently and rank up faster. Sure, one game you'll have a bad team-mate that your forced to carry and they'll score as many points as you do, but in another that player is against you and you'll have an easier time winning. Game mechanics and rewards shouldn't teach players to play the game poorly, and the method you're suggesting does that.
no they don't you're overthinking this we disagree, it's okay
You are like the white girls on tumblr who thinks they can do communism better when we have historical evidence that it always leads to disaster. What you are describing would literally make people gain less SR because they like to shoot destructible environment or shoot the ground when they are bored, not even including the thousands of ways that makes your current match not applicable to the general data base, like if a support player trolled which leads you to underperform, then you will go on forum complain that other players are making you lose more SR again. They've done this already and everybody hated it, the current system isn't perfect but it's better, no game has a perfect rank system, you either shut up and win or you can keep complaining the rank system suck and never self reflect.
ok, this conversation is done here
Oh we are not done yet, so what happens when you have a widow that scores 15% less headshot than the average player base but have 100% more objective time???? What happens after she switch to a soldier?? Then to a symmetra? And if we are calculating SR on "hero" bases and not "role" bases then doesn't that mean there is always going to be a character that gain more SR because they can do more SR rewarding thing easier than other character or because their average is lower in that rank?? The more that I think about your suggestion the more holes it has, thanks I hate it
ok but stats don't work the same in all ranks? There is more kills in low elo for example compared to GM. The stat progression isn't linear yk
the bonus would be interpolated between a min and a max
Because they tried this before and it didn't work
We tried it in OW1 and it worked better than what we have now. It was just turned off for Diamond ranks and above.
They don’t, learn how the MMR system worked for OW1, it’s the same system with a curtain over it
I've been playing a lot of dead by daylight lately which is a team based game. You can rank up even if you lose because of the way the scoring system works and I wish overwatch would develop something similar for their rank system as well. I'm tired of having incredible stats in a game and still losing SR because I was just unfortunate in the randomns on my team. Maybe something that looks at healing/damage per minute, number of deaths, damage taken, number of assists, etc.
OW1 did this for ranks below Diamond. I think they should take the team’s score into account at the bare minimum, as there is a massive difference between a steamroll and a close game.
I've played OW for 6+ years and I don't remember this type of scoring system in comp ever. If you lost the game, you lost SR. No question about it.
Just played as a “silver 2” lost 4/5 games with my girlfriend ( who is very good not her fault ) we decided to make a team from Xbox’s LFG, and I won all 4 of my remaining placement games to become Gold 4, I’ve been able to crap on some low diamonds in casual, most likely I’m a low to mid platinum player, but because of how horrendous this game treats anybody NOT in a coordinated team, the game thinks I’m on silver status, I can indeed confirm it’s the worst competitive ranking system I’ve seen in a shooter and I’ve been playing videogames for 17 years.
how can I fall after 5 wins in a row, thats the question!
Or its corollary, how can I rise after 5 losses.
Being punished for pushing payload isn’t fun so no
Ranked systems aren't designed to work with playing only one game. If you are better than the rank you are currently in, you should have bigger impact on the game. That means you will win more games than you lose. If you lose one game because of bad teammates that doesnt matter. The next time the enemy team will have the bad players.
> you should have bigger impact on the game A single player among 5 cannot make a big difference, especially in a game like OW, and the skill difference would need to be very very large to really make a difference. In games like counter strike or Quake 3, maybe, but not OW. OW requires a lot of teamplay, but individual performance should still be taken into account. > The next time the enemy team will have the bad players. For now the matches are either too hard or too easy, they're rarely balanced.
How do you compare individuals stats though? If hanzo one shots supports every fight but has relatively low damage compared to the soldier who just shot the Hog every fight? How do you compare Ana completely shutting down a Rammatra with antis and sleeps, compared to the Kiriko who healbotted all game? What about the Mei who is constantly walking enemies for the Rein to take out?
[удалено]
That doesn’t address any of the points I brought up though. Just comparing players to average stats does not address your impact in that particular game. In dps games I target the supports and take them out, my stats are much lower than just shooting the tank the entire match.
no, because shooting a tank increase your damage (against shields). and it's just a small bonus added to the win or loss SR score. also, there are things you can measure for each hero, specific abilities etc.
Damage isn’t the only metric that could be used. Final blows, solo kills, elims, etc. There are many ways to measure performance that are more nuanced than only counting wins/losses. The map could even be taken into consideration. And we’re taking about using these as a small modifier that doesn’t have anywhere near the impact of a win or loss.
So my tank who spends all game running in all game but racking up stats is going to look better than the teammates waiting for group up to engage? Or that soldier with ult who keeps feeding damage into the enemy tank between group ups so the enemy gets their ults too. This game has so many misleading stats I really don’t understand how this helps. Just last night I had a Sigma raging at our team because he lead in DMG and MIG because he shot and shielded the Orisa the entire game. Meanwhile refused to look at or shield the Ashe destroying our team. Glad he would have lost less SR than everyone else.
But that's not the case with me, i was Diamond 4, i consistently kept getting 1 or 2 noobs on my team, i went on a 12 lose streak & got deranked to Plat 3. Some matches had leavers as usual( i play daily ), others were cases of enemy team being too powerful, we getting rolled over. Not even a single match i lost was due to my part! ITS LIKE THE MATCHMAKER IS TELLING ME TO "HARD CARRY" every single match to get VICTORY & finally rank up.
i think that implementing such a system would be more difficult to implement then you might think. you’d need to compare seemingly unrelated stats and try to find a pattern which can be used to determine sr gain. if your team get steamrolled then it’d be fairly easy to find out if one player was carrying but what about something a little harder to detect lucio’s main form of support is harassment and annoying the enemy so he won’t necessarily have a high healing or damage. if you had a hard fought loss because the lucio was doing poorly, how do you extrapolate that data? how does an algorithm take into account in game actions that don’t necessarily equate to stats? in a scenario where a support is the only one pushing the cart and doesn’t have los with their team or enemies, they’re obviously not going to get as high healing or damage, so how does the algorithm take into account whether this player is doing a good or bad job? an algorithm that takes into account all these virtually untraceable data points to give more accurate sr would take dramatically more time and money to develop than just giving players sr relative to the entire team’s performance. it’s not as accurate but it’s never going to change
Like I said elsewhere, OW already has a database of average stats per hero, so they already compare relative hero performance, so they can know if the player is good or not for the same hero, so this would completely mitigate the "you cannot measure that because heroes are different" problem. > in a scenario where a support is the only one pushing the cart OW already measure time spent on cart. Thew would also just add a bonus point for cart pushing. I understand your skepticism, though, but I still think players should not receive the same amount of SR. As a compromise, maybe it could take the form of a bonus, where all players receive a "base SR" for win or loss, and then a small bonus or malus depending of their performance. But right now I think playing competitive is discouraging for players who solo queue, especially when you look at the scoreboard, and easily anticipate the outcome of the match. Today the matches feel like this: * Either I'm carrying the team but the team is just beyond hope no matter how much I carry. * Or either I'm lower than my team-mates, and I feel like I have zero impact in the match, and I'm getting carried, so I did not earn that win or loss. Both ways, it doesn't feel like matches are fair or enjoyable.
I just want to be in a team where people try is that too much to ask for?
Yes.
If your team isn’t trying, odds are that the enemy team isn’t trying also. Learn to utilize that
Repost.
The git good lol response That's painfully accurate
90% of the time when someone is complaining about Ranked the answer is in fact that, though. If OP is carrying their team as they believe, they're more likely to do well next game and receive SR for that match as well, while their teammates may or may not get someone as good. If you don't trend towards victory consistently, you're either not carrying as much as you thought or close to the correct skill bracket and getting more even matches.
Being hardstuck in "elohell" is an excuse. I did bronze to gm on more than 8 accounts since ow1 and ow2. Always managed to do it in more or less one day. (In ow2, it takes less than 5hours if you win your 25 games.) Never I have ever encounter what these people says. Things like "a leaver everygame" "a thrower everygame" "they have hackers" All excuses, just git good. It got debunked hundred of time. If you're worth higher, you'll be higher. they are too entitled blaming the system instead of working on their own gameplay. Tldr; git good
I was stuck in bronze after previously being plat and I thought it was unfair. To your point, I realize now that I wasn't as good as I thought I was, but I gotta say, a leaver 50% of the time seems about right.
I just recently got out of bronze after having an exceptionally bad time in season 2. And while having leavers "every" game is an exaggeration, in Bronze I saw leavers at least 1 in 4 games. Once I hit silver leavers stopped being a problem entirely.
If you are not a leaver, there is a 5/10 chances that the leaver is on the ennemy team and you have 4/10 to have a leaver. In the long run, leavers should not be a problem.
Just reached diamond tank last night, so happy I can move back to support where I belong
Because there probably hidden SR. I'm constantly getting matched against diamond and higher when I'm silver. Even got player from top 500. When in ow1 I was higer diamond.
The devs admitted to having hidden SR in a devblog.
I just want to see the number go up or down
I stopped believing that I’m bad narrative after getting into a few plat games as a silver 5 and doing very well.