Competitive Play is live

[Kelimbror]

They can have an epic game one, then flop the next, then be largely missing the next, into trying a new hero and sucking at it, then being the carry of the century OMG I'm practically Seagull the next. Then trying to replicate it and failing miserably at it.

Pretty much, I embody this concept fairly well. It's funny you mention Seagull, b/c I had a series in Ilios where I played Genji and went like 42-2, decimated their team to seal games with dragonblade, and remarked to my team that I was channeling my inner seagull. I have never, ever played Genji like that before or after. I don't know wtf happened. It's like Seagull possessed my mouse and went ham. It was probably the most fun I've had, but I can't replicate that every game like he can.

Atheletes are the same. They have to practice over and over and over and sometimes they still look like they wouldn't even cut it on a JV highschool squad yet they are pros. The difference is pros are more consistent over many more sample sizes. So I think you are dead on that ranking and the disparity of our experiences is a result of player inconsistency.

[Jester Joe]

I have a friend with "i stuck in trench mmr because i get dumb allies" syndrome (dota). I know that him being at 2k rating is his own fault, and he is paired with players of his skill level. So, one day he came over to my place, while i was watching my replays, he kept commenting on how everyone is doing dumb things in hindsight, it was annoying me, so i run replay of his game, and he was sitting too far away to recognize any nicknames.
Well, after 30 minutes of him saying "i can't imagine people can be this dumb like this alchemist" and other stuff while watching himself playing on an alchemist, i asked him to come closer and read the nickname - his mind blown. He had nothing to say, and for some time he accepted that, probably, he is where he should be, and started improving. But after a week or so he was back with his unbearable attitude and dropped back to 2000-2150.

Same shit applies to every multiplayer game, some people just can't understand that they are matched with people of almost same skill and always think that they get scrubbies as teammates, and enemy plays as 6man stack of pro Korean players.

This isn't comparable to Dota at all though, I made sure to purposely mention that you can't carry your team. Dota, if you're truly better than the other team and your own, you can.

Like, for example of Overwatch things. Enemy team has 2 healers, 2 tanks, and 2 attackers. We're getting utterly stomped the first round. I point out on the second round (As the tank) "Hey, they seem to be doing a hell of a lot better with that comp, maybe we should grab at least another healer or tank", to which our Lucio agrees.
No one changes. That isn't something I can control at all, and no matter how well I play as Reinhardt. And sure, you could argue in Dota that it would be the same as having no support possibly, but someone could easily just buy wards and courier as any role to at least alleviate that pressure a bit.

Then the next game, have a Mei that was just never even near the point, trying to snipe people out and walling me in with the enemy team instead. Yeah, that's something people should totally be doing.

Or even better, watch my team sitting there drawing the attention of the defenders, I flank around as Genji, pick one or two off, try to retreat towards my team and die. Okay, fair enough, at least I got 2. Except...my team is still just dancing around near the walls, as if they're waiting for me to clear the entire point off before they move in. It's like, hell, if the Genji even just gets rid of Bastion, get in there. HELP them clear the point from there, Bastion isn't a threat anymore.

It's not giving you randomly bad groups though.

It's giving you random players at a similar skill level. Where it's failing is at the user end who assumes that at the level they play at (Say 50 for average sake) has a group of 6 players who play consistently well. That's the total false bit people aren't grasping.
Players at rank 50 are rank 50 because they're about as consistent as a wet fart. They can have an epic game one, then flop the next, then be largely missing the next, into trying a new hero and sucking at it, then being the carry of the century OMG I'm practically Seagull the next. Then trying to replicate it and failing miserably at it.
That can happen in any combination of being epic against a much better team then sucking balls against a weak team the system thinks they should be winning.

This sounds like a lot of assumptions honestly though. It's quite a stretch to claim all players at rank 50 are like that, and ranks aren't meant to be inconsistent.

But that doesn't even cover the fact that I've seen at rank 50 Reinhardt's trying to charge Torb turrets from across the map. That goes beyond "flopping the next game", it's just a terrible decision choice.

I really wouldn't bother replying to him, he's just a troll whose trying to bait people. Posts the same shite over and over.

I agree with your post totally, I'd also add that your personal score needs to contribute more. So for example if you fulfill the role you are performing well, so healer has golds for healing and objective time etc. Even if you lose your rank should stay the same, the system punishes you for others not playing as a team.. Like how is it fair if you join a game and see 3 Genjis picked, even if you then proceed to do well personally you'll loose a full rank because none of those kids will change.

Hell, I'd be happy with even losing less points just because you outperformed the rest of your team. Downranking every time is just demoralizing.

[Tharkkun]

The point is competitive shouldn't be giving you randomly bad groups, unless you're a bad player yourself, which in that case you'd be playing with people around your skill level, and that means competitive is working great.It should be grouping you up with people similar to your level in skill, not Reinhardts that love to just charge at turrets from across the map, or Mercys that pocket buff the Widowmaker, unless you're one to do those types of things yourself. What you're talking about is applicable to Quick Match, not to competitive, and it certainly should not be the way competitive should be thought about.

But it doesn't give you randomly bad groups. It matches on rank and mmr. It doesn't necessarily match based on whether you have 6 players who are proficient with all the classes. That's up to you to work out over voice chat or party.For instance I'm poor at tanks and brutally honest about it. But I can play most of the other types very well. But you may get 6 people together where 4 of them have never played a support class but may be amazing at the defense classes. It can happen. The other two may have played support for the last 10 matches so they don't want to so you're forced to have someone play a role they don't like. Sometimes it works out, other times it doesn't.

Sometimes people have to suck it up if they want to rank and play what they are best at. That's not happening yet. The way around this is to form your own group of at least 3 or more to cover healer, tank and defense and let the others pug whatever.

- - - Updated - - -

Pretty much, I embody this concept fairly well. It's funny you mention Seagull, b/c I had a series in Ilios where I played Genji and went like 42-2, decimated their team to seal games with dragonblade, and remarked to my team that I was channeling my inner seagull. I have never, ever played Genji like that before or after. I don't know wtf happened. It's like Seagull possessed my mouse and went ham. It was probably the most fun I've had, but I can't replicate that every game like he can.Atheletes are the same. They have to practice over and over and over and sometimes they still look like they wouldn't even cut it on a JV highschool squad yet they are pros. The difference is pros are more consistent over many more sample sizes. So I think you are dead on that ranking and the disparity of our experiences is a result of player inconsistency.

It's dead on. I've played Overwatch consistently enough that my skill it about the same. I would take months off when I used to play BF3 or Counterstrike and it would take me a week of constant playing before I got my groove back. Missing the most basic of shots, walking on mines, grenades, etc.

[Zelendria]

This sounds like a lot of assumptions honestly though. It's quite a stretch to claim all players at rank 50 are like that, and ranks aren't meant to be inconsistent.

Rank 50 or 50% is the epitome of inconsistent. It means on average you can't even win 2 matches in a row

[Jester Joe]

Rank 50 or 50% is the epitome of inconsistent. It means on average you can't even win 2 matches in a row

Ranks are not win percentage, not sure where you're getting that idea from, because that would just fly in the face of them being designed so whatever rank you're at, you're supposed to have a 50/50 win rate basically, which is what blizzard is claiming it is at.

[Ausr]

Well, been slowing doing my placement matches and my entire second team quit not even 2 minutes into the match. Oh well, would rather take the loss than quit. I really don't get the leaving of them anyway. Not like you're magically going to improve in skill against higher ranked players, if that is what they're going for.

[ThatsOurEric]

So I think there are a lot of flaws in the system, but this type of response sorta baffles me. If the same people play competitive as they play QM, you are going to have similar experiences in some ways. Blizzard can't just force you into groups with players better than you. Since they base their matchmaking on wins/losses...there is a chance you can get stuck with losses over and over.

Imagine the most leet pro player there is. Imagine he is with 5 other people that play as bastion and sit in a corner. Unless he can win 1v6, which maybe he can on some maps, he would be in the same situation. So what that tells me is that the system of how rating is applied is the problem, not actually putting people in groups. They can't force certain people to queue and only those people in this quest for 'competition'. They can change how the game perceives your performance.

So what could change? Well, if they look at individual performance and deemphasize the match outcome, it would protect your rating for being 'skilled' but it would also encourage people to go against the team play game design and just go rogue. This is exactly why they will never do this. You'll have people who think they are hot doodoo ignoring their team, getting the most kills, while never helping accomplish objectives.

So in reality, other than adjusting performance points on the backend and still letting match outcome be the major factor, there's nothing they can do fundamentally. The devil is in the details really.

Well can't really argue with you there, but damn, it sure doesn't FEEL like it's fair. :/

^---Says this after winning 1 match, and then getting demoted another rank with 3 losses immediately after.

[Zelendria]

Ranks are not win percentage, not sure where you're getting that idea from, because that would just fly in the face of them being designed so whatever rank you're at, you're supposed to have a 50/50 win rate basically, which is what blizzard is claiming it is at.

Rank and win percent go hand in hand.
People at rank 80 don't win 20% of the time. In much the same way people at rank 20 don't win 80% of the time.

Rank 50, W/L the metric really is irrelevant. Average across the board isn't consistent.

I'm rank 51, I have a 54% win rate
2 days ago I went 8W 0L
1 day ago I went 5W 12L

Average.. Yes .. Consistent.. No and my totally inconsistent stats back it up.

Since Masteroverwatch has added more stats to look at without much surprise in the matches I played Tracer 2 days ago I was literally twice as effective at everything in comparison to my Tracer games last night.

[Jester Joe]

Rank and win percent go hand in hand.
People at rank 80 don't win 20% of the time. In much the same way people at rank 20 don't win 80% of the time.

Rank 50, W/L the metric really is irrelevant. Average across the board isn't consistent.

I'm rank 51, I have a 54% win rate
2 days ago I went 8W 0L
1 day ago I went 5W 12L

Average.. Yes .. Consistent.. No and my totally inconsistent stats back it up.

Since Masteroverwatch has added more stats to look at without much surprise in the matches I played Tracer 2 days ago I was literally twice as effective at everything in comparison to my Tracer games last night.

You're completely ignoring that everyone should have a 50/50 win rate at their correct rank. Blizzard even said that's what they're seeing.

[Kelimbror]

Well can't really argue with you there, but damn, it sure doesn't FEEL like it's fair. :/

^---Says this after winning 1 match, and then getting demoted another rank with 3 losses immediately after.

Yeah, it's truth...but still feels bad man.

EVERYONE ideally will sit at a 50% win rate. Someone at Rank 20 and someone at Rank 80. Because the entire intent is to get people to settle into a rank that's indicative of their skill level and are getting matched against people who are also at that level.

Pretty much. That's the entire definition of balance. Being able to edge out a series of wins gets you into a higher rank, where one of three things happens:
1) You continue the high performance, keep winning, and keep moving up. At some point you plateau, even if that plateau is 100, and at that point if you maintain your skills you should sit close to 50% unless you are the most skilled person/group in the entire game.

2) You maintain the skill level, beginning to draw closer to the 50%, meaning you stay at the rank you attained. This means your current skill level and reflected rating are probably accurate until you improve.

3) You lose a series of games and lose rank, meaning your current skill level rose a bit too high. End result of all of these matches will look ~50%.

In all cases, we progress towards 50% given the game is balanced. I don't want to really admit it, because it's not as much fun, but having a 50% winrate means Blizzard is doing it correctly. In fact, having even a smidge above 50%, say 54% or 55% means you are doing very well in a balanced game even if your rank isn't reflecting that.

It's similar to the Hearthstone experience. You get stunk in rank 15 and feel like you are a garbage player, until the end of the season and you realize you were in the top 13% of all millions of players. That means you are actually really, really good.

This game functions the same way. I think most people see a 50% winrate and stuck at rank 45-50 as garbage tier, but really that means you are a solid player. We aren't pros, so we suffer from being derptards often...but our overall engagement and game knowledge is pretty high.

We're also the kind of people who get drunk and play, so I mean...what do we expect? I'm a pretty pro drunken genji though. I need a drunken master skin for him.

[Deleted]

You're completely ignoring that everyone should have a 50/50 win rate at their correct rank. Blizzard even said that's what they're seeing.

Yeah? I have 50/50 win rate becouse i am getting into my teams players with barealy 8 hours of gameplay on their accs what are practicing new heroes in ranked mod .

[DrMcNinja]

Rank 46 (dropped from 52)

Today I lost three games, one of which was on a coin flip and another with leavers.

Won one game, which also had a leaver. Europe is not a very competitive friendly environment and I'm getting kind of frustrated. My own FPS skill is mediocre to decent, but I play according to team comp, mode and attack/defense at least.

[Mordin Solus]

aquaintance: "come on lets play non 6 man ranked match i wanna play ranked and i have had soem good matches with it..."

proceed to be put on a match against harder oponents in a 5 team+ pug against us as 3 team + 3 randoms not grouped all of the 3 non grouped rank 68 and then they proceed to make the most assnine picks against the other team. we lose ok fine it sucks. second match we get put again with random pugs but this time its more or less matched in terms of ranked/non ranked... nope that lvl 25 non ranked guy picks winston and spends the first round in ilos outside spawn just constantly turning making it a 5v6 which we couldve won if he participated, 2nd round the guy finaly moved to the point only to hide in the ruins and ocasionaly zap some1 that came infront of him, we won that match but holy fuck..., third match he just afks permanently in the spawn till he gets kicked and we all leave the match. like seriously F that dude and the idea of running with pugs

[Tharkkun]

Rank 50 or 50% is the epitome of inconsistent. It means on average you can't even win 2 matches in a row

Actually it isn't. 40-60 is well above average. Otherwise the best players in the world would've been ranked in the 90's. Once you hit a certain rank it's now about the grind.

[Dawnrage]

I really wish group and solo MMR were separate.

[Coldkil]

-snippety-

All good reasoning. The two issues anyway are:

- placement matches were wildly offset so you have people of same skillset spread around a multitude of different ranks. I simply don't think that the rank 33 i got losing all 10 placement matches is good since nearly all the times i got just roflstomped by the enemy while my team didn't even had the idea of taking one tank/healer. Literally. While a friend of mine said he got all really good teams and scored a 7:3. It's not a rant, it's exactly how it's gone.

- leavers punish more the winning team than the losers. Usually it's the losing team that has people leaving, since losing or leaving nets them the same rank loss. However the winning team has its rank gain completely decimated even if they played fine all game, even if it was balanced, even if the leaver gets out the last 10 seconds.

Result? I have an exact 50% WLR; i lost 4 ranks overall. It's simply wrong - a difference this big cannot be justified by just getting slightly less rank from wins than losses.
EDIT: sorry, just checked and i have 10wins and 21 losses - take out the 10 placement matches (which are counted on masterow) and you get a 10-11 ratio; which is not enough to justify 4 ranks down.

Profile is here for everyone to check http://masteroverwatch.com/profile/pc/eu/Coldkil-2265 i started at 33 after placements (which i don't know why the website doesn't track all the changes).

I just agree with the ideal 50% thing. The point is that a) start point for people are completely random to a degree and b) you overally will be losing much more rank than gaining. Ideally it's possible to have a positinve WLR and still lose ranks if majority of your wins have a leaver.

EDIT2: i talk about soloq. obviously playing with a premade is different, but Blizzard put a penalty in rank gain for premades so all "pro" players or whatever are called are just switching to solo/2man.

[Tenris]

Currently 4-4 in my placement matches, had a crackig game attacking on hollywood got 23 player kill streak, didnt die the whole round amd got 4 person multikill potg. The matchmaking seems fairly good atm it goes down to sudden death most times for me so far ans both teams normally get the max points on payload and capture styles. Cant wait for season 2 when they implement the time remaining thing on all map types.

[Explicit Teemo Nudes]

Questions:
During my placement matches I had 3 games where the enemy team had 1 or more players leaving. Did these matches result in a loss for the enemy players not leaving?
In what way are people leaving punished? I would assume all their placement matches will count as losses, but since I know Blizzard doesn't really like punishing players I have a feeling they get away with this?

When doing my placement matches I had a white icon with a yellow symbol in it. What does this mean? The other players either had numbers(I assume they had already done their placement matches?) or just a minus(-).

When you're on fire, does it actually give you anything like more damage or so? And how do you actually get on fire? Just multiple kills in a short time frame?

I see people have their Overwatch stats here on the forums. At what site can I get this? :P

[Ausr]

I think the more I play competitive, the more I hate all the little shit they can't manage to do properly.

[Jin]

II was placed in rank 57, I got to 59, dropped to 55, got back to 58, then 60, dropped to 57, got to 60, then to 63 and I finally thought, YES iam in a pool of good teamplayers, no... I am now 56 and I lost like 20 games and won 5 or something, all of which felt like I was playing in the low 40's and my jaw dropped every time. How can I go to my potential if the matchmaking keeps me down ?