So how are your games going lately? [megathread]

[Jessicka]

Season ends next week:

Hey, everyone.

Season 3 of Competitive Play is coming to an end very soon, so we wanted to lay out a few key dates and important pieces of information regarding the upcoming season roll.

DATE AND TIMES

Season 3 will officially end on Wednesday, February 22 at 1:00 a.m. CET (or Wednesday, February 22 at 00:00 UTC). Season 4 is currently scheduled to launch one week later on Wednesday, March 1 at 1:00 a.m. CET (or Wednesday, March 1 at 00:00 UTC).

For time zone assistance, and to see when the season will roll in your region, visit thetimezoneconverter.com.

SEASON 3 REWARDS

If you completed your placement matches during Season 3, you will eligible to receive a special spray and player icon. These will be unlocked automatically when you log into your account the first time after the season ends. If at any point during the season you managed to break into the Top 500 players on your platform (and in your region), you’ll receive an extra player icon and animated spray on top of the other seasonal rewards.

Aside from sprays and icons, you’ll also receive a number of Competitive Points based on the maximum skill rating you achieved during the season.

Here’s the Skill Rating (SR) to Competitive Point (CP) breakdown for Season 3:

SR 1-1499 (Bronze): 100 CP
SR 1500-1999 (Silver): 200 CP
SR 2000-2499 (Gold): 400 CP
SR 2500-2999 (Platinum): 800 CP
SR 3000-3499 (Diamond): 1200 CP
SR 3500-3999 (Master): 2000 CP
SR 4000-5000 (Grandmaster): 3000 CP

STAY TUNED!

Throughout Season 3, we’ve been listening to the community and modifying our plans based on your feedback. We really appreciate hearing your opinions, and can’t thank you enough for taking the time to help us make Overwatch better.

We’re always excited about the future of Competitive Play, and we'll be talking more about Season 4 in the coming weeks. Until then, keep your eyes on playoverwatch.com, as well as our Twitter and Facebook pages for the latest news.

https://eu.battle.net/forums/en/over...ic/17614953927

Hoping these placements will land me in or close to Plat so I can get my golden gun for Widow, and not worry about having to play any more Comp next season.

[willtron]

i know what you mean.

junkrat is such a cheap bastard, getting kills with the lowest effort.
especially his mine.

I love Junkrat. I think the only thing sweeter than trap-mine kills or martyrdom kills (always forget what it's actually called so I just use the CoD name) is people raging about it.

- - - Updated - - -

See, if that was true you would not be forever floating just below 3k.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunnin...3Kruger_effect

Why is your personal rating linked solely to winning and losing games though. A crappy Hanzo pick on my team should not dictate what my personal ranking is, it has no bearing on me as a player at all. It should be measured through other metrics.

It's actually why I have played any competitive Season 2 and Season 3, and actually I enjoy the game far more for it.

[onesBronson]

I accepted the fact that I'm not gonna get anywhere above silver in any competitive game I've played, Overwatch included. Its a giant tug-of-war with my elo, no matter how hard I try. So these days I just play for fun.

[Jessicka]

Why is your personal rating linked solely to winning and losing games though.

It's not. Whether you gain or lose depends on win or loss. How much you win or lose depends on how well you play individually, this can be gauged loosely by 'on fire' points. These aren't just about kills, damage, healing and damage blocked (and are nothing to do with those medals). They include objective time/contesting, use of secondary abilities like CC, things you're expected to do with your character (indicated on cards) like Helix kills, Critical Scoped shots etc. Even things that get the 'special' PotGs like Lifesaver, Sharpshooter. This all goes into determining how well you played.

On top of this, is the 'underdog' system, where the game predicts who should win, so if you're on a side the game strongly expects to lose, but happen to win; you will gain much more than if you're on the side strongly expected to win and do so.

[willtron]

It's not. Whether you gain or lose depends on win or loss. How much you win or lose depends on how well you play individually, this can be gauged loosely by 'on fire' points. These aren't just about kills, damage, healing and damage blocked (and are nothing to do with those medals). They include objective time/contesting, use of secondary abilities like CC, things you're expected to do with your character (indicated on cards) like Helix kills, Critical Scoped shots etc. Even things that get the 'special' PotGs like Lifesaver, Sharpshooter. This all goes into determining how well you played.

On top of this, is the 'underdog' system, where the game predicts who should win, so if you're on a side the game strongly expects to lose, but happen to win; you will gain much more than if you're on the side strongly expected to win and do so.

Then I should've made it more clear - winning and losing shouldn't be a factor for personal rating, especially when not grouped.

[Deleted]

Then I should've made it more clear - winning and losing shouldn't be a factor for personal rating, especially when not grouped.

Of course it should. No reason you should be receiving points for game you lost.

[willtron]

Of course it should. No reason you should be receiving points for game you lost.

So in a team based game, my personal rating which should be a reflection of my standard as a player which further chooses which people I'm teamed with is influenced by someone who picks and plays poorly? Even if I have gold on objective time, kills healing - contributing the most, I'll still lose rating. The inverse should apply as well, If I'm on a winning team but have the lowest kills, objective time, highest deaths - basically contribute the least, I should lose rating for not being up to that standard.

In the first instance, even if you lose and you're a good player, you shouldn't be punished by other people being bad and you may be the best player in the round but that doesn't mean you can carry a team to victory, that's grounds for losing rating? And if you're one of the worst then clearly you're playing above your means, even if it's just for one round.

I think teamwork, winning and losing should have a multiplicative or divisive modifier effect, not dictated if one wins or loses due to incompetent teammates.

But willtron, it's a team-based game! The current system has an inherent advantage for partied players. Solo queuing is peanlised, because it doesn't encourage personal development as a player. Just to party up, which is fine - it is a team game - but many people do play this game solo. Within teams, player skill isn't going to be even, it'll make for a fairer system if it's based around personal perfomance and it'd mitigate the effects carrying.

[Jessicka]

So in a team based game, my personal rating which should be a reflection of my standard as a player which further chooses which people I'm teamed with is influenced by someone who picks and plays poorly? Even if I have gold on objective time, kills healing - contributing the most, I'll still lose rating. The inverse should apply as well, If I'm on a winning team but have the lowest kills, objective time, highest deaths - basically contribute the least, I should lose rating for not being up to that standard.

In the first instance, even if you lose and you're a good player, you shouldn't be punished by other people being bad and you may be the best player in the round but that doesn't mean you can carry a team to victory, that's grounds for losing rating? And if you're one of the worst then clearly you're playing above your means, even if it's just for one round.

I think teamwork, winning and losing should have a multiplicative or divisive modifier effect, not dictated if one wins or loses due to incompetent teammates.

But willtron, it's a team-based game! The current system has an inherent advantage for partied players. Solo queuing is peanlised, because it doesn't encourage personal development as a player. Just to party up, which is fine - it is a team game - but many people do play this game solo. Within teams, player skill isn't going to be even, it'll make for a fairer system if it's based around personal perfomance and it'd mitigate the effects carrying.

It works as it does because the absolute overbearing priority should be to win; even if that comes at some kind of personal cost.

Anything beyond that risks players chasing a meta-game of performance, which is not the intention and is totally counter-productive to group focused play. Very often in this game, you find people chasing PotGs, trying trick shots for their personal videos compilations, chasing gold medals, and numerous other things that run contrary to doing the right thing to win; there's a ton of 'Me, Also Me' memes about it. We don't need more distractions where people are making a concious decision that could cost their team the match, but help them individually climb. You want them making the right choices for the right reasons and keep the overall objective simple and transparent. Win.

Over time, the impact of your personal performance will override wins and losses, because you'll net more points from playing well by virtue of gaining more from wins and losing less from losses.

[willtron]

It works as it does because the absolute overbearing priority should be to win; even if that comes at some kind of personal cost.

I'm not saying that it should be ignored, nor should it be the primary factor - it should be an element of the calculation. People inherently want to win, if you're on the losing team, got 3 gold medals and PotG you lose rating? If you play like that in a game, but you lose, then lose rating you have to play against lower ranked people? It seems nonsensical to me. If you can acheive that on a losing team, then the player deserves an increase in rating. Not as much as someone on the winning team, maybe even staying where they are, but losing rating seems counter intuitive. They didn't do anything wrong other than being teamed with people who didn't play so well that round, they shouldn't be punished for a flawed matchmaking and ranking system.

It would still drive people to play better on both sides, because if they don't perform to a decent standard they'll lose rating no matter what. If they play well, they will be rewarded/not penalised. It'll just be the winning team is rewarded much more favourably.

Anything beyond that risks players chasing a meta-game of performance, which is not the intention and is totally counter-productive to group focused play.

I agree with you here. But the truly competitive players won't be affected by such a change, it just moves the rating bias towards individual skill rather than being dependent on people you don't know.

Very often in this game, you find people chasing PotGs, trying trick shots for their personal videos compilations, chasing gold medals, and numerous other things that run contrary to doing the right thing to win.

A lot of those aren't in competitive though, and chasing gold medals is not a bad thing and should contribute to your skill rating - the game recognises it's a good attribute in the fact they show medals for it in the first place. However, those people chasing the more ridiculous things would be penalised under my proposed system, you wouldn't be.

We don't need more distractions where people are making a concious decision that could cost their team the match, but help them individually climb. You want them making the right choices for the right reasons and keep the overall objective simple and transparent. Win.

Again, this won't change much for truly competitive players, they'll want to win anyway. If anything, it punishes players that are a detriment to the team and rewards players that play well. It doesn't punish everyone for one person making a bad choice like the current system.

Over time, the impact of your personal performance will override wins and losses, because you'll net more points from playing well by virtue of gaining more from wins and losing less from losses.

That doesn't change the fact that losing a game because of bad players and losing rating feels bad and is actually a pretty bad mechanic.

[Jessicka]

That doesn't change the fact that losing a game because of bad players and losing rating feels bad and is actually a pretty bad mechanic.

The flip side is the result simply not mattering to either side, because everyone is just chasing meta-scores. You might as well just have a deathmatch and be done with it.

[willtron]

The flip side is the result simply not mattering to either side, because everyone is just chasing meta-scores. You might as well just have a deathmatch and be done with it.

Of course it will still matter, if you're not playing competitive to win, then why are you playing in the first place?

[Jessicka]

Of course it will still matter, if you're not playing competitive to win, then why are you playing in the first place?

Too boost your ranking.

[willtron]

Too boost your ranking.

And in my proposed method, that will still happen if you win, and occasionally happen if you lose. I'm not saying 'everyone gets rating just for playing comp! Yay communism!' I'm just proposing that personal rating is kept personal and based on your own performance not being a metric of how competent your random team is. If you play exceptionally well in a round but lose, you should still be rewarded for being an exceptional player at that level through either not losing rating or gaining a small amount. Likewise, if you play horrifically but are in a winning team, you can lose or remain at the same rating because essentially you're being carried.

[Jessicka]

And in my proposed method, that will still happen if you win, and occasionally happen if you lose. I'm not saying 'everyone gets rating just for playing comp! Yay communism!' I'm just proposing that personal rating is kept personal and based on your own performance not being a metric of how competent your random team is. If you play exceptionally well in a round but lose, you should still be rewarded for being an exceptional player at that level through either not losing rating or gaining a small amount. Likewise, if you play horrifically but are in a winning team, you can lose or remain at the same rating because essentially you're being carried.

But you're in a random group, I've been in random groups that totally stomped the opponent and didnt leave me the scraps to feed on. I'm sure the game would have adjudged me to have played awfully, but I wasn't given an opportunity to reallly play. I'd have been pretty pissed that through no fault of my own, I won the match, but my team mates were so good (or opponents so bad) there was nothing I could actually contribute and lose ranking as a result. This actually happens a lot with Reinhardt where you can get a team that all you need to do is hold RMB for them, they do the rest... In that case I've done exactly what was needed. In your model I'd have to take stupid risks that could cost us the match when it's not necessary to do so, just to get me some SR.

It's why Mercy and Reinhardt are often seen as hard to actually rank up with, because a good team will make their jobs very easy.

[Endus]

I'm not saying that it should be ignored, nor should it be the primary factor - it should be an element of the calculation. People inherently want to win, if you're on the losing team, got 3 gold medals and PotG you lose rating? If you play like that in a game, but you lose, then lose rating you have to play against lower ranked people? It seems nonsensical to me. If you can acheive that on a losing team, then the player deserves an increase in rating.

Achieve what?

3 gold medals are meaningless; they only show how well you're performing compared to your team, not how well you're doing compared to the average player of your rank.

The PotG is similarly meaningless; you can get PotG for totally useless plays. I've seen a Mercy get a PotG for a 5-man rez on the point that was then immediately shut down with a Zarya ult and focus fire from the entire enemy team. It delayed the win by about 10 seconds, that's it.

Being the best of a bad team performance isn't something spectacular that means you should be gaining rank.

It would still drive people to play better on both sides, because if they don't perform to a decent standard they'll lose rating no matter what. If they play well, they will be rewarded/not penalised. It'll just be the winning team is rewarded much more favourably.

You already get this, because you lose less if you perform well. If you screw off and do nothing, you might lose 35 rank. If you play your damndest right to the end, you might only lose 15-20. That's a net gain in rank for performing well. You need to stop comparing it to a zero-rank basis, but compare how much you lost to the maximum you could have lost. If performing well is the difference between losing 35 rank and losing 20 rank, then performing well effectively gained you 15 rank. It just doesn't completely offset the penalty of a loss, it just mitigates it.

[willtron]

Achieve what?

3 gold medals are meaningless; they only show how well you're performing compared to your team, not how well you're doing compared to the average player of your rank.

The PotG is similarly meaningless; you can get PotG for totally useless plays. I've seen a Mercy get a PotG for a 5-man rez on the point that was then immediately shut down with a Zarya ult and focus fire from the entire enemy team. It delayed the win by about 10 seconds, that's it.

Being the best of a bad team performance isn't something spectacular that means you should be gaining rank.

I disagree the medals are useless, they're a relative performance indicator. PotG is kinda of useless, but again, can be used as a modifier to how rank is calculated. The bulk of it would be comprised of comparable stats and meta data from players and heroes at that rank. So for example, your accuracy in around is 20%. The meta-data shows a Tracer at a similar rank should have an average accuracy of 30% on that map. Because you're under, that part of the equation is modified. And you'd factor in several different categories into the whole thing. Just off the top of my head:

- Objective kills/Objective healing
- Objective time
- Team score, derived from partial damage done to target
- Accuracy
- Time on fire
- Deaths & time alive
- Time in Combat
- Whether you're partied or not
- Match length

But I disagree, I think being exceptional in a bad team should be rewarded, even if the reward is not losing rank. Being penalised personally for the actions of 5 random players is bad design imo. I'm not saying every match everyone should be ordered 1-12 neutrally and then assigned rank based on that. I'm saying that if they tick all the right boxes in an equation then it will reward them. If one plays to that standard on a losing team, then it'll be rare but they should rightfully be rewarded for exceptional play, furthermore it'll encourage people on a losing team to perform better if they know they might not lose any rating at all.

You already get this, because you lose less if you perform well. If you screw off and do nothing, you might lose 35 rank. If you play your damndest right to the end, you might only lose 15-20. That's a net gain in rank for performing well. You need to stop comparing it to a zero-rank basis, but compare how much you lost to the maximum you could have lost. If performing well is the difference between losing 35 rank and losing 20 rank, then performing well effectively gained you 15 rank. It just doesn't completely offset the penalty of a loss, it just mitigates it.

You're reliant on 5 other people and that has the biggest effect on the outcome which right now dictates if you gain or lose rank. It doesn't matter if it's a net loss, you're still losing rank. Personal rating should not be so dictated by the actions of others, especially random people you get teamed with. It should be a factor, but not dictated. Good play should be rewarded. A delta of negative 15 rating is not a reward. Why do I need to stop comparing it to a zero rank basis? Starting in the middle and working either way is a better way to calculate personal performance. A loss will still skew towards negative and a win towards positive - I just propose correcting factors to better place a player within that range and not relying on a team coefficient which will doom you to a loss of ranking even if you play above your means.

[Eapoe]

I disagree the medals are useless, they're a relative performance indicator. PotG is kinda of useless, but again, can be used as a modifier to how rank is calculated. The bulk of it would be comprised of comparable stats and meta data from players and heroes at that rank. So for example, your accuracy in around is 20%. The meta-data shows a Tracer at a similar rank should have an average accuracy of 30% on that map. Because you're under, that part of the equation is modified. And you'd factor in several different categories into the whole thing. Just off the top of my head:

- Objective kills/Objective healing
- Objective time
- Team score, derived from partial damage done to target
- Accuracy
- Time on fire
- Deaths & time alive
- Time in Combat
- Whether you're partied or not
- Match length

But I disagree, I think being exceptional in a bad team should be rewarded, even if the reward is not losing rank. Being penalised personally for the actions of 5 random players is bad design imo. I'm not saying every match everyone should be ordered 1-12 neutrally and then assigned rank based on that. I'm saying that if they tick all the right boxes in an equation then it will reward them. If one plays to that standard on a losing team, then it'll be rare but they should rightfully be rewarded for exceptional play, furthermore it'll encourage people on a losing team to perform better if they know they might not lose any rating at all.




You're reliant on 5 other people and that has the biggest effect on the outcome which right now dictates if you gain or lose rank. It doesn't matter if it's a net loss, you're still losing rank. Personal rating should not be so dictated by the actions of others, especially random people you get teamed with. It should be a factor, but not dictated. Good play should be rewarded. A delta of negative 15 rating is not a reward. Why do I need to stop comparing it to a zero rank basis? Starting in the middle and working either way is a better way to calculate personal performance. A loss will still skew towards negative and a win towards positive - I just propose correcting factors to better place a player within that range and not relying on a team coefficient which will doom you to a loss of ranking even if you play above your means.

The issue is all this things can be manipulated and will drive people away from playing specific characters. Someone that plays Pharah, Tracer, Genji, Torb, Ana (on some maps), etc, will never have high objective time. Ana/Zen will never beat a Lucio on healing unless he's doing nothing but speed boosting. Certain characters will never have high damage as opposed to others.
All this would do is ensure everyone plays the same characters every match to help their personal rank.
Now, if you want to add a personal rank where it's completely separate from match making values and contributes nothing other than personal bragging rights, that could be implemented; but, no one in their right mind would ever take it seriously, as a person would talk about their overall damage who never strayed away from playing junkrat, or have the highest blocked damage and never play anything than Rein.
It's just not a feasible option, and as it stands now, the matchmaking is supposed to encourage teamplay, where as a personal rating would only encourage that style of play. Personal. Does that happen now? Sure, but a personal ranking system would not only encourage it, it would also endorse it, driving the game further from what it actually is.

[Pendulous]

The issue is all this things can be manipulated and will drive people away from playing specific characters. Someone that plays Pharah, Tracer, Genji, Torb, Ana (on some maps), etc, will never have high objective time. Ana/Zen will never beat a Lucio on healing unless he's doing nothing but speed boosting. Certain characters will never have high damage as opposed to others.
All this would do is ensure everyone plays the same characters every match to help their personal rank.
Now, if you want to add a personal rank where it's completely separate from match making values and contributes nothing other than personal bragging rights, that could be implemented; but, no one in their right mind would ever take it seriously, as a person would talk about their overall damage who never strayed away from playing junkrat, or have the highest blocked damage and never play anything than Rein.
It's just not a feasible option, and as it stands now, the matchmaking is supposed to encourage teamplay, where as a personal rating would only encourage that style of play. Personal. Does that happen now? Sure, but a personal ranking system would not only encourage it, it would also endorse it, driving the game further from what it actually is.

I've also had amazing games as Junkrat where I wasn't top damage or elims. Sometimes, it's not about the stats.

[willtron]

The issue is all this things can be manipulated and will drive people away from playing specific characters. Someone that plays Pharah, Tracer, Genji, Torb, Ana (on some maps), etc, will never have high objective time. Ana/Zen will never beat a Lucio on healing unless he's doing nothing but speed boosting. Certain characters will never have high damage as opposed to others.
All this would do is ensure everyone plays the same characters every match to help their personal rank.
Now, if you want to add a personal rank where it's completely separate from match making values and contributes nothing other than personal bragging rights, that could be implemented; but, no one in their right mind would ever take it seriously, as a person would talk about their overall damage who never strayed away from playing junkrat, or have the highest blocked damage and never play anything than Rein.
It's just not a feasible option, and as it stands now, the matchmaking is supposed to encourage teamplay, where as a personal rating would only encourage that style of play. Personal. Does that happen now? Sure, but a personal ranking system would not only encourage it, it would also endorse it, driving the game further from what it actually is.

That's a pretty easy fix through numbers and coefficients. You'll compare stats to other players of that hero at a similar rank, not solely against your team.

Each hero will have a unique focus that is pertinent only to them to separate them out from other Tanks/Healers etc.

[Eapoe]

That's a pretty easy fix through numbers and coefficients. You'll compare stats to other players of that hero at a similar rank, not solely against your team.

Each hero will have a unique focus that is pertinent only to them to separate them out from other Tanks/Healers etc.

Which again puts the focus on solo play. Your last post takes away from winning/losing as a team to how you do, personally, against other players on the same character or role. This again makes it to where certain heroes are just never picked. Tracer/Genji (as a for instance) are 2 offense heroes but will almost never pull as much damage as other characters in that role. 2 characters that excel at poking and disrupting the flow of the enemy team vs someone like 76 who is there as more of a constant damage dealer.
How do you rank defense heroes? Most time keeping the enemy off the point? That's unrealistic and almost impossible to calculate. Go with damage? Most will be beaten out by offense heroes.
Same with tanks. Roadhog can feasibly get many more kills with their hooks, yet a DVa will do more overall damage.
Let's assume Blizz figures out how to calculate it. Players would then find out how to counter it and place higher personally. Again, other than just a personal bragging rights pedestal, it's just not a feasible way to rank in team based games.