So how are your games going lately? [megathread]

[Deleted]

I just want to mention medals may not, or may, mean much.

I've had games where I was playing S76, in ranked and dps isn't my main role, which I had 3 gold metals and I have terrible sustained aim (though I am good at Widow/hanzo).

I was being shitty as usual with S76 and I still had 3 gold metals. That doesn't mean I played well. It doesn't. I played shit. What this says is that my team as a whole probably played even worse than I did.

When a player that isn't playing good in your team gets 3 gold medals. That says something not about that person but about your team as a whole.

So no, medals aren't indicative of you being super good. At most, they're indicative of how well your team perfomed, like Endus said.

[ThatsOurEric]

"ELO Hell" is the most abused excuse in this game and community for not being able to reach higher ranks.

Except its legitimately real. Its not an excuse.

[Hottage]

The only think more they could add to the custom game rules is the ability to change the size of characters, 1 Torbjorn with 1000% health, 500% damage, 50% speed and 300% size scaling vs 6 D.Va pilots

- - - Updated - - -

Except its legitimately real. Its not an excuse.

ELO Hell is whatever rank I happen to be at on any given day.

[ThatsOurEric]

ELO Hell is whatever rank I happen to be at on any given day.

With the exception of the players in Master & Grand Master anyway.

[Woobels]

Except its legitimately real. Its not an excuse.

I'll never understand how people who whine about ELO Hell know that they're actually much better than the rank they are in.

Like how do you even know that.

[ThatsOurEric]

I'll never understand how people who whine about ELO Hell know that they're actually much better than the rank they are in.

Like how do you even know that.

I'd say most players are humble enough in knowing where they belong. I have no wild
delusions of being Grand Master or even Master level, but I'm quite confident in that I
don't belong in the under 3k bracket, yet I'm stuck there because everytime I get on a
win streak, I get into an even greater losing streak.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of players are in a wide range, which means its essentially
RNG on the level of competence (not skill, just competence) of your teammates. You can
get a game where everyone does everything right and still loses. Nobody complains about
that. Now losing 0-3 because of :
-No one swapping to counter enemy team
-Purposely sticking to a character and refusing to swap despite team asking
-No one working together, running in solo all the time
-Picking poor character choices (Tjorbjorn on attack for ex.)
-Players performing terribly (dps getting not a single kill all round for ex.)
-Leavers & Griefers
-Trolls & Derankers

The list goes on. All of the above are in the massive pool. Some, very very few
can get lucky and carry themselves out. For those who play solo, unfortunately,
the RNG MMR is not so kind.

[willtron]

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 offence 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.

Which is why a Tracers stats will be compared to other Tracers within a given ranking range, and not other heroes. That way it doesn't matter if you flanker vs a direct damage DPS dealer. Same with objective time, it doesn't matter in terms of an absolute value, just as a relative value to other Tracers within your comparable bracket.


So just as a super simple visual example - say as a Tracer in a game you have 30 kills and 1 minute objective time. Stats show on average at your current rank of x, on that map Tracer should be getting around 23 kills and have 1:30 objective time. So you're above on kills but below on time on the objective.


The rating calculator will use a coefficient that is favourable in kills but slightly penalising in objective time. So if 23 kills and an objective time of 1 minute are assigned a value of 1 each, then 30 kills could be 1.1 and the objective time 0.9. Also factored in are other tracer specific factors - times blinked, health recalled, metres covered etc.

How do you rank defence 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 offence heroes.
Same with tanks. Roadhog can feasibly get much more kills with their hooks, yet a DVa will do more overall damage.

Again, hero specific calculations, not a global system - looking at average stats will eliminate the problem of x hero vs y hero, so yes, Roadhog, sure kills and hooks would be a major consideration rather than DVa which would consider her strengths and abilities, Reinhardt's shield uptime and damage blocked will be more of a factor than Winstons. Why is it unrealistic and almost impossible to calculate? It just seems to me you can't wrap your head around it so you declare it as impossible.

Let's assume Blizz figures out how to calculate it. Players would then find out how to counter it and place higher personally.

So players would find a way to play their hero well and be rewarded for it? That's sort of the point I'm getting at. Any system is abusable if someone tries hard enough, as long as the ranking equation is balanced then it shouldn't be all too abusable, if at all. How do you envisage something like this being abused? Play Genji and just farming kills while flanking and your team loses? Great, you'll be recognised for the kills, but objective time and the loss will work against you, and the stats compared to other Genji's at that level will dictate how rewarded you are for the kills and how penalised you are for the objective time.

Then just account for team play by assigning a value. So furthering my last example, because 25% of Genji's kills were team based and the Genji average for that map is 40%, the team play factor will be slightly below the average, working against him.

Again, other than just a personal bragging rights pedestal, it's just not a feasible way to rank in team based games.

I disagree and I think penalising players for the matchmaking system grouping you with random players and losing even if you play incredibly well yourself is a halfhearted design.

What I think isn't feasible is your personal matchmaking rating being so heavily tied to random people. I'm proposing the team aspect of that takes a backseat and individual skill based on the meta-statistics for that hero are used.

- - - Updated - - -

I just want to mention medals may not, or may, mean much.

I've had games where I was playing S76, in ranked and dps isn't my main role, which I had 3 gold metals and I have terrible sustained aim (though I am good at Widow/hanzo).

I was being shitty as usual with S76 and I still had 3 gold metals. That doesn't mean I played well. It doesn't. I played shit. What this says is that my team as a whole probably played even worse than I did.

When a player that isn't playing good in your team gets 3 gold medals. That says something not about that person but about your team as a whole.

So no, medals aren't indicative of you being super good. At most, they're indicative of how well your team performed, like Endus said.

Which is part of my point, if you were good enough to get 3 gold medals then you were either incorrectly matched with people on your team, a failing of the matchmaking and ranking system - one of my greivences.

So yes, it does say something about your team as a whole, if you as a poor 76 player could get 3 golds, then either you were above them, or they were below you as a standard.

Under my proposed system, depending on how you did vs other 76s within your ranking range it would calculate how well rewarded you were.

I don't know if you won or loss that game but for the purposes of my example I'm going to assume you lost. Under the current system, you'd straight up lose rating. As Endus said, you might not lose as much based on your relatively better performance than your team mate but you still lose rating.

Again, another assumption - I'm going to say you're rank 2500. So here's a super bastardised version of it all:

The first thing looked at is your stats versus 76's between a rank range of say 2400 and 2600 for example. On the map you played, you scored below average on accuracy, below accuracy on kills, above on healing done, above on objective time, neutral on helix kills.

So from the off, you'll be unfavourable in accuracy and kills, but favourable in healing and objective and neutral on helix kills - how much is dependent on how far from the regional average you are.

You'd get a small bonus multiplactive coefficient for the gold medals because you're better relative to your team. so think 1.00 for nothing, 1.25 for 3 golds.

And teamplay would be look at, so lets say as 76 because you did a lot of healing to team mates that is looked on favourably, as is your assist kills and kills within the objective.

Then finally the loss coefficient is put in.

Ultimately because you did well on a losing team, you'll still lose rating, but on ~5. Because your team mates were much more below the average in that game, they lose more rating.

[Jessicka]

I disagree and I think penalising players for the matchmaking system grouping you with random players and losing even if you play incredibly well yourself is a halfhearted design.

What I think isn't feasible is your personal matchmaking rating being so heavily tied to random people. I'm proposing the team aspect of that takes a backseat and individual skill based on the meta-statistics for that hero are used.

Over multiple matches, it is not penalising anyone. It is rewarding players who have done what it takes to win matches. It's not tied to 'random people', it's tied to your own consistency.

If you play your best, you will lose 0 SR from that loss. I have personally done this, twice. Other matches I've lost as little as 3-5 SR. Those are net gains on potential losses of 30SR. If you win, but play like crap, you'll only gain 3-5 SR or something; that's a massive net loss of the 30SR you could have had.

What you're suggesting, ultimately, is a system where people will be effectively throwing matches just to boost their rewards; and people playing 'against expectation', but in order to get a win, and losing SR as a result. I think those are much worse and less healthy for the game.

[willtron]

Over multiple matches, it is not penalising anyone. It is rewarding players who have done what it takes to win matches. It's not tied to 'random people', it's tied to your own consistency.

If you play your best, you will lose 0 SR from that loss. I have personally done this, twice. Other matches I've lost as little as 3-5 SR. Those are net gains on potential losses of 30SR. If you win, but play like crap, you'll only gain 3-5 SR or something; that's a massive net loss of the 30SR you could have had.

What you're suggesting, ultimately, is a system where people will be effectively throwing matches just to boost their rewards; and people playing 'against expectation', but in order to get a win, and losing SR as a result. I think those are much worse and less healthy for the game.

Yah, you've entirely missed the crux of what I've been saying.

[Deleted]

Except its legitimately real. Its not an excuse.

It's not. It's just a terrible excuse for bad players to complain about their low rank.

[Jessicka]

Yah, you've entirely missed the crux of what I've been saying.

Which is? SR per match should not be determined based on the win or loss, but individual performance in that match?

Stop worrying about gold medals or even SR, and worry about win%. That has a much stronger influence on whether you're going to rise or fall in SR. And no, forced 50% does not exist.

[willtron]

Which is? SR per match should not be determined based on the win or loss, but individual performance in that match?

Stop worrying about gold medals or even SR, and worry about win%. That has a much stronger influence on whether you're going to rise or fall in SR. And no, forced 50% does not exist.

Woosh. /10chars

[Jessicka]

Woosh. /10chars

Well can you not be more succinct? And avoid using specific hero, particularly DPS, examples on specific maps, and not reference to medals?

Every complaint I've seen "My team mates were worse than me", well, they were evidently a lot worse than the opposition too: Underdog is factored in, so you lost less SR. You played well, so you lost less SR. End result, you didn't lose as much SR as you might had you played badly against a relatively equal team.

"I got golds". Everyone on your team can have golds. It doesn't make any difference whether you as Widow got 22 Solo kills, or you got 22 assists spamming with Junkrat. You both got gold. How does this merit which player did better? Hell, the Junk probably got higher damage too; but were they better? Meanwhile, D.Va's fusion cannons hit everyone for 12 damage and she also got 22 eliminations. Is that telling you anything useful at all? Does it tell you they also ate 3 ults, and gave a nice window with DM to take out Bastion/Turret/Sniper whoever safely?

"I got gold damage with McCree, my team sucked because Junkrat should have got gold". Again, doesn't factor in what your tanks or healers were doing, you're likely comparing with the one other DPS on your team. Maybe your Junkrat did suck, but it doesn't mean that relatively the other 4 players were so far behind you.

"X's accuracy sucked this match", so they're fighting Tracer, Genji and Lucio. Next match it's amazing, they're fighting Roadhog, Reinhardt, D.Va, Zarya with no Lucio for speed boosts....

Things vary too much, match to match, map to map - hell how's Lucio going to get environmental kills in Hollywood? Do you just not play him there so that 'stat' can't fail? You need to aggregate the average over many matches, but keep the priority as winning. That's what this system tries to do. Could it be better? For sure, but a system whereby winning or losing isn't ultimately what gains or loses SR is both confusing, and counter-productive to necessary teamwork.

[Deleted]

Finally managed master, two final games were king of the hill, won the first one 3-0 and second one 3-1, the games were much more even than it sounds. =)

Can't wait for that patch to give Mercy another buff though, think I died at least twice the same second I got my resurrection off.

Solo queued all the way up to master, and people said it wasn't possible back in Platinum. Ah well, doubt I'll manage to get much higher this season since we're getting close to the end. ^^

[ThatsOurEric]

It's not. It's just a terrible excuse for bad players to complain about their low rank.

It is. It's a justifiable excuse for the terrible RNG/MMR that plagues Overwatch at present and is responsible
for many players who solo que being unable to advance.

[Cattleya]

I'll never understand how people who whine about ELO Hell know that they're actually much better than the rank they are in.

Like how do you even know that.

When you're the same rank as the guy who picks Winston against a Roadhog and Reaper, you know something's wrong.
Now that doesn't necessarily mean I should be a higher rank than I currently am, maybe that guy should be a lower rank. But something's wrong regardless.

[Jessicka]

So this just happened



Fucking multiboxer of all things, absolutely stomped because he could only really use one hero at a time. Why would anyone do this?

[Endus]

It is. It's a justifiable excuse for the terrible RNG/MMR that plagues Overwatch at present and is responsible
for many players who solo que being unable to advance.

It straight-up doesn't happen. The system is set up specifically to prevent any such experience.

Here's a test. Play a bunch of matches. Enough to get at least 10 victories and losses. Track how much rank you gained for each win, and lost for each loss. If your gains per match are higher than your losses, on average, you'll gain rank over time. If they're about the same, you're pretty close to where you SHOULD be ranked, and your inability to rise much higher is because you're already where you should be.

You may be having bad luck and experiencing a streak of losses, but that's not "ELO hell", that's just bad luck. I'm still down about 200 points from where I started due to a bad luck streak. But I was 300 points lower than that, and I've recovered that much because "ELO hell" isn't a thing. And I haven't plateaued, I've just been too busy to keep playing and getting back up there.

If I run the above numbers, I'm losing about 20 rank consistently for losses, and 30 for wins. So I'm a little under-ranked, and rising slowly is what I can expect, if I get a 50/50 win/loss ratio.

ELO hell is a fiction.

[Jessicka]

Won 8/10 placements - the two I lost were the affore mentioned multiboxer, and a Hanamura where half my team didn't even push even though we were on 2/3 of Point A captured (by myself, Reaper and Sombra). So, thought it was going alright and playing pretty well against mid-gold and plat players. Places me at 1695, previous seasons placed me at 2300 (S2) and 46 (S1). What the fuck is that about?

[Endus]

Is there any truth in the fact that Supports (particularly Mercy) gain less rating?

Had literally the best match of my life on Hollywood, we defended the first point thanks to the fact I was Mercy for the clutch ress strategy, I didnt die once and was on fire from the 2minute mark, with gold healing. Then on the attack we done the same but with Ana and again, didnt die once, went round the back and slept our way through the tanks for an easy win.

Only gained 18 rating for a game where the enemy was 100 skill points higher as a team, whereas the soldier I queued with got like 25.

The fuck is going on here?

I play a lot of support. Haven't really noticed that significant a drop (though I generally play Ana/Zenyatta/Lucio, not Mercy). If you didn't get off many "clutch rezzes", though, that could be a clear reason why; your team simply didn't take enough damage for a support to shine.