Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
Correct, I haven't, but spinning off into minutiae and abstraction is making my point get lost, so let me say it absolutely clearly instead of through staggered counter-snips.
I consider the system Overwatch has in which you will gain more rank with one character than another fundamentally broken. I believe that evening that system out is as impossible a dream as creating perfect character balance, due to the huge variability possible in a complex game like this. If someone wants to raise their competitive ranking, the only question they should ever be asking is "which character is most likely to lead to a win in this match". The introduction of any level of uncertainty beyond that is a failed system. People should never be given statements like "If you want to rank up, you should play an assault character, because the metrics to determine your performance are more accurate right now". There should never be a situation where two or more players group and exclusively play as a group and can develop a different rating. Any system that does this is undesirable. The current system does this.
+6
Options
PaperLuigi44My amazement is at maximum capacity.Registered Userregular
Having just watched a recent recap video on the Sombra ARG, regardless of how it pans out, this stuff is fascinating. There was a heartbeat monitor displaying an alphabet code!
0
Options
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
So streaming is now part of b.net...but it is only integrated with facebook. I don't even use facebook!
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
Correct, I haven't, but spinning off into minutiae and abstraction is making my point get lost, so let me say it absolutely clearly instead of through staggered counter-snips.
I consider the system Overwatch has in which you will gain more rank with one character than another fundamentally broken. I believe that evening that system out is as impossible a dream as creating perfect character balance, due to the huge variability possible in a complex game like this. If someone wants to raise their competitive ranking, the only question they should ever be asking is "which character is most likely to lead to a win in this match". The introduction of any level of uncertainty beyond that is a failed system. People should never be given statements like "If you want to rank up, you should play an assault character, because the metrics to determine your performance are more accurate right now". There should never be a situation where two or more players group and exclusively play as a group and can develop a different rating. Any system that does this is undesirable. The current system does this.
Correct, I haven't, but spinning off into minutiae and abstraction is making my point get lost, so let me say it absolutely clearly instead of through staggered counter-snips.
I consider the system Overwatch has in which you will gain more rank with one character than another fundamentally broken. I believe that evening that system out is as impossible a dream as creating perfect character balance, due to the huge variability possible in a complex game like this. If someone wants to raise their competitive ranking, the only question they should ever be asking is "which character is most likely to lead to a win in this match". The introduction of any level of uncertainty beyond that is a failed system. People should never be given statements like "If you want to rank up, you should play an assault character, because the metrics to determine your performance are more accurate right now". There should never be a situation where two or more players group and exclusively play as a group and can develop a different rating. Any system that does this is undesirable. The current system does this.
Sure thing, chief.
You know, there are less smug, shitty ways to say "I disagree"
Correct, I haven't, but spinning off into minutiae and abstraction is making my point get lost, so let me say it absolutely clearly instead of through staggered counter-snips.
I consider the system Overwatch has in which you will gain more rank with one character than another fundamentally broken. I believe that evening that system out is as impossible a dream as creating perfect character balance, due to the huge variability possible in a complex game like this. If someone wants to raise their competitive ranking, the only question they should ever be asking is "which character is most likely to lead to a win in this match". The introduction of any level of uncertainty beyond that is a failed system. People should never be given statements like "If you want to rank up, you should play an assault character, because the metrics to determine your performance are more accurate right now". There should never be a situation where two or more players group and exclusively play as a group and can develop a different rating. Any system that does this is undesirable. The current system does this.
Sure thing, chief.
You know, there are less smug, shitty ways to say "I disagree"
Correct, I haven't, but spinning off into minutiae and abstraction is making my point get lost, so let me say it absolutely clearly instead of through staggered counter-snips.
I consider the system Overwatch has in which you will gain more rank with one character than another fundamentally broken. I believe that evening that system out is as impossible a dream as creating perfect character balance, due to the huge variability possible in a complex game like this. If someone wants to raise their competitive ranking, the only question they should ever be asking is "which character is most likely to lead to a win in this match". The introduction of any level of uncertainty beyond that is a failed system. People should never be given statements like "If you want to rank up, you should play an assault character, because the metrics to determine your performance are more accurate right now". There should never be a situation where two or more players group and exclusively play as a group and can develop a different rating. Any system that does this is undesirable. The current system does this.
Sure thing, chief.
You know, there are less smug, shitty ways to say "I disagree"
Note that I have elected not to use any of them.
Usually you're not supposed to openly say that you're choosing willfully to be a silly goose
Reminder that sarukun is an actual Blizzard shill.
Multiple grains of salt may be required when criticising their games near him.
This is 100% correct.
0
Options
Theodore Flooseveltproud parent of eight beautiful girls and shalmelodorne (which is currently being ruled by a woman (awesome role model for my daughters)) #dornedadRegistered Userregular
Correct, I haven't, but spinning off into minutiae and abstraction is making my point get lost, so let me say it absolutely clearly instead of through staggered counter-snips.
I consider the system Overwatch has in which you will gain more rank with one character than another fundamentally broken. I believe that evening that system out is as impossible a dream as creating perfect character balance, due to the huge variability possible in a complex game like this. If someone wants to raise their competitive ranking, the only question they should ever be asking is "which character is most likely to lead to a win in this match". The introduction of any level of uncertainty beyond that is a failed system. People should never be given statements like "If you want to rank up, you should play an assault character, because the metrics to determine your performance are more accurate right now". There should never be a situation where two or more players group and exclusively play as a group and can develop a different rating. Any system that does this is undesirable. The current system does this.
Sure thing, chief.
You know, there are less smug, shitty ways to say "I disagree"
Correct, I haven't, but spinning off into minutiae and abstraction is making my point get lost, so let me say it absolutely clearly instead of through staggered counter-snips.
I consider the system Overwatch has in which you will gain more rank with one character than another fundamentally broken. I believe that evening that system out is as impossible a dream as creating perfect character balance, due to the huge variability possible in a complex game like this. If someone wants to raise their competitive ranking, the only question they should ever be asking is "which character is most likely to lead to a win in this match". The introduction of any level of uncertainty beyond that is a failed system. People should never be given statements like "If you want to rank up, you should play an assault character, because the metrics to determine your performance are more accurate right now". There should never be a situation where two or more players group and exclusively play as a group and can develop a different rating. Any system that does this is undesirable. The current system does this.
Sure thing, chief.
You know, there are less smug, shitty ways to say "I disagree"
Note that I have elected not to use any of them.
Probably because you're a fucking douche
Is the Glorious Edict no longer in effect?
E: Oh yeah, admins and mods aren't restricted to silly goose.
Correct, I haven't, but spinning off into minutiae and abstraction is making my point get lost, so let me say it absolutely clearly instead of through staggered counter-snips.
I consider the system Overwatch has in which you will gain more rank with one character than another fundamentally broken. I believe that evening that system out is as impossible a dream as creating perfect character balance, due to the huge variability possible in a complex game like this. If someone wants to raise their competitive ranking, the only question they should ever be asking is "which character is most likely to lead to a win in this match". The introduction of any level of uncertainty beyond that is a failed system. People should never be given statements like "If you want to rank up, you should play an assault character, because the metrics to determine your performance are more accurate right now". There should never be a situation where two or more players group and exclusively play as a group and can develop a different rating. Any system that does this is undesirable. The current system does this.
Sure thing, chief.
You know, there are less smug, shitty ways to say "I disagree"
Note that I have elected not to use any of them.
Probably because you're a fucking douche
Is the Glorious Edict no longer in effect?
The Glorious Edict
The only insult that is permitted on this forum is “silly goose”. No other adjective may be added, you cannot call someone a “fat, stupid, silly goose”. The only exception to this is the moderation staff, who work hard for free and therefore can call you bastards whatever they so desire. We are aware that this is very unfair and consider it to be part of the fun.
Among the insults this covers (ie; all of them) is the insult “troll”. Accusing someone of trolling will be treated as an edict violation. If you call someone a troll and they are, then you are an idiot for doing what they want. If you call them an troll and they're not, then you are an arsehole for calling them names. Please use the report button if you have a problem with another user.
Correct, I haven't, but spinning off into minutiae and abstraction is making my point get lost, so let me say it absolutely clearly instead of through staggered counter-snips.
I consider the system Overwatch has in which you will gain more rank with one character than another fundamentally broken. I believe that evening that system out is as impossible a dream as creating perfect character balance, due to the huge variability possible in a complex game like this. If someone wants to raise their competitive ranking, the only question they should ever be asking is "which character is most likely to lead to a win in this match". The introduction of any level of uncertainty beyond that is a failed system. People should never be given statements like "If you want to rank up, you should play an assault character, because the metrics to determine your performance are more accurate right now". There should never be a situation where two or more players group and exclusively play as a group and can develop a different rating. Any system that does this is undesirable. The current system does this.
Sure thing, chief.
You know, there are less smug, shitty ways to say "I disagree"
Note that I have elected not to use any of them.
Probably because you're a fucking douche
Is the Glorious Edict no longer in effect?
The Glorious Edict
The only insult that is permitted on this forum is “silly goose”. No other adjective may be added, you cannot call someone a “fat, stupid, silly goose”. The only exception to this is the moderation staff, who work hard for free and therefore can call you bastards whatever they so desire. We are aware that this is very unfair and consider it to be part of the fun.
Among the insults this covers (ie; all of them) is the insult “troll”. Accusing someone of trolling will be treated as an edict violation. If you call someone a troll and they are, then you are an idiot for doing what they want. If you call them an troll and they're not, then you are an arsehole for calling them names. Please use the report button if you have a problem with another user.
Yeah I just checked it. Forgot that mods can still insult you.
I think that, in the long term, the only variable worth measuring is Wins/Losses. Limiting our analysis to solo queue for the moment (meaning you have no control over your teammates), regardless of character choice, you will ultimately put pressure on your win rate one way or the other. The problem is that "individual contribution to win rate" is an extremely noisy variable, and it will take a lot of samples to get a point where you can be confident that your assessment is accurate. Certainly more than ten games, which is already quite a bit of play-time. So I don't think that resorting to more fine-grained measures that converge quicker will necessarily have a less accurate result.
Like... say that an ELO based on W/L is perfectly accurate and independent of your character selection, but takes about 100 games to converge onto that perfectly accurate value, and this complicated collection of bizarre variables has a lower chance of being accurate and overrates or underrates particular characters, but stays within a reasonable range of the "true" value and converges in 10 games. Which system should you be using?
My favorite musical instrument is the air-raid siren.
0
Options
Theodore Flooseveltproud parent of eight beautiful girls and shalmelodorne (which is currently being ruled by a woman (awesome role model for my daughters)) #dornedadRegistered Userregular
playing support doesn't necessarily entitle you to being as high rank as a mccree who can actually aim
doesn't mean you should be ranked low
but accounting for individual player mechanical skill should be a part of your rating
this actively disincentives playing a support, though. Players shouldn't be forced to fall on the (minor) grenade of being undervalued by the system or say fuck it, someone else should have to do that this round
Especially among solo-queues, where there's no chance of reciprocal "I support this round, you support next"
playing support doesn't necessarily entitle you to being as high rank as a mccree who can actually aim
doesn't mean you should be ranked low
but accounting for individual player mechanical skill should be a part of your rating
this actively disincentives playing a support, though. Players shouldn't be forced to fall on the (minor) grenade of being undervalued by the system or say fuck it, someone else should have to do that this round
Especially among solo-queues, where there's no chance of reciprocal "I support this round, you support next"
i guess support should be given a boost just because they're playing support, but some metrics that affect high DPS characters (like accuracy), which is part of the ranking placement crap, should be replaced with like, support centric metrics. like, how many allies you saved when they had critical health, or how much extra damage you contributed, or how many times you buffed your team
still rewarding individual, smart play
0
Options
Theodore Flooseveltproud parent of eight beautiful girls and shalmelodorne (which is currently being ruled by a woman (awesome role model for my daughters)) #dornedadRegistered Userregular
higher skill in overwatch doesn't need to just be dominated by the people who can aim and shoot the best, anyway. If you're a high-level mcree I'm sure you'd rather have a high-level lucio by your side than another really good mcree who was forced to trot out his mediocre lucio because there was aready a mcree on the team
playing support doesn't necessarily entitle you to being as high rank as a mccree who can actually aim
doesn't mean you should be ranked low
but accounting for individual player mechanical skill should be a part of your rating
this actively disincentives playing a support, though. Players shouldn't be forced to fall on the (minor) grenade of being undervalued by the system or say fuck it, someone else should have to do that this round
Especially among solo-queues, where there's no chance of reciprocal "I support this round, you support next"
i guess support should be given a boost just because they're playing support, but some metrics that affect high DPS characters (like accuracy), which is part of the ranking placement crap, should be replaced with like, support centric metrics. like, how many allies you saved when they had critical health, or how much extra damage you contributed, or how many times you buffed your team
still rewarding individual, smart play
You know what happens when you are an individually good player?
You win more often than a player who is worse than you.
Because you are the constant in your game and a better player will win more against other good players and be ranked higher.
Rather than a bunch of metrics that I could actively play bad to pump up or weirdly encourage playing certain characters based on their ease of hitting those metrics.
+3
Options
KwoaruConfident SmirkFlawless Golden PecsRegistered Userregular
higher skill in overwatch doesn't need to just be dominated by the people who can aim and shoot the best, anyway. If you're a high-level mcree I'm sure you'd rather have a high-level lucio by your side than another really good mcree who was forced to trot out his mediocre lucio because there was aready a mcree on the team
I would much rather be junkrat and a have a pro junkrat be stuck as a mediocre lucio than not be junkrat myself
playing support doesn't necessarily entitle you to being as high rank as a mccree who can actually aim
doesn't mean you should be ranked low
but accounting for individual player mechanical skill should be a part of your rating
this actively disincentives playing a support, though. Players shouldn't be forced to fall on the (minor) grenade of being undervalued by the system or say fuck it, someone else should have to do that this round
Especially among solo-queues, where there's no chance of reciprocal "I support this round, you support next"
i guess support should be given a boost just because they're playing support, but some metrics that affect high DPS characters (like accuracy), which is part of the ranking placement crap, should be replaced with like, support centric metrics. like, how many allies you saved when they had critical health, or how much extra damage you contributed, or how many times you buffed your team
still rewarding individual, smart play
You know what happens when you are an individually good player?
You win more often than a player who is worse than you.
Because you are the constant in your game and a better player will win more against other good players and be ranked higher.
Rather than a bunch of metrics that I could actively play bad to pump up or weirdly encourage playing certain characters based on their ease of hitting those metrics.
you can win in spite of people though? why should someone who goes afk in the match every couple minutes feel entitled to the same placement as someone who tried their ass off?
a simple system doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be good. if you play really well as support, but go 3-7 in your placements because your dps can't take advantage of how awesome you are, you should still place higher than them. conversely, if that shitbag mccree places high because he was able to stack the individual metrics but is a shitty team player, he'll drop in ranks after he's placed like a rock.
No, honestly if you literally jack off in spawn the entire match and your team still wins in spite of you then you should still get the full amount of points.
Both because that's an absurd example that will likely never happen in a meaningful amount and because in competitive your goal should be winning. Not winning BUT also hitting X% of your shots. Not Winning but not as a support dear god I want to actually rank.
And if the response to that is 'well we can just adjust the system' all your doing is shuffling up the symptoms, not the cause. A different type of character will be bad for ranking or a certain weird behaviour will be encouraged (for example your stats of 'saving critical allies' and 'extra damage done' for supports encourages Mercy to pistol almost constantly and not keep people topped up).
Similar to the coin flip it's another case of Blizzard trying to fix what isn't broken.
+1
Options
Theodore Flooseveltproud parent of eight beautiful girls and shalmelodorne (which is currently being ruled by a woman (awesome role model for my daughters)) #dornedadRegistered Userregular
playing support doesn't necessarily entitle you to being as high rank as a mccree who can actually aim
doesn't mean you should be ranked low
but accounting for individual player mechanical skill should be a part of your rating
this actively disincentives playing a support, though. Players shouldn't be forced to fall on the (minor) grenade of being undervalued by the system or say fuck it, someone else should have to do that this round
Especially among solo-queues, where there's no chance of reciprocal "I support this round, you support next"
i guess support should be given a boost just because they're playing support, but some metrics that affect high DPS characters (like accuracy), which is part of the ranking placement crap, should be replaced with like, support centric metrics. like, how many allies you saved when they had critical health, or how much extra damage you contributed, or how many times you buffed your team
still rewarding individual, smart play
You know what happens when you are an individually good player?
You win more often than a player who is worse than you.
Because you are the constant in your game and a better player will win more against other good players and be ranked higher.
Rather than a bunch of metrics that I could actively play bad to pump up or weirdly encourage playing certain characters based on their ease of hitting those metrics.
you can win in spite of people though? why should someone who goes afk in the match every couple minutes feel entitled to the same placement as someone who tried their ass off?
a simple system doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be good.
of course you can in any single game, but I just have a lot of trouble seeing this player who repeatedly goes AFK in all of their games somehow hanging with the big dogs and continuing to succeed in spite of long-term half-ass play
the crux of it is that fairly determining player contribution in a game with this many roles, characters, character-switches, variables period has proved difficult enough that strict W/L is an easy preference for me
+1
Options
Goose!That's me, honeyShow me the way home, honeyRegistered Userregular
Posts
hey satan...: thinkgeek amazon My post |
Clearly you have never heard of the BCS.
I consider the system Overwatch has in which you will gain more rank with one character than another fundamentally broken. I believe that evening that system out is as impossible a dream as creating perfect character balance, due to the huge variability possible in a complex game like this. If someone wants to raise their competitive ranking, the only question they should ever be asking is "which character is most likely to lead to a win in this match". The introduction of any level of uncertainty beyond that is a failed system. People should never be given statements like "If you want to rank up, you should play an assault character, because the metrics to determine your performance are more accurate right now". There should never be a situation where two or more players group and exclusively play as a group and can develop a different rating. Any system that does this is undesirable. The current system does this.
they really want someone to care that they've got a video service
Sure thing, chief.
Initial reports suggest that it is bad.
At least friend that has tried it for streaming his DJ sets has found its stability somewhat lacking.
You know, there are less smug, shitty ways to say "I disagree"
Note that I have elected not to use any of them.
Usually you're not supposed to openly say that you're choosing willfully to be a silly goose
Multiple grains of salt may be required when criticising their games near him.
This is 100% correct.
Probably because you're a fucking douche
doesn't mean you should be ranked low
but accounting for individual player mechanical skill should be a part of your rating
At least there's a brawl to just do the new map though, ( and it's got a 1 hero limit too!)
Is the Glorious Edict no longer in effect?
E: Oh yeah, admins and mods aren't restricted to silly goose.
Has that patch with the Genji stuff come out yet or no
It's on PTR, not live yet tho I don't think
Yeah I just checked it. Forgot that mods can still insult you.
Like... say that an ELO based on W/L is perfectly accurate and independent of your character selection, but takes about 100 games to converge onto that perfectly accurate value, and this complicated collection of bizarre variables has a lower chance of being accurate and overrates or underrates particular characters, but stays within a reasonable range of the "true" value and converges in 10 games. Which system should you be using?
this actively disincentives playing a support, though. Players shouldn't be forced to fall on the (minor) grenade of being undervalued by the system or say fuck it, someone else should have to do that this round
Especially among solo-queues, where there's no chance of reciprocal "I support this round, you support next"
i guess support should be given a boost just because they're playing support, but some metrics that affect high DPS characters (like accuracy), which is part of the ranking placement crap, should be replaced with like, support centric metrics. like, how many allies you saved when they had critical health, or how much extra damage you contributed, or how many times you buffed your team
still rewarding individual, smart play
I did this the other day.
Junkrat is still my favorite.
You know what happens when you are an individually good player?
You win more often than a player who is worse than you.
Because you are the constant in your game and a better player will win more against other good players and be ranked higher.
Rather than a bunch of metrics that I could actively play bad to pump up or weirdly encourage playing certain characters based on their ease of hitting those metrics.
I would much rather be junkrat and a have a pro junkrat be stuck as a mediocre lucio than not be junkrat myself
you can win in spite of people though? why should someone who goes afk in the match every couple minutes feel entitled to the same placement as someone who tried their ass off?
a simple system doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be good. if you play really well as support, but go 3-7 in your placements because your dps can't take advantage of how awesome you are, you should still place higher than them. conversely, if that shitbag mccree places high because he was able to stack the individual metrics but is a shitty team player, he'll drop in ranks after he's placed like a rock.
Both because that's an absurd example that will likely never happen in a meaningful amount and because in competitive your goal should be winning. Not winning BUT also hitting X% of your shots. Not Winning but not as a support dear god I want to actually rank.
And if the response to that is 'well we can just adjust the system' all your doing is shuffling up the symptoms, not the cause. A different type of character will be bad for ranking or a certain weird behaviour will be encouraged (for example your stats of 'saving critical allies' and 'extra damage done' for supports encourages Mercy to pistol almost constantly and not keep people topped up).
Similar to the coin flip it's another case of Blizzard trying to fix what isn't broken.
of course you can in any single game, but I just have a lot of trouble seeing this player who repeatedly goes AFK in all of their games somehow hanging with the big dogs and continuing to succeed in spite of long-term half-ass play
the crux of it is that fairly determining player contribution in a game with this many roles, characters, character-switches, variables period has proved difficult enough that strict W/L is an easy preference for me
You obviously don't watch baseball
Matchmaking comes before hero selection.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Also this continues to be gold.