on defense they play more to the whims of the offensive team. they want to keep their distance, but the offensive team is always trying to close that distance, which can make it very difficult on them
when playing hanzo or widdow on offense, you have more control over your positioning vs the enemy, so you can maintain a 15 meter (or whatever) distance as long as you like and still push pretty decently (if you're actually skilled at the hero)
also you're typically gonna deal with less flankers when playing on offense
Yeah most of the characters that make Hanzo's life difficult are the ones that typically get played on offense. Half the time I play defensive Hanzo I end up switching because I'm losing all my effectiveness just trying not to get bumrushed by Genji/Tracer/Sombra/Pharmercy etc. What he really needs is to be left alone while he dumps out massive DPS, which is often easier on offense where the enemy team is unlikely to come out to you.
...When you can just blindly pitch arrows through the choke at head height, which seems to be about 80% of the kill shots I die to against him. The remaining 20% is because of scatter arrow bullshit.
Yeah I really dislike the scatter arrow floor shot, it needs to be redesigned IMO so it's used for its original purpose. In general I think Hanzo needs some design work to be a more well-rounded character who isn't seen so much as a newbie/troll pick. Sort of like they did to Bastion.
As well all know one of the main reason competitive players keep playing a game is for ranked in any game they play. They like proving their skills, climbing the ladder, being able to say "hey i'm among the best". But right now for S5 Overwatch's rank is actually pretty terrible. There's dare I say it, people that don't deserve to be at the rank they're at, somewhat "boosted".
This creates a huge problem for people that are actually at the rank they deserve to be at. It creates huge balance deficits because the matchmaker isn't actually determining their ability to play the game at the highest level, it's determining the most balanced "SR" match. Now i'm not saying some people havn't improved, people do, but the amount of people that actually go from 2k - gm/top500 is actually crazy, and when you have a 2k ABILITY player in a GM/top500 SR match, it leaves the team with that player that didn't improve with a big crutch.
But why are they a crutch? It's because overwatch is a team game, and not only a team game, but a game where hero composition matters ALOT (In high tier games atleast). So if anyone isn't pulling their weight in a match that's considered to be a "TOP 500 OF THE REGION" match, you're going to have a very hard time because you're essentially playing a 5v6.
I won't go on to talk about one tricks and ranked and how they effect it but rather how the ranked system promotes it and how it's unhealthy. Everyone knows the mercy problem at the moment, mercy mains that are gaining ALOT of SR because of the buff to her res because they are "outperforming" the stats of other mercys. So what changed? Did all the of the mercy mains that got to GM this season all of a sudden reach a HUGE improvement of skill in this season? Perhaps, but most likely because alot of those mercys would die after they res, which means they wouldn't necessarily win every fight they res. But as a result of the invuln buff, at the lower ranks, they would probably ALWAYS survive after resing, resulting in more fights won or them having less deaths. So in the past the system had all these "bad" stats for mercys, but now alot of mercys are staying alive and getting "good" stats. In return, the MMR system rewards them for their "performance".
You never really saw mercy before the buff, why is that? Well in masters - top 500 it's because players generally have an idea on how to play around mercy and will focus her down ALOT especially if she comes in for a res. When she didn't have invuln she would 95% of the time die after resing because she'd already be below 50% unless she was with a pharah. So we have a very low amount of mercy play in the masters - top 500 range for alot of seasons.
So if the stats comparison are being determined by what SR you're at, then when the invlun buff happened, as I said, mercys were surviving more. In low ranks, res most likely = win. So the mercys were climbing and once they got to masters/GM, there wasn't alot of stats to compare them too because those mercys at that level before either stopped playing her at all or fell off, which results in the matchmaking "performance" sr gains/loss to become lopsided.
Now I know i'm kind of just rambling and don't understand 100% of how the matchmaking works, but the main thing I wanted to talk about is I want a matchmaking system similar to dota 2's. Solid SR wins/losses, not "performance" based, you win more then you lose, you go up, you lose more, you go down. I want a SOLO QUEUE ONLY matchmaking.
Some people might have a problem with this, specifically supports and tanks. I hear stuff like, well you can only do so much to win, you can't exactly "carry" with those roles. Well, you're not meant to. Supports are there to enable the dps, they're there to sustain the tanks. You supports help the dps DO the carrying, you help the tanks SUSTAIN long enough to create space for the dps. What's the tanks job? They create space, they give the dps positional advantage to have more options to carry, they give the supports more space to help the dps and also protect them. That means that dps's job is to "CARRY", it's their jobs, they're the ones that kill the most things, to do all the damage. Yes, there will be times where you will enable and create so much space for the dps on your team and they won't be able to use it correctly, it happens. Your goal in ranked is to do the best of your abilities ON YOUR ROLE and hope everyone else does there's.
In the end, my point is, the SR gains/loss based on performance has only worked for so long, and we're starting to see the flaws of it. I think it's time we change to a more static mmr system with an mmr reset most likely. In the end, if you do your job better then the other team, if the matches are balanced, you will win. If you're slacking, you will lose. That's how I think it should be.
I just felt like typing this out, feel free to call me stupid or whatever be it.
0
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
Now I know i'm kind of just rambling and don't understand 100% of how the matchmaking works, but the main thing I wanted to talk about is I want a matchmaking system similar to dota 2's. Solid SR wins/losses, not "performance" based, you win more then you lose, you go up, you lose more, you go down. I want a SOLO QUEUE ONLY matchmaking.
Fuck. Yes.
Groups fuck with balancing so much and it's really shitty how often a higher-ranked player drags an inferior lower-ranked player way up into SR they have no business playing at. At the very least, solo players should get priority to play with other solo players, not used to back-fill SR gaps with premades.
As well all know one of the main reason competitive players keep playing a game is for ranked in any game they play. They like proving their skills, climbing the ladder, being able to say "hey i'm among the best". But right now for S5 Overwatch's rank is actually pretty terrible. There's dare I say it, people that don't deserve to be at the rank they're at, somewhat "boosted".
This creates a huge problem for people that are actually at the rank they deserve to be at. It creates huge balance deficits because the matchmaker isn't actually determining their ability to play the game at the highest level, it's determining the most balanced "SR" match. Now i'm not saying some people havn't improved, people do, but the amount of people that actually go from 2k - gm/top500 is actually crazy, and when you have a 2k ABILITY player in a GM/top500 SR match, it leaves the team with that player that didn't improve with a big crutch.
But why are they a crutch? It's because overwatch is a team game, and not only a team game, but a game where hero composition matters ALOT (In high tier games atleast). So if anyone isn't pulling their weight in a match that's considered to be a "TOP 500 OF THE REGION" match, you're going to have a very hard time because you're essentially playing a 5v6.
I won't go on to talk about one tricks and ranked and how they effect it but rather how the ranked system promotes it and how it's unhealthy. Everyone knows the mercy problem at the moment, mercy mains that are gaining ALOT of SR because of the buff to her res because they are "outperforming" the stats of other mercys. So what changed? Did all the of the mercy mains that got to GM this season all of a sudden reach a HUGE improvement of skill in this season? Perhaps, but most likely because alot of those mercys would die after they res, which means they wouldn't necessarily win every fight they res. But as a result of the invuln buff, at the lower ranks, they would probably ALWAYS survive after resing, resulting in more fights won or them having less deaths. So in the past the system had all these "bad" stats for mercys, but now alot of mercys are staying alive and getting "good" stats. In return, the MMR system rewards them for their "performance".
You never really saw mercy before the buff, why is that? Well in masters - top 500 it's because players generally have an idea on how to play around mercy and will focus her down ALOT especially if she comes in for a res. When she didn't have invuln she would 95% of the time die after resing because she'd already be below 50% unless she was with a pharah. So we have a very low amount of mercy play in the masters - top 500 range for alot of seasons.
So if the stats comparison are being determined by what SR you're at, then when the invlun buff happened, as I said, mercys were surviving more. In low ranks, res most likely = win. So the mercys were climbing and once they got to masters/GM, there wasn't alot of stats to compare them too because those mercys at that level before either stopped playing her at all or fell off, which results in the matchmaking "performance" sr gains/loss to become lopsided.
Now I know i'm kind of just rambling and don't understand 100% of how the matchmaking works, but the main thing I wanted to talk about is I want a matchmaking system similar to dota 2's. Solid SR wins/losses, not "performance" based, you win more then you lose, you go up, you lose more, you go down. I want a SOLO QUEUE ONLY matchmaking.
Some people might have a problem with this, specifically supports and tanks. I hear stuff like, well you can only do so much to win, you can't exactly "carry" with those roles. Well, you're not meant to. Supports are there to enable the dps, they're there to sustain the tanks. You supports help the dps DO the carrying, you help the tanks SUSTAIN long enough to create space for the dps. What's the tanks job? They create space, they give the dps positional advantage to have more options to carry, they give the supports more space to help the dps and also protect them. That means that dps's job is to "CARRY", it's their jobs, they're the ones that kill the most things, to do all the damage. Yes, there will be times where you will enable and create so much space for the dps on your team and they won't be able to use it correctly, it happens. Your goal in ranked is to do the best of your abilities ON YOUR ROLE and hope everyone else does there's.
In the end, my point is, the SR gains/loss based on performance has only worked for so long, and we're starting to see the flaws of it. I think it's time we change to a more static mmr system with an mmr reset most likely. In the end, if you do your job better then the other team, if the matches are balanced, you will win. If you're slacking, you will lose. That's how I think it should be.
I just felt like typing this out, feel free to call me stupid or whatever be it.
Pros keep saying this, but they are playing a different game than the rest of us. What about throwers? What about how much toxicity will skyrocket once you play anything even remotely off-meta? Going purely a win/loss system would be a shit-show.
When you are in the top 0.1% of players, your experience with matchmaking is always going to be pretty shitty. There simply aren't enough people at your level for the game to assemble 12 of them on short notice, especially given other factors like group size etc. They can observe that matchmaking doesn't work well and be correct, but it doesn't make their conjecture about how to make a good matchmaking algorithm more accurate than everybody else's theories on a system that we have zero visibility into.
That's the first time I've seen someone actually explaining some logic behind why there's suddenly so much animosity towards Mercy lately. The actual logic there (that it's because now she survives Res, so her performance stats are good but being compared to the old ones) is complete bullshit though. She got the resurrect buff in February. We already saw how fast SR tanks and self-corrects because of the fix to fire from assists on supports from the Orisa patch at the end of March. All supports were suddenly getting slammed for a period because their stats were suddenly much worse, varying from character to character, but Mercy and Ana were hit especially hard by it. By the time they got around to explaining what was going on (about 6 weeks later), it had more or less self-corrected. There's no way in hell it's still using performance stats from 6+ months, a bunch of patches, and two comp seasons back for comparison.
As well all know one of the main reason competitive players keep playing a game is for ranked in any game they play. They like proving their skills, climbing the ladder, being able to say "hey i'm among the best". But right now for S5 Overwatch's rank is actually pretty terrible. There's dare I say it, people that don't deserve to be at the rank they're at, somewhat "boosted".
This creates a huge problem for people that are actually at the rank they deserve to be at. It creates huge balance deficits because the matchmaker isn't actually determining their ability to play the game at the highest level, it's determining the most balanced "SR" match. Now i'm not saying some people havn't improved, people do, but the amount of people that actually go from 2k - gm/top500 is actually crazy, and when you have a 2k ABILITY player in a GM/top500 SR match, it leaves the team with that player that didn't improve with a big crutch.
But why are they a crutch? It's because overwatch is a team game, and not only a team game, but a game where hero composition matters ALOT (In high tier games atleast). So if anyone isn't pulling their weight in a match that's considered to be a "TOP 500 OF THE REGION" match, you're going to have a very hard time because you're essentially playing a 5v6.
I won't go on to talk about one tricks and ranked and how they effect it but rather how the ranked system promotes it and how it's unhealthy. Everyone knows the mercy problem at the moment, mercy mains that are gaining ALOT of SR because of the buff to her res because they are "outperforming" the stats of other mercys. So what changed? Did all the of the mercy mains that got to GM this season all of a sudden reach a HUGE improvement of skill in this season? Perhaps, but most likely because alot of those mercys would die after they res, which means they wouldn't necessarily win every fight they res. But as a result of the invuln buff, at the lower ranks, they would probably ALWAYS survive after resing, resulting in more fights won or them having less deaths. So in the past the system had all these "bad" stats for mercys, but now alot of mercys are staying alive and getting "good" stats. In return, the MMR system rewards them for their "performance".
You never really saw mercy before the buff, why is that? Well in masters - top 500 it's because players generally have an idea on how to play around mercy and will focus her down ALOT especially if she comes in for a res. When she didn't have invuln she would 95% of the time die after resing because she'd already be below 50% unless she was with a pharah. So we have a very low amount of mercy play in the masters - top 500 range for alot of seasons.
So if the stats comparison are being determined by what SR you're at, then when the invlun buff happened, as I said, mercys were surviving more. In low ranks, res most likely = win. So the mercys were climbing and once they got to masters/GM, there wasn't alot of stats to compare them too because those mercys at that level before either stopped playing her at all or fell off, which results in the matchmaking "performance" sr gains/loss to become lopsided.
Now I know i'm kind of just rambling and don't understand 100% of how the matchmaking works, but the main thing I wanted to talk about is I want a matchmaking system similar to dota 2's. Solid SR wins/losses, not "performance" based, you win more then you lose, you go up, you lose more, you go down. I want a SOLO QUEUE ONLY matchmaking.
Some people might have a problem with this, specifically supports and tanks. I hear stuff like, well you can only do so much to win, you can't exactly "carry" with those roles. Well, you're not meant to. Supports are there to enable the dps, they're there to sustain the tanks. You supports help the dps DO the carrying, you help the tanks SUSTAIN long enough to create space for the dps. What's the tanks job? They create space, they give the dps positional advantage to have more options to carry, they give the supports more space to help the dps and also protect them. That means that dps's job is to "CARRY", it's their jobs, they're the ones that kill the most things, to do all the damage. Yes, there will be times where you will enable and create so much space for the dps on your team and they won't be able to use it correctly, it happens. Your goal in ranked is to do the best of your abilities ON YOUR ROLE and hope everyone else does there's.
In the end, my point is, the SR gains/loss based on performance has only worked for so long, and we're starting to see the flaws of it. I think it's time we change to a more static mmr system with an mmr reset most likely. In the end, if you do your job better then the other team, if the matches are balanced, you will win. If you're slacking, you will lose. That's how I think it should be.
I just felt like typing this out, feel free to call me stupid or whatever be it.
Pros keep saying this, but they are playing a different game than the rest of us. What about throwers? What about how much toxicity will skyrocket once you play anything even remotely off-meta? Going purely a win/loss system would be a shit-show.
how on earth is purely win/loss going to make shitty people act any more shitty than they already do
+8
DragkoniasThat Guy Who Does StuffYou Know, There. Registered Userregular
Like I said...the rise in Mercy might have something to do with their only being 4 supports and Ana being harder to play with Dive being prevalent.
That isn't to say Mercy's ult couldn't be made more fun to both use and play against though.
But really we complain about SR every season.
0
H3KnucklesBut we decide which is rightand which is an illusion.Registered Userregular
As well all know one of the main reason competitive players keep playing a game is for ranked in any game they play. They like proving their skills, climbing the ladder, being able to say "hey i'm among the best". But right now for S5 Overwatch's rank is actually pretty terrible. There's dare I say it, people that don't deserve to be at the rank they're at, somewhat "boosted".
This creates a huge problem for people that are actually at the rank they deserve to be at. It creates huge balance deficits because the matchmaker isn't actually determining their ability to play the game at the highest level, it's determining the most balanced "SR" match. Now i'm not saying some people havn't improved, people do, but the amount of people that actually go from 2k - gm/top500 is actually crazy, and when you have a 2k ABILITY player in a GM/top500 SR match, it leaves the team with that player that didn't improve with a big crutch.
But why are they a crutch? It's because overwatch is a team game, and not only a team game, but a game where hero composition matters ALOT (In high tier games atleast). So if anyone isn't pulling their weight in a match that's considered to be a "TOP 500 OF THE REGION" match, you're going to have a very hard time because you're essentially playing a 5v6.
I won't go on to talk about one tricks and ranked and how they effect it but rather how the ranked system promotes it and how it's unhealthy. Everyone knows the mercy problem at the moment, mercy mains that are gaining ALOT of SR because of the buff to her res because they are "outperforming" the stats of other mercys. So what changed? Did all the of the mercy mains that got to GM this season all of a sudden reach a HUGE improvement of skill in this season? Perhaps, but most likely because alot of those mercys would die after they res, which means they wouldn't necessarily win every fight they res. But as a result of the invuln buff, at the lower ranks, they would probably ALWAYS survive after resing, resulting in more fights won or them having less deaths. So in the past the system had all these "bad" stats for mercys, but now alot of mercys are staying alive and getting "good" stats. In return, the MMR system rewards them for their "performance".
You never really saw mercy before the buff, why is that? Well in masters - top 500 it's because players generally have an idea on how to play around mercy and will focus her down ALOT especially if she comes in for a res. When she didn't have invuln she would 95% of the time die after resing because she'd already be below 50% unless she was with a pharah. So we have a very low amount of mercy play in the masters - top 500 range for alot of seasons.
So if the stats comparison are being determined by what SR you're at, then when the invlun buff happened, as I said, mercys were surviving more. In low ranks, res most likely = win. So the mercys were climbing and once they got to masters/GM, there wasn't alot of stats to compare them too because those mercys at that level before either stopped playing her at all or fell off, which results in the matchmaking "performance" sr gains/loss to become lopsided.
Now I know i'm kind of just rambling and don't understand 100% of how the matchmaking works, but the main thing I wanted to talk about is I want a matchmaking system similar to dota 2's. Solid SR wins/losses, not "performance" based, you win more then you lose, you go up, you lose more, you go down. I want a SOLO QUEUE ONLY matchmaking.
Some people might have a problem with this, specifically supports and tanks. I hear stuff like, well you can only do so much to win, you can't exactly "carry" with those roles. Well, you're not meant to. Supports are there to enable the dps, they're there to sustain the tanks. You supports help the dps DO the carrying, you help the tanks SUSTAIN long enough to create space for the dps. What's the tanks job? They create space, they give the dps positional advantage to have more options to carry, they give the supports more space to help the dps and also protect them. That means that dps's job is to "CARRY", it's their jobs, they're the ones that kill the most things, to do all the damage. Yes, there will be times where you will enable and create so much space for the dps on your team and they won't be able to use it correctly, it happens. Your goal in ranked is to do the best of your abilities ON YOUR ROLE and hope everyone else does there's.
In the end, my point is, the SR gains/loss based on performance has only worked for so long, and we're starting to see the flaws of it. I think it's time we change to a more static mmr system with an mmr reset most likely. In the end, if you do your job better then the other team, if the matches are balanced, you will win. If you're slacking, you will lose. That's how I think it should be.
I just felt like typing this out, feel free to call me stupid or whatever be it.
Pros keep saying this, but they are playing a different game than the rest of us. What about throwers? What about how much toxicity will skyrocket once you play anything even remotely off-meta? Going purely a win/loss system would be a shit-show.
how on earth is purely win/loss going to make shitty people act any more shitty than they already do
I think he's saying that when you play off-meta choices, toxicity skyrockets. In a purely W/L-based system, this would make life a lot harder for people whenever toxicity causes their team to lose, compared to the current performance-based system, where playing well can mitigate the losses.
sounds like the solution there would be to take action against toxicity instead of designing around the assumption that your players will abuse each other
As well all know one of the main reason competitive players keep playing a game is for ranked in any game they play. They like proving their skills, climbing the ladder, being able to say "hey i'm among the best". But right now for S5 Overwatch's rank is actually pretty terrible. There's dare I say it, people that don't deserve to be at the rank they're at, somewhat "boosted".
This creates a huge problem for people that are actually at the rank they deserve to be at. It creates huge balance deficits because the matchmaker isn't actually determining their ability to play the game at the highest level, it's determining the most balanced "SR" match. Now i'm not saying some people havn't improved, people do, but the amount of people that actually go from 2k - gm/top500 is actually crazy, and when you have a 2k ABILITY player in a GM/top500 SR match, it leaves the team with that player that didn't improve with a big crutch.
But why are they a crutch? It's because overwatch is a team game, and not only a team game, but a game where hero composition matters ALOT (In high tier games atleast). So if anyone isn't pulling their weight in a match that's considered to be a "TOP 500 OF THE REGION" match, you're going to have a very hard time because you're essentially playing a 5v6.
I won't go on to talk about one tricks and ranked and how they effect it but rather how the ranked system promotes it and how it's unhealthy. Everyone knows the mercy problem at the moment, mercy mains that are gaining ALOT of SR because of the buff to her res because they are "outperforming" the stats of other mercys. So what changed? Did all the of the mercy mains that got to GM this season all of a sudden reach a HUGE improvement of skill in this season? Perhaps, but most likely because alot of those mercys would die after they res, which means they wouldn't necessarily win every fight they res. But as a result of the invuln buff, at the lower ranks, they would probably ALWAYS survive after resing, resulting in more fights won or them having less deaths. So in the past the system had all these "bad" stats for mercys, but now alot of mercys are staying alive and getting "good" stats. In return, the MMR system rewards them for their "performance".
You never really saw mercy before the buff, why is that? Well in masters - top 500 it's because players generally have an idea on how to play around mercy and will focus her down ALOT especially if she comes in for a res. When she didn't have invuln she would 95% of the time die after resing because she'd already be below 50% unless she was with a pharah. So we have a very low amount of mercy play in the masters - top 500 range for alot of seasons.
So if the stats comparison are being determined by what SR you're at, then when the invlun buff happened, as I said, mercys were surviving more. In low ranks, res most likely = win. So the mercys were climbing and once they got to masters/GM, there wasn't alot of stats to compare them too because those mercys at that level before either stopped playing her at all or fell off, which results in the matchmaking "performance" sr gains/loss to become lopsided.
Now I know i'm kind of just rambling and don't understand 100% of how the matchmaking works, but the main thing I wanted to talk about is I want a matchmaking system similar to dota 2's. Solid SR wins/losses, not "performance" based, you win more then you lose, you go up, you lose more, you go down. I want a SOLO QUEUE ONLY matchmaking.
Some people might have a problem with this, specifically supports and tanks. I hear stuff like, well you can only do so much to win, you can't exactly "carry" with those roles. Well, you're not meant to. Supports are there to enable the dps, they're there to sustain the tanks. You supports help the dps DO the carrying, you help the tanks SUSTAIN long enough to create space for the dps. What's the tanks job? They create space, they give the dps positional advantage to have more options to carry, they give the supports more space to help the dps and also protect them. That means that dps's job is to "CARRY", it's their jobs, they're the ones that kill the most things, to do all the damage. Yes, there will be times where you will enable and create so much space for the dps on your team and they won't be able to use it correctly, it happens. Your goal in ranked is to do the best of your abilities ON YOUR ROLE and hope everyone else does there's.
In the end, my point is, the SR gains/loss based on performance has only worked for so long, and we're starting to see the flaws of it. I think it's time we change to a more static mmr system with an mmr reset most likely. In the end, if you do your job better then the other team, if the matches are balanced, you will win. If you're slacking, you will lose. That's how I think it should be.
I just felt like typing this out, feel free to call me stupid or whatever be it.
Pros keep saying this, but they are playing a different game than the rest of us. What about throwers? What about how much toxicity will skyrocket once you play anything even remotely off-meta? Going purely a win/loss system would be a shit-show.
how on earth is purely win/loss going to make shitty people act any more shitty than they already do
I think he's saying that when you play off-meta choices, toxicity skyrockets. In a purely W/L-based system, this would make life a lot harder for people whenever toxicity causes their team to lose, compared to the current performance-based system, where playing well can mitigate the losses.
I'll add that during season 2 and 3 people were absolutely convinced performance wasn't a factor in SR gains/losses and were begging for performance to be factored in. People absolutely livid that 5 other people could "drag them down" by causing losses, "trapping" in them in lower ranks they assumed they didn't deserve to be in.
As a matter of fact it was a factor all along. And from my experience people generally do end up where they belong, besides those who greatly abuse temporarily exploitable characters to game the system.
But now everyone know the system takes performance into consideration, and they're going to throw all the negativity towards that. Hell, some people doing so on the official forums are the same people blaming their rank on the system not taking performance into consideration 6 months ago.
When it all comes down to it, while the system isn't perfect, any change made to it will have another (generally legitimate) issue that will be latched onto by people it's not actually having effect on. A lot of complaints about ranked can be boiled down to that. Group vs solo queue? Doesn't actually change much for people because of the performance weighting. Performance weighting vs strict win/loss? Both have their drawbacks and can't really be pointed to while the system is so opaque. Leavers punishing their teammates? Should generally effect everyone, so doesn't really matter.
The system isn't perfect and they should continue to change and experiment with what gives people the best experience. But it's not as bad as people make it out to be.
As well all know one of the main reason competitive players keep playing a game is for ranked in any game they play. They like proving their skills, climbing the ladder, being able to say "hey i'm among the best". But right now for S5 Overwatch's rank is actually pretty terrible. There's dare I say it, people that don't deserve to be at the rank they're at, somewhat "boosted".
This creates a huge problem for people that are actually at the rank they deserve to be at. It creates huge balance deficits because the matchmaker isn't actually determining their ability to play the game at the highest level, it's determining the most balanced "SR" match. Now i'm not saying some people havn't improved, people do, but the amount of people that actually go from 2k - gm/top500 is actually crazy, and when you have a 2k ABILITY player in a GM/top500 SR match, it leaves the team with that player that didn't improve with a big crutch.
But why are they a crutch? It's because overwatch is a team game, and not only a team game, but a game where hero composition matters ALOT (In high tier games atleast). So if anyone isn't pulling their weight in a match that's considered to be a "TOP 500 OF THE REGION" match, you're going to have a very hard time because you're essentially playing a 5v6.
I won't go on to talk about one tricks and ranked and how they effect it but rather how the ranked system promotes it and how it's unhealthy. Everyone knows the mercy problem at the moment, mercy mains that are gaining ALOT of SR because of the buff to her res because they are "outperforming" the stats of other mercys. So what changed? Did all the of the mercy mains that got to GM this season all of a sudden reach a HUGE improvement of skill in this season? Perhaps, but most likely because alot of those mercys would die after they res, which means they wouldn't necessarily win every fight they res. But as a result of the invuln buff, at the lower ranks, they would probably ALWAYS survive after resing, resulting in more fights won or them having less deaths. So in the past the system had all these "bad" stats for mercys, but now alot of mercys are staying alive and getting "good" stats. In return, the MMR system rewards them for their "performance".
You never really saw mercy before the buff, why is that? Well in masters - top 500 it's because players generally have an idea on how to play around mercy and will focus her down ALOT especially if she comes in for a res. When she didn't have invuln she would 95% of the time die after resing because she'd already be below 50% unless she was with a pharah. So we have a very low amount of mercy play in the masters - top 500 range for alot of seasons.
So if the stats comparison are being determined by what SR you're at, then when the invlun buff happened, as I said, mercys were surviving more. In low ranks, res most likely = win. So the mercys were climbing and once they got to masters/GM, there wasn't alot of stats to compare them too because those mercys at that level before either stopped playing her at all or fell off, which results in the matchmaking "performance" sr gains/loss to become lopsided.
Now I know i'm kind of just rambling and don't understand 100% of how the matchmaking works, but the main thing I wanted to talk about is I want a matchmaking system similar to dota 2's. Solid SR wins/losses, not "performance" based, you win more then you lose, you go up, you lose more, you go down. I want a SOLO QUEUE ONLY matchmaking.
Some people might have a problem with this, specifically supports and tanks. I hear stuff like, well you can only do so much to win, you can't exactly "carry" with those roles. Well, you're not meant to. Supports are there to enable the dps, they're there to sustain the tanks. You supports help the dps DO the carrying, you help the tanks SUSTAIN long enough to create space for the dps. What's the tanks job? They create space, they give the dps positional advantage to have more options to carry, they give the supports more space to help the dps and also protect them. That means that dps's job is to "CARRY", it's their jobs, they're the ones that kill the most things, to do all the damage. Yes, there will be times where you will enable and create so much space for the dps on your team and they won't be able to use it correctly, it happens. Your goal in ranked is to do the best of your abilities ON YOUR ROLE and hope everyone else does there's.
In the end, my point is, the SR gains/loss based on performance has only worked for so long, and we're starting to see the flaws of it. I think it's time we change to a more static mmr system with an mmr reset most likely. In the end, if you do your job better then the other team, if the matches are balanced, you will win. If you're slacking, you will lose. That's how I think it should be.
I just felt like typing this out, feel free to call me stupid or whatever be it.
Pros keep saying this, but they are playing a different game than the rest of us. What about throwers? What about how much toxicity will skyrocket once you play anything even remotely off-meta? Going purely a win/loss system would be a shit-show.
how on earth is purely win/loss going to make shitty people act any more shitty than they already do
I think he's saying that when you play off-meta choices, toxicity skyrockets. In a purely W/L-based system, this would make life a lot harder for people whenever toxicity causes their team to lose, compared to the current performance-based system, where playing well can mitigate the losses.
As it stands now, just because some asshole won't switch off Hanzo, I can still play well to mitigate my loss. In a purely win/loss system, my only options are to lose, or somehow carry his dumb ass to a higher rank he doesn't deserve.
If you are solo queuing it becomes more luck based than skill based, throwers, leavers, and toxic people will keep bringing you back down and you will be 100% helpless to stop it because your performance doesn't matter unless you are good enough to win 5v6.
The reason personal performance is factored into ratings is so that people will adjust to an accurate MMR more quickly. Not just new players, but returning players and people who rapidly improve their play. The more quickly you get people to their true rating, the better the system works. Pro players have no reason to care about this because they all play a ton and they only match with others who also play a ton. But that's also why I would never trust them to design a matchmaking system.
That isn't to say Mercy's ult couldn't be made more fun to both use and play against though.
Jeff has said himself that "The ability is extremely powerful in a very unfun way for both Mercy and everyone playing against that Mercy. ", though he then goes on to say that he doesn't consider the overall game to be ruined by it and it's better to fix it slowly and carefully. And I think that's part of what is annoying people with it, the perception that it's not a particularly high priority for them despite how admittedly unfun it is.
0
DragkoniasThat Guy Who Does StuffYou Know, There. Registered Userregular
edited July 2017
I mean and I say this as someone who loves Overwatch but has also been playing shooters forever.
Compared to your standard FPS OW is a bullshit game full of bullshit. And that's why its so impressive cause if any other shooter did half the stuff it does the game would probably implode.
So yeah, Mercy's ult is high on the bullshit meter but in a game with varying levels of bullshit so yeah they can take their time.
The reason personal performance is factored into ratings is so that people will adjust to an accurate MMR more quickly. Not just new players, but returning players and people who rapidly improve their play. The more quickly you get people to their true rating, the better the system works. Pro players have no reason to care about this because they all play a ton and they only match with others who also play a ton. But that's also why I would never trust them to design a matchmaking system.
The problem is that the only thing they can really measure well is pure mechanical skill because it's a team game. I's trying to sort the people who have a similar level of mechanical skill together.
ie
We have Bob, who instantly always locks Genji and plays him at a skill level comparable to other Genjis at 3250 SR. And we have Fred, who flexes between Genji, Dva, and Zenyatta, all comparable to others at 3000 SR. They're both at 3000 SR. Bob is superior to other Genjis at his rank, so it wants to push him upward. He gets more for wins, and loses less for losses. Fred, however, is placed right where it thinks that he should be. He gets the same for wins as he does for losses. So even if Fred's record is better, and the teams he's on are more likely to win because they're more able to adapt, he's not going to climb much, and if he does, he'll be corrected back down. Bob will be pushed upward, even though his inflexibility will give him a lower win record.
In theory, a poor teamplayer and a good one should level out because picking poorly means more deaths, and deaths are a bad stat, and they'll have shitty games when forced out of their main pick. But more importantly, provide a dead period where you're accumulating no stats at all. In practice though, the Rambo player who rushes into a unwinnable fights forces the team players who are waiting and/or trying to group up to wait and accumulate almost the exact same inaction penalty, or even come out worse if the Rambo got a pick or did significant damage.
It's a really REALLY hard problem though, and I'm certain there is no good answer at all. The best one would be to do a good job filtering out the total assholes, but Blizzard doesn't seem to really be focused on that for god only knows what reason.
The reason personal performance is factored into ratings is so that people will adjust to an accurate MMR more quickly. Not just new players, but returning players and people who rapidly improve their play. The more quickly you get people to their true rating, the better the system works. Pro players have no reason to care about this because they all play a ton and they only match with others who also play a ton. But that's also why I would never trust them to design a matchmaking system.
The problem is that the only thing they can really measure well is pure mechanical skill because it's a team game. I's trying to sort the people who have a similar level of mechanical skill together.
ie
We have Bob, who instantly always locks Genji and plays him at a skill level comparable to other Genjis at 3250 SR. And we have Fred, who flexes between Genji, Dva, and Zenyatta, all comparable to others at 3000 SR. They're both at 3000 SR. Bob is superior to other Genjis at his rank, so it wants to push him upward. He gets more for wins, and loses less for losses. Fred, however, is placed right where it thinks that he should be. He gets the same for wins as he does for losses. So even if Fred's record is better, and the teams he's on are more likely to win because they're more able to adapt, he's not going to climb much, and if he does, he'll be corrected back down. Bob will be pushed upward, even though his inflexibility will give him a lower win record.
In theory, a poor teamplayer and a good one should level out because picking poorly means more deaths, and deaths are a bad stat, and they'll have shitty games when forced out of their main pick. But more importantly, provide a dead period where you're accumulating no stats at all. In practice though, the Rambo player who rushes into a unwinnable fights forces the team players who are waiting and/or trying to group up to wait and accumulate almost the exact same inaction penalty, or even come out worse if the Rambo got a pick or did significant damage.
It's a really REALLY hard problem though, and I'm certain there is no good answer at all. The best one would be to do a good job filtering out the total assholes, but Blizzard doesn't seem to really be focused on that for god only knows what reason.
That's the thing though, the amount at which performance is weighted isn't all that much. You're talking about a range of (at maximum) 20 or so SR difference win or lose.
If Bob is able to consistently perform well enough at Genji so that he's winning enough to make that difference be a climb then he's earning it. And being a one trick with one character isn't a great way to climb. I've played a lot of DVA in comp. 386 hours total across all the seasons. The next most character? Junkrat at 46 hours. I'm a pretty good Dva (well, in comp where I play very carefully). The highest I was able to climb was 2800 across any of the seasons. In season 3. 84 hours of DVA. But I only had a 50% win ratio as DVA with a 55% win ratio overall, so I never really would go up.
The weighting isn't enough were your example is actually something people experience in the game. Those one tricks may climb, but they have to get really lucky to have people who will actually go along with their picks in order to do so.
Edit: Sorry, after posting this I realized I'm being really dismissive here.
Death of Rats on
No I don't.
0
VivixenneRemember your training, and we'll get through this just fine.Registered Userregular
Monkey Ball WarriorA collection of mediocre hatsSeattle, WARegistered Userregular
edited July 2017
I really don't think exact hero choices matter at all unless your comp icon is extra shiny. I think it is more important at normal mortal ranks to focus on roles. A tank. A healer. Maybe two tanks. Maybe two healers. Fill 1-3 dps and 1 def for attack, 1-4 def for defense, and you are basically down to who knows their heros better and who can aim better and which team actually communicates effectively.
I don't think meta even exists until you're up in > 4000 range. Somewhere I have no expectations of ever being at.
Monkey Ball Warrior on
"I resent the entire notion of a body as an ante and then raise you a generalized dissatisfaction with physicality itself" -- Tycho
As well all know one of the main reason competitive players keep playing a game is for ranked in any game they play. They like proving their skills, climbing the ladder, being able to say "hey i'm among the best". But right now for S5 Overwatch's rank is actually pretty terrible. There's dare I say it, people that don't deserve to be at the rank they're at, somewhat "boosted".
This creates a huge problem for people that are actually at the rank they deserve to be at. It creates huge balance deficits because the matchmaker isn't actually determining their ability to play the game at the highest level, it's determining the most balanced "SR" match. Now i'm not saying some people havn't improved, people do, but the amount of people that actually go from 2k - gm/top500 is actually crazy, and when you have a 2k ABILITY player in a GM/top500 SR match, it leaves the team with that player that didn't improve with a big crutch.
But why are they a crutch? It's because overwatch is a team game, and not only a team game, but a game where hero composition matters ALOT (In high tier games atleast). So if anyone isn't pulling their weight in a match that's considered to be a "TOP 500 OF THE REGION" match, you're going to have a very hard time because you're essentially playing a 5v6.
I won't go on to talk about one tricks and ranked and how they effect it but rather how the ranked system promotes it and how it's unhealthy. Everyone knows the mercy problem at the moment, mercy mains that are gaining ALOT of SR because of the buff to her res because they are "outperforming" the stats of other mercys. So what changed? Did all the of the mercy mains that got to GM this season all of a sudden reach a HUGE improvement of skill in this season? Perhaps, but most likely because alot of those mercys would die after they res, which means they wouldn't necessarily win every fight they res. But as a result of the invuln buff, at the lower ranks, they would probably ALWAYS survive after resing, resulting in more fights won or them having less deaths. So in the past the system had all these "bad" stats for mercys, but now alot of mercys are staying alive and getting "good" stats. In return, the MMR system rewards them for their "performance".
You never really saw mercy before the buff, why is that? Well in masters - top 500 it's because players generally have an idea on how to play around mercy and will focus her down ALOT especially if she comes in for a res. When she didn't have invuln she would 95% of the time die after resing because she'd already be below 50% unless she was with a pharah. So we have a very low amount of mercy play in the masters - top 500 range for alot of seasons.
So if the stats comparison are being determined by what SR you're at, then when the invlun buff happened, as I said, mercys were surviving more. In low ranks, res most likely = win. So the mercys were climbing and once they got to masters/GM, there wasn't alot of stats to compare them too because those mercys at that level before either stopped playing her at all or fell off, which results in the matchmaking "performance" sr gains/loss to become lopsided.
Now I know i'm kind of just rambling and don't understand 100% of how the matchmaking works, but the main thing I wanted to talk about is I want a matchmaking system similar to dota 2's. Solid SR wins/losses, not "performance" based, you win more then you lose, you go up, you lose more, you go down. I want a SOLO QUEUE ONLY matchmaking.
Some people might have a problem with this, specifically supports and tanks. I hear stuff like, well you can only do so much to win, you can't exactly "carry" with those roles. Well, you're not meant to. Supports are there to enable the dps, they're there to sustain the tanks. You supports help the dps DO the carrying, you help the tanks SUSTAIN long enough to create space for the dps. What's the tanks job? They create space, they give the dps positional advantage to have more options to carry, they give the supports more space to help the dps and also protect them. That means that dps's job is to "CARRY", it's their jobs, they're the ones that kill the most things, to do all the damage. Yes, there will be times where you will enable and create so much space for the dps on your team and they won't be able to use it correctly, it happens. Your goal in ranked is to do the best of your abilities ON YOUR ROLE and hope everyone else does there's.
In the end, my point is, the SR gains/loss based on performance has only worked for so long, and we're starting to see the flaws of it. I think it's time we change to a more static mmr system with an mmr reset most likely. In the end, if you do your job better then the other team, if the matches are balanced, you will win. If you're slacking, you will lose. That's how I think it should be.
I just felt like typing this out, feel free to call me stupid or whatever be it.
Pros keep saying this, but they are playing a different game than the rest of us. What about throwers? What about how much toxicity will skyrocket once you play anything even remotely off-meta? Going purely a win/loss system would be a shit-show.
how on earth is purely win/loss going to make shitty people act any more shitty than they already do
I think he's saying that when you play off-meta choices, toxicity skyrockets. In a purely W/L-based system, this would make life a lot harder for people whenever toxicity causes their team to lose, compared to the current performance-based system, where playing well can mitigate the losses.
As it stands now, just because some asshole won't switch off Hanzo, I can still play well to mitigate my loss. In a purely win/loss system, my only options are to lose, or somehow carry his dumb ass to a higher rank he doesn't deserve.
If you are solo queuing it becomes more luck based than skill based, throwers, leavers, and toxic people will keep bringing you back down and you will be 100% helpless to stop it because your performance doesn't matter unless you are good enough to win 5v6.
Assuming you are not yourself a thrower, leaver, or toxic, the other team has a 20% higher chance of having a player who is a thrower, leaver, or toxic than your team. If that's the ONLY thing keeping you down then your rating should be skyrocketing.
Or, perhaps, you are exactly where you should be, and you are counting all the times your team has a shitty person and saying "clearly I'm unlucky and keep on getting these jerkoffs, no way there are this many awful people in the game!" only there are 20% more than that. On the other team. And your rating reflects it.
0
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
sounds like the solution there would be to take action against toxicity instead of designing around the assumption that your players will abuse each other
The toxicity exists because people are getting fucked by the shitty competitive system. If you punish people for being toxic instead of fixing the fucking problems, then the game will just die off or be filled with only asshole players (which is the same as being dead).
Right now, there are several problems with competitive, ranging from not being able to do anything to avoid griefers and throwers to the matchmaker just plain making shitty matches. If the system did at least a marginally decent job of separating actual players from people just looking to fuck around and screw up the games of actual players, then the toxicity would be a hell of a lot less.
BRIAN BLESSEDMaybe you aren't SPEAKING LOUDLY ENOUGHHHRegistered Userregular
Yeah I mean I don't think it's that causal to the extent that fixing the matchmaking issues will reduce toxicity by that much. People on the internet will be shit by nature in a competitive environment. Team blaming will still exist.
Also, punishing toxic players will have the non-toxic ones left over, so I'm fine with that.
I'd be cool with a spectator system, where toxic players can be reported by watchers. Maybe even offer incentives like loot boxes and skins only dedicated reporters would receive.
They could hit a button to record previous toxic in-game chat, have it sent along to Blizzard with evidence. Obviously that's terribly complicated and puts the burden on players/spectators, I just can't see a more elegant solution. Plus when it comes to throwing matches, often you'll only know because they explicitly say so.
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
So Rein has gotten a huge change and I think it counts as a buff. tl;dr y'know how sometimes charging would make people bounce away from you? That's been reduced to happening almost never now, either you pin someone or you miss them entirely. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zm6li0ppUb8
Following up from an earlier post, here is where we are at with reported/known/reproducible Reinhardt bugs and issues.
A few of the addressed issues (Fire Strike hit box, for example) were fixed before 1.13. The rest have either been fixed or iterated on in 1.13. All of these fixes should be available on the PTR by this afternoon.
Addressed Reinhardt Issues
Fire Strike hit-box was too small
A host of hammer swing issues affected by high network latency have been addressed
We’ve also increased Reinhardt’s hammer swing speed by 10% in general in 1.13
Several animation cancelling bugs (also high network latency related) have been fixed
Fire Strike and Charge animations now synch correctly regardless of network latency
Charge reliably pins targets instead of knocking them back (Note: we fixed a number of issues and all of the issues we were reliably able to reproduce. Because charge is a cone-based attack and latency is involved, there might be other issues that surface. Providing us reproducible steps or video clips will help us if additional issues arise)
Charge reliably pins targets when moving up steep stairs/ramps (see above note)
Remaining issues:
Earthshatter isn’t picking up targets under certain circumstances. We intend to fix this issue in the next patch.
+8
DragkoniasThat Guy Who Does StuffYou Know, There. Registered Userregular
edited July 2017
I got hit by the Earthshatter bug a few times.
Nothing like getting a 4 man Shatter only to get murdered instantly by the McCree who wasn't effected.
Hopefully they fix it soon cause I don't know if it was worth it just to change the few times you would hit a Pharah or Genji out of the air.
My biggest problem with other players is the dunning Krueger effect, so shitty players have no idea they're shitty (and thus, no incentive to find out why they're shitty). The feedback the game gives you is extremely limited and players flat out ignore it.
Thus you end up with junkrat mains who die over and over to pharah and refuse to swap while insisting that they're performing fine (they're not) or zaryas lobbing grav when their whole team's dead and complaining about lack of follow up. Or the much memed hanzo main who dies to monkey and complains about healing.
There is so little feedback (like an obvious k/d ratio, or dps/healing comparisons with the other team) that teammates are pretty much the only source of instant criticism or advice. And we all know how that goes.
0
Monkey Ball WarriorA collection of mediocre hatsSeattle, WARegistered Userregular
Someone on the internet tried to argue McCree wasn't a good tracer counter. I find this frustrating because I'm attempting to learn McCree right now partially to have a more effective "popular this week" counter, which this week means good Tracer and Winston counters. Winston... is hard to take seriously. Let's talk about Tracer instead.
"Tracer Counter" is almost an oxymoron because Tracers have the smallest effective health in the game, so ANY hero can kill them if they can catch her on cooldown. Instead, QP teams often just let them shoot healers and other squishies indiscriminately; they are either overestimating or underestimating her and I'm not sure which it is.
But if Tracer has her cooldowns up, what you need is lots of burst damage to drop her before she can run away or reverse time heal. And assuming one can actually aim, McCree seems exactly correct. The stun / hammer can just win the fight, and even without that two well placed shots will drop her, so if she doesn't TP or reverse right after the first shot, she's gone.
So... am I right?
"I resent the entire notion of a body as an ante and then raise you a generalized dissatisfaction with physicality itself" -- Tycho
McCree is supposed to be a Tracer counter, yes. In practice, a good Tracer can be very difficult to flashbang and if you're not hitting those then you might as well one shot her with Mei's icicles.
Also, why is it hard to take Winston seriously? He's in the meta for a reason.
DragkoniasThat Guy Who Does StuffYou Know, There. Registered Userregular
A good Tracer doesn't really have effective counters.
You have ways to contain her, yes, but nothing I would call a hard counter like with most other heroes.
+4
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
edited July 2017
I dunno about that, a competent Junkrat makes it pretty lethal for her to be running around. She covers so much ground that it makes it pretty easy for her to wander into grenades, a thrown concussion mine is great for dealing that final burst of damage to kill her before she escapes, and traps are obviously pretty lethal to her.
But a decent McCree is definitely a solid anti-Tracer choice, regardless. Great for bringing her to a standstill to finish off easily.
Ninja Snarl P on
0
DragkoniasThat Guy Who Does StuffYou Know, There. Registered Userregular
I dunno about that, a competent Junkrat makes it pretty lethal for her to be running around. She covers so much ground that it makes it pretty easy for her to wander into grenades, a thrown concussion mine is great for dealing that final burst of damage to kill her before she escapes, and traps are obviously pretty lethal to her.
But a decent McCree is definitely a solid anti-Tracer choice, regardless. Great for bringing her to a standstill to finish off easily.
I'm gonna have to stop you at Junkrat.
Meta is overhyped but Junkrat is probably the most situationally useful character in the game.
Also it depends on how confined your spaces are.
Dragkonias on
0
Monkey Ball WarriorA collection of mediocre hatsSeattle, WARegistered Userregular
Also, why is it hard to take Winston seriously? He's in the meta for a reason.
I've already expressed my opinion on "the meta": it doesn't exist except at the highest levels of the game, and I really don't care about what happens up there.
Monkey Ball Warrior on
"I resent the entire notion of a body as an ante and then raise you a generalized dissatisfaction with physicality itself" -- Tycho
0
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
I'd like DvA's ult warning to not be terrible plz.
If I'm gonna get hurt, show a yellow !
If I'm gonna die, shoe a red !
If I'm safe and hiding behind something to protect me, show a green !
So annoying to get red warnings even when I'm hiding correctly only to move, because the game is telling me I'm not safe, just to go die instead.
Also, why is it hard to take Winston seriously? He's in the meta for a reason.
I've already expressed my opinion on "the meta": it doesn't exist except at the highest levels of the game, and I really don't care about what happens up there.
Ok but have you seen a Winston who is even barely competent just completely change a game where one team is light on tanks? I find myself swapping to him an annoying amount in QP because he's very good against teams without an anchor to punish him. This isn't super high level play or anything. He is very good at chasing/finishing off heros with <200 HP and this isn't like an exceptional level of execution skill like McCree needs.
I'd like DvA's ult warning to not be terrible plz.
If I'm gonna get hurt, show a yellow !
If I'm gonna die, shoe a red !
If I'm safe and hiding behind something to protect me, show a green !
So annoying to get red warnings even when I'm hiding correctly only to move, because the game is telling me I'm not safe, just to go die instead.
Not classy, Blizzard.
Eh, I like it. Since it's based on distance instead of damage you'll receive it doesn't make the ult completely useless.
I mean, the ult i far more useful as a way to disrupt a hold than a way to get kills with how easy it is to get to cover, so forcing those dodging it to stay focused on making sure line of sight is broken helps the ult to be effect.
No I don't.
+2
VivixenneRemember your training, and we'll get through this just fine.Registered Userregular
Also, why is it hard to take Winston seriously? He's in the meta for a reason.
I've already expressed my opinion on "the meta": it doesn't exist except at the highest levels of the game, and I really don't care about what happens up there.
Ok but have you seen a Winston who is even barely competent just completely change a game where one team is light on tanks? I find myself swapping to him an annoying amount in QP because he's very good against teams without an anchor to punish him. This isn't super high level play or anything. He is very good at chasing/finishing off heros with <200 HP and this isn't like an exceptional level of execution skill like McCree needs.
Yeah look as a Support main, I would like DPS players in general to take Winston more seriously, because he can absolutely wreck our shit if we have no assistance. And this is me as a confident Zenyatta player; I can usually get him to quarter-health on my own before I die thanks to Discord, but actually surviving him usually means having someone else's help.
Winston is really good. Not an amazing Tracer counter but he's a nuisance to her. The only heroes he's really bad against are Reaper, Bastion and to a lesser extent Roadhog and Pharah. Just one of those characters he can work around (i.e. avoid), more than one and forget it.
Winston has always been awesome. The cooldown buff made him even better. Figuring out how to control his jump distances with the movement keys took my Winston play to another level. And yes, focusing him down is crucial. Not killing him is literally playing to his strengths. He pops in, maybe gets a squishy kill, definitely causes your healers to freak out and not focus on healing the dps, and then pops out. By not focusing him down immediately you are just letting him do his job.
Posts
Yeah I really dislike the scatter arrow floor shot, it needs to be redesigned IMO so it's used for its original purpose. In general I think Hanzo needs some design work to be a more well-rounded character who isn't seen so much as a newbie/troll pick. Sort of like they did to Bastion.
http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sq19n6
Fuck. Yes.
Groups fuck with balancing so much and it's really shitty how often a higher-ranked player drags an inferior lower-ranked player way up into SR they have no business playing at. At the very least, solo players should get priority to play with other solo players, not used to back-fill SR gaps with premades.
Pros keep saying this, but they are playing a different game than the rest of us. What about throwers? What about how much toxicity will skyrocket once you play anything even remotely off-meta? Going purely a win/loss system would be a shit-show.
how on earth is purely win/loss going to make shitty people act any more shitty than they already do
That isn't to say Mercy's ult couldn't be made more fun to both use and play against though.
But really we complain about SR every season.
I think he's saying that when you play off-meta choices, toxicity skyrockets. In a purely W/L-based system, this would make life a lot harder for people whenever toxicity causes their team to lose, compared to the current performance-based system, where playing well can mitigate the losses.
I'll add that during season 2 and 3 people were absolutely convinced performance wasn't a factor in SR gains/losses and were begging for performance to be factored in. People absolutely livid that 5 other people could "drag them down" by causing losses, "trapping" in them in lower ranks they assumed they didn't deserve to be in.
As a matter of fact it was a factor all along. And from my experience people generally do end up where they belong, besides those who greatly abuse temporarily exploitable characters to game the system.
But now everyone know the system takes performance into consideration, and they're going to throw all the negativity towards that. Hell, some people doing so on the official forums are the same people blaming their rank on the system not taking performance into consideration 6 months ago.
When it all comes down to it, while the system isn't perfect, any change made to it will have another (generally legitimate) issue that will be latched onto by people it's not actually having effect on. A lot of complaints about ranked can be boiled down to that. Group vs solo queue? Doesn't actually change much for people because of the performance weighting. Performance weighting vs strict win/loss? Both have their drawbacks and can't really be pointed to while the system is so opaque. Leavers punishing their teammates? Should generally effect everyone, so doesn't really matter.
The system isn't perfect and they should continue to change and experiment with what gives people the best experience. But it's not as bad as people make it out to be.
As it stands now, just because some asshole won't switch off Hanzo, I can still play well to mitigate my loss. In a purely win/loss system, my only options are to lose, or somehow carry his dumb ass to a higher rank he doesn't deserve.
If you are solo queuing it becomes more luck based than skill based, throwers, leavers, and toxic people will keep bringing you back down and you will be 100% helpless to stop it because your performance doesn't matter unless you are good enough to win 5v6.
Jeff has said himself that "The ability is extremely powerful in a very unfun way for both Mercy and everyone playing against that Mercy. ", though he then goes on to say that he doesn't consider the overall game to be ruined by it and it's better to fix it slowly and carefully. And I think that's part of what is annoying people with it, the perception that it's not a particularly high priority for them despite how admittedly unfun it is.
Compared to your standard FPS OW is a bullshit game full of bullshit. And that's why its so impressive cause if any other shooter did half the stuff it does the game would probably implode.
So yeah, Mercy's ult is high on the bullshit meter but in a game with varying levels of bullshit so yeah they can take their time.
The problem is that the only thing they can really measure well is pure mechanical skill because it's a team game. I's trying to sort the people who have a similar level of mechanical skill together.
ie
We have Bob, who instantly always locks Genji and plays him at a skill level comparable to other Genjis at 3250 SR. And we have Fred, who flexes between Genji, Dva, and Zenyatta, all comparable to others at 3000 SR. They're both at 3000 SR. Bob is superior to other Genjis at his rank, so it wants to push him upward. He gets more for wins, and loses less for losses. Fred, however, is placed right where it thinks that he should be. He gets the same for wins as he does for losses. So even if Fred's record is better, and the teams he's on are more likely to win because they're more able to adapt, he's not going to climb much, and if he does, he'll be corrected back down. Bob will be pushed upward, even though his inflexibility will give him a lower win record.
In theory, a poor teamplayer and a good one should level out because picking poorly means more deaths, and deaths are a bad stat, and they'll have shitty games when forced out of their main pick. But more importantly, provide a dead period where you're accumulating no stats at all. In practice though, the Rambo player who rushes into a unwinnable fights forces the team players who are waiting and/or trying to group up to wait and accumulate almost the exact same inaction penalty, or even come out worse if the Rambo got a pick or did significant damage.
It's a really REALLY hard problem though, and I'm certain there is no good answer at all. The best one would be to do a good job filtering out the total assholes, but Blizzard doesn't seem to really be focused on that for god only knows what reason.
That's the thing though, the amount at which performance is weighted isn't all that much. You're talking about a range of (at maximum) 20 or so SR difference win or lose.
If Bob is able to consistently perform well enough at Genji so that he's winning enough to make that difference be a climb then he's earning it. And being a one trick with one character isn't a great way to climb. I've played a lot of DVA in comp. 386 hours total across all the seasons. The next most character? Junkrat at 46 hours. I'm a pretty good Dva (well, in comp where I play very carefully). The highest I was able to climb was 2800 across any of the seasons. In season 3. 84 hours of DVA. But I only had a 50% win ratio as DVA with a 55% win ratio overall, so I never really would go up.
The weighting isn't enough were your example is actually something people experience in the game. Those one tricks may climb, but they have to get really lucky to have people who will actually go along with their picks in order to do so.
Edit: Sorry, after posting this I realized I'm being really dismissive here.
Ana got nerfed just before a Dive-heavy meta and even when you're NOT against a Dive comp, there are barriers EVERYWHERE.
Winston, Rein, Orisa, and Symm can really fuck you up and make you reposition to be able to do your job, often to a more vulnerable location.
Plus, we've recently played against D Va's who focus on D.M.-ing as much of Ana's healing as she can, and THAT is no fun at all.
I don't think meta even exists until you're up in > 4000 range. Somewhere I have no expectations of ever being at.
Assuming you are not yourself a thrower, leaver, or toxic, the other team has a 20% higher chance of having a player who is a thrower, leaver, or toxic than your team. If that's the ONLY thing keeping you down then your rating should be skyrocketing.
Or, perhaps, you are exactly where you should be, and you are counting all the times your team has a shitty person and saying "clearly I'm unlucky and keep on getting these jerkoffs, no way there are this many awful people in the game!" only there are 20% more than that. On the other team. And your rating reflects it.
The toxicity exists because people are getting fucked by the shitty competitive system. If you punish people for being toxic instead of fixing the fucking problems, then the game will just die off or be filled with only asshole players (which is the same as being dead).
Right now, there are several problems with competitive, ranging from not being able to do anything to avoid griefers and throwers to the matchmaker just plain making shitty matches. If the system did at least a marginally decent job of separating actual players from people just looking to fuck around and screw up the games of actual players, then the toxicity would be a hell of a lot less.
Also, punishing toxic players will have the non-toxic ones left over, so I'm fine with that.
They could hit a button to record previous toxic in-game chat, have it sent along to Blizzard with evidence. Obviously that's terribly complicated and puts the burden on players/spectators, I just can't see a more elegant solution. Plus when it comes to throwing matches, often you'll only know because they explicitly say so.
PS - Local_H_Jay
Sub me on Youtube
And Twitch
Nothing like getting a 4 man Shatter only to get murdered instantly by the McCree who wasn't effected.
Hopefully they fix it soon cause I don't know if it was worth it just to change the few times you would hit a Pharah or Genji out of the air.
Thus you end up with junkrat mains who die over and over to pharah and refuse to swap while insisting that they're performing fine (they're not) or zaryas lobbing grav when their whole team's dead and complaining about lack of follow up. Or the much memed hanzo main who dies to monkey and complains about healing.
There is so little feedback (like an obvious k/d ratio, or dps/healing comparisons with the other team) that teammates are pretty much the only source of instant criticism or advice. And we all know how that goes.
"Tracer Counter" is almost an oxymoron because Tracers have the smallest effective health in the game, so ANY hero can kill them if they can catch her on cooldown. Instead, QP teams often just let them shoot healers and other squishies indiscriminately; they are either overestimating or underestimating her and I'm not sure which it is.
But if Tracer has her cooldowns up, what you need is lots of burst damage to drop her before she can run away or reverse time heal. And assuming one can actually aim, McCree seems exactly correct. The stun / hammer can just win the fight, and even without that two well placed shots will drop her, so if she doesn't TP or reverse right after the first shot, she's gone.
So... am I right?
Also, why is it hard to take Winston seriously? He's in the meta for a reason.
Steam: MightyPotatoKing
You have ways to contain her, yes, but nothing I would call a hard counter like with most other heroes.
But a decent McCree is definitely a solid anti-Tracer choice, regardless. Great for bringing her to a standstill to finish off easily.
I'm gonna have to stop you at Junkrat.
Meta is overhyped but Junkrat is probably the most situationally useful character in the game.
Also it depends on how confined your spaces are.
I've already expressed my opinion on "the meta": it doesn't exist except at the highest levels of the game, and I really don't care about what happens up there.
If I'm gonna get hurt, show a yellow !
If I'm gonna die, shoe a red !
If I'm safe and hiding behind something to protect me, show a green !
So annoying to get red warnings even when I'm hiding correctly only to move, because the game is telling me I'm not safe, just to go die instead.
Not classy, Blizzard.
Ok but have you seen a Winston who is even barely competent just completely change a game where one team is light on tanks? I find myself swapping to him an annoying amount in QP because he's very good against teams without an anchor to punish him. This isn't super high level play or anything. He is very good at chasing/finishing off heros with <200 HP and this isn't like an exceptional level of execution skill like McCree needs.
Eh, I like it. Since it's based on distance instead of damage you'll receive it doesn't make the ult completely useless.
I mean, the ult i far more useful as a way to disrupt a hold than a way to get kills with how easy it is to get to cover, so forcing those dodging it to stay focused on making sure line of sight is broken helps the ult to be effect.
Yeah look as a Support main, I would like DPS players in general to take Winston more seriously, because he can absolutely wreck our shit if we have no assistance. And this is me as a confident Zenyatta player; I can usually get him to quarter-health on my own before I die thanks to Discord, but actually surviving him usually means having someone else's help.