Every game I play in Storm League is completely one sided. It doesn’t matter if it’s a win or a lose. It’s as if either my team mates or those of my opponents have never played the game before. My rough, off the cuff, estimate that 9 out of 10 games is noting but an absolute clown fiesta.
Something just isn’t right here.
I don’t have that problem at all. More often than not my SL games are pretty balanced, stomps one way or another on occasion.
For a snowball-ish game like Hots is, are you really surprised that close games are rare? I am not.
This game is really fast paced and few mistakes can increase the time to snowball. There are comebacks, but I would say it’s harder to comeback than to snowball a game to victory.
There’s nothing snowball-ish about these games. In fact, many of them can still be won despite the clown fiesta. AND sometimes, despite the absolute absurdity of that, there’s a completely turn around in the game at the last minute. Usually because everyone suddenly loses their minds and can’t play anymore.
HOTS has pretty strong comeback mechanics, I find complete stomps to be in the minority of my games, especially so in SL which is what the OP was highlighting.
Compared to other Mobas then Hots snowballing is not so big of an issue then it is in other games.
Try and see how it is to get snowballed in games where no come back mechanics are.
Maybe that’s what plat games in general looks like, but bronze-gold and QM games are onesided to a high degree.
Honestly, snowballs are so rare in my games. I wish there were more stomps.
Yes, what could it possibly be? Could it be the person who has a distorted view of the game and comes on to the forums to make nonsensical complaints on a weekly basis?
I admit it might be an l2p issue, because people in lower elos tends to dying too much and that can escalate quickly.
I just noticed that a lot of my games in silver-gold tends to be one sided and in addition I see that heroesprofiles confirms it showing that most players wins around 60-70% in first to ten and only wins around 30-40% in second to ten. Only master player can manage an 50%+ winrate in second to ten.
I dont know man, players do some crazy crap.
Like a ming solo killing a boss or a li li trying to invade the opponents camp when the enemy is right next to them getting the objective.
Its a mad world out there.
Define “close”. Generally with HotS, I find games will zig-zag between teams. It rarely comes down to a core race, it’s more about who gets the upper hand in a crucial teamfight and pushes. There are stomps where you never get that upper hand, but often I find it does swing back and forth.
If close just means both teams never feel on the back foot, then that’s not what HotS does.
9 out of 10 games are Stomps. Not even a contest. Players pretty much running around like chickens without heads being completely uneffective.
making sweeping generalizations from low exposure to data isnt a good way to draw conclusions.
The functional issue of concern on a “stomp” largely stem from free-will actually existing. That means players have the capacity to not do the things that would make a game “close” esp depending on the context of the skill bracket. At lower arenas, not only is awareness going to be lower, but so is the incentive to keep on playing if they “already know” they going to lose, or possibly don’t care cuz they’re just playing regardless.
It largely depends on a league you are in, when I play on my account solo (dia/masters) games are definitely better compared to when I play with kids in silver/gold. There it’s a complete zoo with afks, throws, you name it, pretty much every other game.
Most of my QMs last well past 20. Close in levels, close in kills.
Most of my SLs don’t last until 20. 2-4 levels difference, 3-5x difference in kills.
Which makes me curious what causes these massively different experiences.
I think it is rather about different understandings than experiences. A game can be pretty close in terms of levels and structure conditions, and some players still call out “gg” early after some lost fights. I guess those are the same players that would call such a game a stomp after losing it, meanwhile the odds were more like 50/50 to win it.
One fight in end game can sometimes be matchmaking. You may have a close game, then lose one fight in end game, enemy team gets boss and and objective and it is over. Some people would already consider a scenario like this a stomp.
I wouldn’t consider scenarios like this a stomp, but my criteria is based on kill differences. If I see 5 to 20 kills I tend to say it’s a stomp. This shouldn’t happen, when players are equally strong.
I also mentioned that the most players have a 60-70% winrate in first to ten statistically. Why is that the case, if this game isn’t snowball-ish? Because in other words you can conclude that the chance to win from behind (second to 10) is around 30-40%, which is heavy. Only few good players can achieve a 50% winrate. That means at least that you needs to be very good to get less snowball-ish matches and that’s why the majority of players fails at it.
Usually thats where the game ends because the other team will use that opportunity to push a lane through a fort and keep to the core.
I think it’s fine.
If that number would be 50, it would mean that there is little to negative correlation between being ahead and winning, thus the first part of the game is just a waste of time - of no consequence, at best some hero practice. Since being 2-3 levels ahead is most certainly a win, even a 50% would require a negative correlation.
All the while being first to ten is a sign of being better, as XP is a meta score of performance.
Of course some games are really close, it’s a first-to-ten even if it’s by just one second. Some heroes scale better, or sometimes you make small mistakes, or even focus on some objective. But I used to have 80-90% I recall and that would be mad.
I like to think about slowballs as playing it out. Yes, they are ahead, we have a chance. Or from the winners perspective, you still have to earn it.
Easiest to draw a paralel with Formula 1. Those few years when a team was 1-2 seconds ahead the field, was a stomp, both embarrassing and without a chance for a win. But we want races to be close. On the other hand, Indy 500 is a pretty poor experience since the first 199 laps aren’t important except for staying alive. Just like the last F1 race, you can lead 95% of it but lose the last two laps. It feels a bummer.
On my way home from work I remembered this statement and a question came up.
I noticed a potential trend - didn’t go deep to verify it - of higher rated matches being closer. I mentioned in my previous post that my QMs have a tendency to be longer. I don’t precisely know the real skill levels involved, and I know my SL isn’t affected by smurfs (maybe the odd one).
Do you (also @Yusuke, the rank traveler) notice anything similar? Is it possible to explain? Is there some stat that can confirm or deny the observation, even? (The easiest one would be average team xp against rating as Heroes Profile has it.)