I think the whole point of this thread is strange team comps that gives 1 team an obvious advantage or disadvantage.
I wait less then a minute for a QM match only to get 2 tanks on my team while they have 1 and then shockingly… my team can’t put out enough dmg to win a team fight.
I’d gladly have a longer queue and avoid a 20 minute unwinnable game that is a waste of time.
The distinction is only ‘obvious’ because a person looking to complain is looking for something to complain. That’s why you see people make topics that argue for the opposite happening of a previous complaint they had. So the ‘obvious’ flaw comes down to the game having been lost, and not necessarily the pick at hand, otherwise they wouldn’t have games in their history that show them overcoming the very thing they’re complaining about in pretty much the next game they play.
If the ‘flaw’ isn’t “obvious” then they won’t notice it because it has to be a easy scapegoat to catch their attention. If they were the sort to pay better attention, then they would fault something else instead, so the loop of it being “obvious” is essentially a confession of ignorance and bias by people that can’t be bothered otherwise. Which is part of why cycles of these topics loop with the same people over and over again and don’t show any change whatsoever, esp when it’s something of their own ‘fault’ – ie, lacking self awareness.
Blizzard did that long time ago but had to revert it back again since que time sky rocket and made a lot of people angry so now we are back to how qm always has been. Making qm with forced tanks and healers made qm que too long for some people.
Also im all in for having more rewards for people that que up as tank or healer since properly 80% of qm players are dps mains.
wtf? low crowd control and damage?
stitches= stun , slow , reduce damage , silence (gorge).
muradin= stun , slow , reduced attack speed , 3rd attack stun, 90%slow talented
omg i had this game when muradin had 90k damage and we had ming.
WTF ARE U SAYING HERE?!!?!?1?
Literally Garrosh by himself is more impressive. He has a more reliable stun than Muradin and a more reliable displacement than Stitches. Garrosh by himself would also allow for another DPS on the team to follow up on the displacement more easily.
He has an 80% slow on Dwarf Toss with Heavy Impact. However, to get that he has to give up Give 'Em the Axe, negating his high damage; or Skullcracker, negating the AA stun you listed. Basically, he specializes in one third of the effectiveness you listed.
I’d say it’s obvious that team comp matters and hero match ups matter. That is not just some convenient observation, it’s absolutely true.
The mmr in quick match seems to put little emphasis on those things leading to unsurprisingly one sided match.
Not sure what is worse:
Oh, sorry. I didn’t realize I was supposed to sit back and let the OP spread lies and exaggerated nonsense just because he’s salty. We shouldn’t give our opinions on this platform meant for public discussions. It’s actually more of a personal blog.
I’ll be sure to improve my behavior going forward (something the OP has never done).
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but guess what? So is the OP.
The overarching point of this thread is that bad team comps frequently ruin games in QM. That is true. Whether the OP mistakenly said someone is a tank instead of a bruiser, the point remains.
When the game has been lost at the loading screen, thats a problem. And its worth waiting a little longer in the queue to avoid having the next 20 minutes of your life be a complete waste of time.
This. It’s amazing that this far into the game’s life, people still expect QM to be “let me draft literally whatever I want and Blizzard should compile a team based on that around MY pick.”
Come on, can’t QM just be a quick match? One single quick singular match?
Zarya should be a Bruiser. She’s too sturdy for a Support role.
The only thing I expect is for QM not to be a waste of time. Right now about a 3rd of my games are.
Is it really rocket science to have the MMR determine there shouldnt be 1 tank on one side and 2 tanks on the other? Or put together team A, and on team B have the counters to team A… But hey, at least it was a quick queue!
Whats the point to playing those games?
“entitled” is about the second worst word ever. I’d about just teach people it’s more vulgar than any singular term thus dubbed a ‘swear’.
If a person is ‘mistaken’ on the label of a hero, then that indicates a lack of understanding and experience with the capacities of said hero. When people don’t understand something, then they tend to be frustrated. So the ‘entitled’ aspect of an opinion loses some of its value when something is an expression of misunderstanding especially when changing their understanding then changes their opinion.
And that’s a problem from the onset. Games are a waste of time. That is their nature, their goal, their function.
The “point” of playing a game is to play it. People that tend to be the most vehement on their opinion (determining the game to be ‘lost’) tend to have a low understanding of the game and that’s part of why they are frustrated. They have disconnected expectations with ‘reality’, feel “entitled” to revel in ignorance, and otherwise fault any and everything else they can because they already think they’re “right” that they’re too busy to bother to check.
And that’s part of the biggest difference between players that play the game, and climb, and those that bellyache and stack stuck: people that look to know more, and get better do; and those that regulate everything else to holding them back get stuck.
Being “entitled” to an opinion is rationalization to expecting the world to turn around them to change a lightbulb rather than learning how to twist their own wrist (for themselves) and making that change with their own efforts.
The constant “oh, the game is lost what’s the point” evidently didn’t learn “it’s not about winning or losing, it’s playing the game”. While competitive events may see an issue on not having a “chance” to win, it wasn’t ever about chances. What’s the point of playing Mario if you’re going to die? At some point, at some time, a player does not play a game perfectly (especially not their first time) so of course they have to be willing to ‘lose’ at some point. The existence of a ‘challenge’ comes from losing; and people can endure ‘fun’ by playing games once they learn how to ‘have fun’ regardless of win or lose. And once they know more about how to do something, the ‘chance’ of them getting those ‘wins’ increases.
All the typical metrics people complain about determining a win have just as, if not more, occasions to show that that simple isn’t the case. But people refuse to notice that because they’re “entitled” to the opinion that they’re already right, and everyone else isn’t.
To ‘deserve’ something comes from actions that indicate some sort of value (reward or punishment) but to be “entitled” assumes people ‘deserve’ something without any effort of value put forth. For those unwilling to put in that effort, of course being “entitled” is appealing: if people don’t need to try to “deserve” then why would they?
And that’s the issue of the cycle; people want to ‘deserve’ it, but when the consequences aren’t what they want, then they protest the reality without wanting to know more, do better, or change themselves.
The “point” of any activity is to actually do the activity. But chronic complaints try to substitute anything else, and fault others for their own inaction. How very “entitled” of them, and their opinion.
The point is to find a quick game and start playing with individuals who equally want to spin the wheel of comp fortune and just get into the game immediately. That might be what you think but it’s not a waste of time for others. Lots of strange things happens in there because of the wonky teams. It’s like a gachapon machine.
Because when it’s 1 into 2 then that’ll be the complaint, “how could we possibly get Anub into full physical.” “Why did we get Muradin when they had all the knockback.” Or worse yet, compositions in QM get curated and now games take longer queue times, and what then? We get a new set of complaints.
There’s no winning here. One demographic will consistently be displeased.
Because when it’s 1 into 2 then that’ll be the complaint, “how could we possibly get Anub into full physical.” “Why did we get Muradin when they had all the knockback.” Or worse yet, compositions in QM get curated and now games take longer queue times, and what then? We get a new set of complaints.
There’s no winning here. One demographic will consistently be displeased.
So if you cant make it perfect, dont make it better? I would say include balancing any counters or mis-matches as best they can. They arent gonna re-write the MMR but some of the changes are easy and likely not done to expedite wait times at the expense of match quality.
ARAM is perfect for ‘spin the wheel’ action. The word ‘Random’ is in the name for a reason. I thought the point of QM was to bypass sitting through a 10 minute draft to play a 20 minute game.
Whoa… theres a lot there. By entitled, all that I mean is you are allowed to have an opinion. I am allowed to have an opinion.
The reason anyone does anything is either to avoid pain or gain pleasure. If a unwinnable QM match gives you neither… again, why do it?
People come video game forums because when they arent playing the game, they enjoy talking about the game. That includes opinions you are gonna like, and opinions you arent gonna like. Best way to deal with the ones you dont like…ignore them. Nothing will make a thread go away faster than 0 comments.
This is not rare. Been happening routinely. First game today:
Team A: Dva, Blaze, Gazlowe
Team B: Mei
No pre-mades.
Wont tell you which team I was on but it was another no contest.
The point is that warriors (tanks, bruisers, whatever, still warriors) do too much damage, too much self healing, and several enjoy mobility, such that putting 3 on a team is pretty much gg before you get to play the game.
The only ask is that they adjust QM to avoid these lopsided match-ups. That’s it.