50 might be overdoing it. I wouldn’t mind 5-10 slots.
9 Likes
2 is a lot as is especially at the extremes where the pool largely reshuffles the same dozen or so each match.
Also it would veey much complicate matches. A has B avoided B has C and E avoided while H has D avoided and G avoided. And so forth with only two avoids. With 50? Queue times wouldn’t exist. You have to realize 1 avoid means even if they fit perfectly with 4 others that the matchmaker cannot make the match.
If you need more than two I recommend a break and returning another time when conditions are more favorable.
2 Likes
So you don’t want to play the game then?
i feel like 2 is enough slots, maybe 3 slots, but i wouldnt expect anymore, maybe try using lfg, so you know who your playing with, and simply report them if they are negative/ reportable.
50?! Jesus christ. And yes, because if every person had 50 people avoided queue times would be so much longer. We’re talking like months.
I think it would just give up. Or maybe put everyone with over 2 in a separate pool they can wait in for eternity when the stars magically align for that one game it could form.
1 Like
5 is ok for hardcore throwers but in low ranks you need to avoide players every 2 games if you do it just for bad players or flamers…. even 50 wouldn’t be enough.
Post must contain at least 20 characters
1 Like
-
Im only okay with more slots because LFG is a thing which will seperate solo queues and group queues
-
50 is way too much. at most 15, preferrably 10.
-
Higher ranks should have access to less slots due to the smaller population and how it can affect queue times
That’s because blocking bad players isn’t the intended use case for the feature.
Anyway, I think anything more than like, 5, would break matchmaking.
When they added this function into the game in high ranks people started blocking onetricks instantly. People aren’t playing the game like it was inteded to be played in General.
Imagine being able to avoid every player in Overwatch. 
That’s called constraint satisfaction, and the matchmaking algorithm doesn’t actually have to do that. It just pops people off the queue into the match if they fit the appropriate SR range and no one in the match is avoiding them (or vice versa).
2 isn’t quite enough, really. 5 would be perfect.
There are places on the ladder where 5 avoids would halt matchmaking altogether.
That’s a recipe for having off-meta hero players avoided en masse. They want people to have to be selective with their avoids so they don’t stick one on every Torb player they see and make the game unplayable for them.
What I think they should do is open up a separate, unlimited and permanent “avoid player” list, but not allow users to manually add other players to it. Instead, you should only see players added to that list when blizzard confirms a report you submitted against that player. If there’s a player harassing you, or throwing, and blizzard confirms it, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask not to be matched with them ever again.
I think 5 would be sufficient, enough to prevent requeuing with a toxic team but not too overboard, any more and they’ll become a weapon to punish off meta heroes
You should have separate slots for competitive, and that should correspond with what rank you are in. I.e. gold + plat where the majority of the playerbase resides should have more slots, while Masters and GM have fewer since the playerbase is smaller there.
See the thing that I’m quoting.
Unfortunately this feature was catered for high ranks (e.g. where the professional players or popular streamers/content creators usually are). I agree that two isn’t enough for ranks such as platinum, we need something more such as five.
So lets say hypothetically I don’t wanna use lfg because I afk a lot and just want to play games when I want to. Ok that said say I play 3 games and I keep getting the same 3 people that throw, are toxic, whatever am I not suppose to be able to play the game my way ie. solo or am forced to play with at least one toxic/thrower.