Dunning Kruger 
2 Likes
I think most of the 70/30 matches are caused by players swapping from a char they are very good at to one that they are not good at, even though they are in the carry spot (highest MMR) on their team. It’s unfortunate, but a product of free char swaps.
it’s also why I think more of gains should be based on performance, not on win %.
1 Like
Exactly. Not only that, but what are the odds that you can predict WHEN the coin will land on heads 5 times in a row? I can predict loss streaks in Overwatch
1 Like
This is a great point I hadn’t considered: we’re not talking about any streak at any time in a totally unpredictable fashion, if there’s a discernible pattern it makes the odds of this being random completely impossible.
3 Likes
You have no more evidence than I do. Why pretend that you have all the answers? If the producers ever reveal the algorithm, then I will believe it, but not until then.
I’m not sure how. Trolls will have even more agency when there is one less teammate to compensate. I’t will be interesting to see the gameplay once there are widespread throwers and leavers like there currently is on live.
1 Like
My evidence was provided by the matchmaker lead designer Scott Mercer (as I clearly stated btw). Here, I even looked up the quote for you since you don’t seem to believe me:
The entire post is highly illuminating by the way. It should become compulsory reading for anyone who wants to engage in discussions about the matchmaker.
I don’t pretend to have all the answers. I clearly state when I know a fact, and I clearly state when I am making assumptions.
You are welcome.
My point was that trolls will get drowned out by honest players when the game is fresh and taken seriously by the vast majority, more so than in a game that’s 5 years old and has been suffering a content draught for the past 3 years and is played by an increasingly frustrated (smaller) player base.
1 Like
You grind the game the same way whether you are GM or bronze. Try again
2 Likes
This is nonsensical since various implementations of grind are going to effect different skill levels differently. So, no, grinding as a GM isn’t the same as grinding as a bronze nor does the algorithm treat these players the same. Obviously.
Also your statement doesn’t falsify my hypothetical at all – so try again yourself.
Its something…lol
Kinda sad that these Dev rely on bad systems to cover up for their bad choices/decisions. The MM system is one of the worst I’ve ever seen, its flawed and the worst part is they’re not going to fix it or make it better with OW2. (They can’t stop hacks, cheaters, smurf’s on top of it compounding the problem)
Kinda wish they would’ve just made Titan and pushed through instead of giving us this…
3 Likes
… How am I playing the game trying to get rank different from you also trying to get SR? Man if you are gonna be delusional at least make some sense
1 Like
I literally just explained that to you in the last post. If you can’t comprehend the obvious, that’s on you.
I mean he’s right. Most gm players are not vod reviewing for hours or getting coached, they are just playing the game a lot. The only difference between them (for the majority) is the amount of time they put in. GM isn’t some mystical rank where you have to train for hours in the alps to get to. It’s just normal people that happened to get really good because they enjoy the game.
2 Likes
What are you basing this on?
What are you basing this on?
So you’re saying sheer play time is the biggest difference-maker between average/bad and elite players?
So what explains the difference between poor/average players who enjoy the game and never reach plat and GMs? And you’re suggesting that excelling at Overwatch is unlike excelling at math, or programming, or professional basketball where becoming the best requires years of systematic improvement and hundreds/thousands of hours of deliberate practice (in previous games or solely in OW)? I have never seen a person go from average or bad to the top 2-3% in anything without deviating (often diametrically) from the norm, and neither have you, because that’s not how excellence works.
1 Like
You didn’t provide a solid source either so you shouldn’t expect one from others.
I never meant that playtime was the only factor, it’s just the only factor for most players in terms of approaching how to improve. Moreso than anything, talent is probably the most important, but that is an intangible that cannot be controlled. If you are gm, you are most likely more talented than most players AND have put in the time. You can’t control talent, so the only measurable difference is time.
Yes. Especially for things like math where you will get nowhere if you aren’t taught anything. Overwatch as a game has everything right in front of you, there are pretty few things in the game that you would need outside help with to learn. Maybe things like mercy superjump. The rest can come with time, feel, and again you must be talented enough to become better.
And let me remind that I’m not talking about OWL or even contenders, I’m talking about reaching 4k flat. Top 1% is pretty intimidating but it’s still a lot of people when you consider how many players overwatch has (or had). Reaching the NBA starting at highschool basketball is a lot less than a 1% chance. Becoming the best in Overwatch is not reaching 4k. Reaching OWL even just from gm players is a slim chance.
Sure it does, but not in the form of anything but playing the game. Getting better at clicking heads is only possible by playing the game more. There’s not much else to it. If you are naturally better at it, you’re going to climb ranks just by playing more.
Went over this, but to be clear everybody starts from somewhere. You have 13-14 year olds hitting 4500+. That’s where your argument falls apart. It’s not that they were bad before, It’s that they:
- Reached the minimum age threshold to be that good at something
- Are naturally talented
- Put in a lot of time
Skill takes time to develop. If you are max border, stuck in low elo, and let’s say at least in highschool, you probably were/are never going to be that good in the first place. And that’s why all the best players were always young prodigies because that stuff manifests quite early. It’s why you have 12 year olds that beat chess grandmasters and go on to become grandmasters themselves.
1 Like
Didn’t provide a solid source for what? What claim are you suggesting I made that needs a source? And you’re the one making a claim here. The burden of proof is on you.
Also noting that you dodged an explanation for your reasoning by not answering the question.
You literally said the only difference was time for most players. And how can you know that talent is the most important factor when you don’t know how many GMs started off “talented.” If you’re claiming all are talented, what are you basing that on? And how are you defining talent?
Not to be crass, but I don’t think you understand excellence or what it requires, or the difference between high performing individuals and low-to-average ones. I don’t think you’ve heard of, much less understand, deliberate practice as a concept, or you haven’t given any of this stuff much thought or done related research. There are two general mindsets regarding performance: a growth mindset and a fixed mindset, yours is clearly fixed. Recommend you look up those terms.
See above reply.
You haven’t made my argument “fall apart.” You’ve stated a fact about 13-14 year olds. The only statement I made that wasn’t a question posed to you was:
“I have never seen a person go from average or bad to the top 2-3% in anything without deviating (often diametrically) from the norm, and neither have you, because that’s not how excellence works.” And you have not disproven this.
I don’t think you’re thinking much about what you’re saying, and/or you understand so little about high performance that ad hoc theories based on hunches and poor observations seem perfectly plausible. No offense but I’m done here.
1 Like
I dispute this only because talent implies that practice and effort aren’t just as important. Natural talent has a limitation. Practice does as well. But they hold equal importance in any capacity.
3 Likes
So where’s your source that the grind isn’t the same? Oh right, you just say that when you have nothing else to say. It’s funny because you use this to dodge much of what I said.
You cannot measure talent. It is not comparable. Why would you try to measure something like that? So you are left with time. Surprise, that is what you use because it is measureable. I can acknowledge that it exists and it is important, but can’t do much past that.
I recall you saying you maxed out at plat. This isn’t entirely about sr, but you clearly are inexperienced when it comes to the top end of the ladder in overwatch. “Excellence” to me is not 4k because it is not as excellent as you make it out to be. If you were referring to professional play then I would totally agree with you. It’s just ranked ladders are always going to be more of a joke. You can one trick mercy to gm. That isn’t all that impressive.
Again, your definition of excellence is reaching the top .001% of players, the Overwatch League. Getting grandmaster is nothing special for that kind of level. You are using the NBA comparison which is a lot more than top 1% of everybody that has played even elementary basketball.
I sort of have? I’ve seen 3k flat players hit gm, one got upwards of 4400 from there. These players are already a few hundred sr above average so it’s not a direct comparison. Both of us have anecdotes but I’m not going to say that what you’ve seen never happened. How do you suppose that I even prove that? It’s just your word vs mine, and unfortunately I would not prefer the word of somebody that is at dead average.
He’s done here! I mean you literally have not experienced high rank overwatch, have not been in that bubble. How are you going to tell others that their experiences are invalid? I mean frankly, this whole forum is based off of experiences that others just have to trust, yet you act like it’s weird. I am open to proving that I have been high ranked as well!
I really don’t know what crazy regiment people did to hit gm but it’s not that complicated. It really just boils down to do you have enough time, and will your time be translated to improvement rapidly.
Oh I totally agree. I think we are just referring more to two people that put in the same amount of effort. Their difference in rank can only be explained by something like talent.
2 Likes
As much as I do prefer not to rank shame, its really difficult to discuss with people who’ve never been higher ranked players who’ve gone down and rolled through low/average ranks.
To me, there’s a level of perspective that won’t be understood.
1 Like
I love how you worded this and it makes sense. It’s honestly so frustrating that I lose so many in a row. FINALLY I win one match and then I get either bad teammates or go against insane stacks? These past few days I’ve been getting people who switch to another character every time they die and have the audacity to talk down on others. Not only that, this season has been the worst, I was looking at the stats for past seasons before cross play I was dying less, having more wins. Now, I die MORE win less. I may have won many matches this season but nothing compares to how many loses I gained. People think it doesn’t matter if you lose one and then win one, but it does. You won’t gain the sr you lost.
1 Like
What are the odds? Pretty good.
Coin flips are completely independent events. Streaks happen but they are random. In OW and all other games with actual rankings and matchmaking matches are not independent. The results of a match affect the next match, not by rigging, but by the natural change of your position among other players.
If you get lucky and win 10 matches in a row your MMR increases quite a bit. Because you only got lucky your MMR will be much higher than what your skill level is. It’s only natural, that your luck will run out and you start losing because you are outskilled by other people in the match, lowering your team’s chance of winning greatly. The opposite is of course also true. If you go on an unlucky losing streak your MMR drops below what it actually is and then you’ll get a streak of wins to get where you actually belong.
Because of this a lucky winning streak is usually followed by a losing streak. That’s also a good thing because it ensures the integrity of ranking stays good and people can’t just get to high ranks and stay there without earning the spots.
None of that affects anyone’s ability of ranking up though. The streaks caused by luck nullify each other but if you actually get better then you will win slightly more than you lose and you will rank up slowly. The key is to play more so ‘noise’ won’t have a big effect on your rank.
3 Likes