I understand that even when you make progress you might not rank up after 5W even if it’s a winning record. I recognize the effort made to reflect that by showing a percentile for a players current tier.
My feedback is regarding progress between tiers such as Bronze 5 to Bronze 4. After posting 3 positive win rate blocks I remained Bronze 5 but still in a high percentile of Bronze 5 players.
In a system which values win rate as the primary indicator of skill, how many wins does it take before how many losses before progressing to Bronze 4? It seems like after 3 rank opportunities with winning records should be sufficient enough to move one tier up in the lowest competitive division.
You have to be better then the players in that division, not make the system think it’s correct and that you belong there. Your ranked with all the other players now so it dosen’t exactly work like sr it’s more like top 500. So what you went 5-3 basically you broke even hell any bronze player could do that any bronze player can go 5-4 that just means your playing at your skill level.
Not to mention loses, those loses don’t just magically go away when you hit 15 loses your rank updates even tho you don’t see it usually because you’ll have won 5 games but those 15 lost games are always calculated.
I’ve been wondering why I’ve never had a problem with the matchmaker even tho it seems like a lot of people have, turns out I’ve simply been reading it properly so when I go 5-2 I go up when I go 5-7 I go down. People think climbing in ow2 is easier but that was only because of the multiple glitches and issues with the new matchmaker. The only way to climb is to win more then you lose consistently, you can’t go 5-4 then go 5-3 and expect to rank up it dosen’t work like that.
If you rank up even after going negative that just means you hit 15 loses in one of your last games and your rank got recalibrated before the next update on your 5th win.
Long story short if it was that easy to rank up everyone would, the only true way to rank up it to be better then 100% of the players in bronze 5. Any bronze player can go 5-3 not many can “Consistently” go 5 and 2 otherwise in the most literal since they literally wouldn’t be bronze.
so you are saying you think it’s reasonable that reaching 20 wins before reaching 10 losses should be good enough to go up 1 tier in the lowest 5 ranks of comp though is the overall point.
I honestly can’t tell you my opinion on the matter to much cause It might be a bit bias, I’m a diamond/masters so obviously I should be like “Get good” “skill issue” but Im not a total jackbutt. I mean the system doesn’t seem to discriminate for any rank even bronze. So I’d obviously say yes if you want to prove to the system you don’t belong in bronze you obviously have to win waaaay more then you lose.
That’s literally just how it works. (And I am literally trying not to be a dick about it).
I’m all about the get gooder argument. I agree I’m bronze. What I’m saying is Bronze 4 to Bronze 5 shouldn’t take an excess of 2/3 win rate to go up ONE tier in the same rank.
Bronze 5 is different that just about any other rank. It contains individuals who’s rank can’t go lower but who’s SR/MMR can. That leads to an issue that you described where someone could have a winning record, let’s say 5-4 and stay in bronze 5 for an extended time.
That is why they added the % figure when you rank up. With 3 winning record adjustments that should be going up. Did you care to note those by any chance?
My argument is being told you are better than or equal too 70% of the players at that rank 3 times in a row with winning record but still cant advance from lowest possible rank to second lowest rank is a little silly.
How can you be on the top 30% 3 times in a row w/ positive win rate and not move up one tier to B4? Bronze 4 isn’t a huge ask here.
New season + positive win rate should equal some sort of visual progression. Again, let me point out, we are talking bronze 5 to bronze 4. If my overall all record is a negative win rate that shouldn’t weight down my current season win rate. Over 20+ games with + WR should qualify for bronze 4 from bronze 5 by the 3rd +WR rank up opportunity in a row. It’s not like I’m even talking about getting to silver, I’m saying why is the smallest amount of progress so restrictive in the lowest 2-3 ranks tiers of Bronze?
The biggest issue with Bronze 5 in particular is that it is roughly 11 times the size of any other division. So ranking from Bronze 5 to Bronze 4 is the equivalent of going from Bronze 4 all the way up to Gold 3. And I’m not trying to suggest that it should be set up that way, but since it is, it should take a lot of games to go from Bronze 5 to Bronze 4 if someone is progressing at a standard pace through the ranks.
How many wins do you think it should take to go from Bronze 4 to Gold 3? That’s about how many wins it should take to go from Bronze 5 to Bronze 4.
As for why they set it up this way: in OW1 every rank but Bronze consisted of a 500 SR range. So Gold went from 2000- 2499, for instance, and Silver went from 1500-1999. Bronze, though, went from 0-1499. It was the only rank that had a 1500 SR range rather than a 500 SR range. And when they went from OW1 to OW2, they put the entire 1000 extra SR into Bronze 5 so Bronze 5 contains the equivalent of 0-1099 SR, while Bronze 4 only goes from 1100-1199. And every other division contains a similar 100 SR range. (Except for GM1- they either extended the cap on SR at the top end or removed it altogether, so GM1 can go past 4500 at this point.)
And to contextualize that, the usual estimated SR gain from a win in OW1 was around 20 SR (though this varied from game to game, sometimes you would gain more than 20 SR and sometimes less for various reasons). So you would need to win 5 more games than you lost in a given time period in order to rank up (this is again an estimate). So if it took going 5-0 or 6-1 or 7-2 or something like that in order to go from 2400 SR to 2500 SR, someone at the very bottom of Bronze 5 would need to do that something like 11 times in order to reach Bronze 4 (because they need to advance 1100 SR instead of 100 SR like they would with every other rank up.)
1 Like
Agreed.
Makes sense on paper. The bar to clear is needlessly high for progression of one tier in the same rank for the Bronze tier.
It’s difficult to imagine the devs want it to be grossly difficult for the weakest skilled players to progress one tier. Not over all rank like Bronze to Silver but B5 to B4.
Get gooder is a valid argument. The amount of gooder for B5 to B4 seem excessive.
On one level, it would have made sense to add 2 ranks (I don’t know, copper and lead or something) below Bronze, that way, you could have had lead 5 contain 0-99 SR and lead 4 contain 100-199 SR and Copper 5 contain 500-599 SR and then you could have Bronze 5 contain 1000-1099 SR, and I think the progression in those ranks would have felt better to players.
If I had to guess, they didn’t do this for a couple of reasons. The first would be that they wanted to keep the ranks roughly the same as they were in OW1, so all the existing players would understand Bronze, Silver, Gold, Plat, Diamond, Masters and GM. The second would be that they’d have to invent two new ranks with icons and colors and such. And maybe they would have done that if they’d taken their time releasing the PvP portion of OW2, but it seems fairly clear that they were rushing to meet that Oct 4 release.
In a perfect world, we might have 2 whole ranks contained within what is now Bronze 5, but in the world where we got the PvP bit of OW2 pushed out early, we’ve got a bloated Bronze 5 that is very confusing for people trying to rank through it.
This is why we had SR. So you had a literal number you could relate to, as well as how much you could expect that number to increase or decrease by depending on a win or loss.
1 Like
Yeah. I really liked the SR system in OW1. I get what they were trying to do with the divisions instead of SR, but I’d be really interested in seeing how players responded to that. The goal would have been to remove some of the pressure of seeing a number going up and down all the time, and I’m sure that worked for some people. But I think the added uncertainty surrounding all of those changes in OW2 was counterproductive for a lot of players. I wonder how those numbers shake out.
2 Likes
Imo there wasn’t anything wrong with the SR system in terms of gaining/losing rank. If you were anxious over seeing a number go up and down after each game you haven’t got the mental capacity to play competitive overwatch to begin with.