I'm still confused on the comp system

General Discussion
1

What determines percentage gains outside of just game results?

Because I don’t get how an expected win is 19%… and then a regular win with no negative modifiers is also 19%? But then a regular win can also be 22%? or 24%? Or 18%?

Would it not be easier or better to just have a set percentage to gain on wins or losses and then than the modifiers are more like addition or subtraction.

Just expected win? 18%.

Uphill climb win? 22%.

A regular win? 20%.

Or just make the gains like ow1 where it would be… 24 or 25 sr regularly. Maybe then we wouldn’t have to have people struggling to get into champ or hell, struggling to get into GM atp.

1 Like
2

I’m pretty sure all of the “modifiers” are just for show. I’ve had the same. Had an expected loss that put me into the “derank protection”, then had an unexpected win and didn’t even get out of the derank protection.

3

like it’s def better than the cards system but it’s still just… not good? it’s overly difficult to climb when I’m over here gaining 19% and losing 21%. It’s objectively harder to climb because back in ow1 you would gain 25 SR for wins and losses and it wouldn’t be as volatile as it is now.

So instead of needing 5-6 wins to climb out of a tier, you only needed 4.

1 Like
4

Gains in OW1 had even more modifiers than in OW2.

I remember one season I was something like 30-60, and at my season high. (meaning I was GAINING SR, even though I was losing 2 out of every 3 games)

5

Because I don’t think expected win is the only modifier?

Or maybe it is…I literally don’t pay any attention to my rank, but I thought they added in a whole bunch of modifiers a few seasons ago. Or at least, made it more transparent

6

That only existed in the beginning of ow1. They ended up patching that so then 99% of games were within a 24-26 sr gain or loss range.

It’s the only one being shown.

There are other modifiers yes but I’m strictly speaking a game with JUST expected vs games that have zero modifiers.

It’s too volatile. And quite frankly the numbers are too low.

7

They did that only for players that were diamond and above. They never changed it for players below diamond.

I don’t understand what you are trying to say. Are you talking about like, games that aren’t OW2?

I think it needs to be volatile when you have 10 players in the game.

I think the ranking system works just fine. It might be a bit of a grind, but as I said, it SHOULD be, when the game is only 1/10 decided by how well you, as an individual, play.

8

The game still uses the same crappy system from OW1 but just with a new paint.

The fact that 90% of the rank score comes from winning a match and not how well you did is just ridiculous.

1 Like
9

Yes well they evidently need to make that change again.

No.

Matches in OW2.

Random volatileness that doesn’t actually get explained and seems entirely random is not what the game needs.

It’s definitely not the same.

10

What is not the same about it?

11

In OW1 in diamond+ the gains and losses of SR wasn’t as volatile as it is now. They patched it earlier into OW1 lifespan so that the SR gain was always around 25 SR give or take a few. Where as in OW2 it can be anywhere from 18% - 23%.

Not to mention you gained and lost more regardless of volatileness.

The “skill tiers” that exist now, already existed in OW1. It was just with numbers. So instead of GM5 - GM1. It was just 4000-4500 (past 4500 would basically be champ now but before it was all just GM). That’s 5 tiers.

To get from one tier to the other it only took 4 games because you would be gaining 25 SR. Now it takes anywhere from 5-6 games because you could gain anywhere from 23% or as low as 18%. It’s harder to climb which is backwards considering they recently said that weren’t too happy with the lack of players in champion and wanted to push more people up there (iirc)… yet this season it’s arguably harder than ever to climb.

Look at the t500 for all roles. It would’ve been much higher average than it is right now. Masters is still going up to the 200s. For tank up to 150.

12

Actually I think in OW2 nothing comes out from how well/bad you were, you will probably have the same percentage whether you performed like CYX/YZN or you were as good as a Pachimari sitting on the payload

Unfortunately

13

Performance based matchmaking is a lie. It USED to be a negligible factor. It is no longer a consideration.

1 Like
14

Stat farming ranking people up would trash competitive integrity even harder than S9 did.

15

the inconsistency of % gained is so annoying

so many times i’ll be at 97-99% to a rankup because i get the expected modifier

of course ill lose that rankup game :smiley:

wish the expected modifier didn’t exist, but i understand why it’s there

16

If stat farming was relied on massively in the Rank system by Blizzard, People will seek having gold medals like they’re in the Olympics, YET you can’t completely ignore the stats ESPECIALLY in Below Diamond ranks, making stats as a secondary modifier in such ranks while keeping WIN/LOSS as the primary factor is the key in my opinion

17

Getting a hanzo who hides the entire game but gets kills is still better than someone who does nothing but getting killed all the time.
With that said, every role will need to have role specific stats that takes priority so you don’t end up with tanks who only flank or supports who dps all game.

18

Oh yes you can. And you should. Stats mean absolutely nothing in this game

19

They do mean something and should be considered, you have 2 dps one with 6/10 K/D and another with 3/11 that even I AS a support OUTDO them in their job, that must indicate something

Stats are numbers and are certainly one of the ways to measure, other ways include positioning and coordination but I don’t the game AI can measure such things, yet they can be reflected in stats, too

20

It… doesn’t. This is a team game. Their stats may not even be their fault. If they consistently go negative, they’ll lose and derank. PBSR was scrapped for a reason.