You don’t understand what consistantly means, do you?
You can’t even spell consastabntly bro
You should be required to finish school before being allowed to make a forum account smh
You cannot consistently win or lose when you only make up 20% of your team. 90% of the game is out of your control. You make up 1/10 players in a game. You only can account for 10% of what happens in that game. The other 90% is uncontrollable. You can put out the exact same performance every match and win 5 and lose 5. Or lose 2 and win 8.
Again. Wins and losses are just the end result of the game. And do not reflect what happened in the game. You can play perfectly and still lose. You can have an afk player and still win. Winning or losing is irrelevant to skill. How you play is what is important to assessing a players skill.
A player who consistently performs well does not mean they will consistently win games. Wins and losses are out of your control
2 Likes
Huge comeback.
Is your mom proud of you because you can spot a mistyped word on the internet?
Yes you can.
Otherwise people wouldn’t been able to climb. (But they are.)
People arent able to climb lol. Thats the point. I can play 10 games in a day. 2 of them will have leavers. 5 will have throwers. 3 will have bad teammates. 1 will be a genuine loss and maybe 1 will be a genuine win
We are talking maybe 10-20% of matches are actually legit. The rest are just coin toss and its luck which side you land on. Some days you will land heads and win 10 games in a row. Some days you will land tails and lose 10
That is what ranked is. Denying that is just ignoring reality
2 Likes
What constitutes good performance? Stats?
Should a Mercy be using blue beam or yellow beam? The answer is that it depends.
Should an Ana be using her nade offensively or defensively? Again, the answer is that it depends.
Impact and performance is very contextual in this game.
1 Like
It’s maybe an oversight in game design, but it isn’t the fault of the matchmaker. Unfortunately that is just the way it is. If you play this few games then you are never going to be accurately ranked.
It may not be inconsequential to your human experience, but it is inconsequential to the math behind MMR.
1 Like
Yes you can!!! Performance based ranks means regardless of gametime you will get to your rank
If someone only has 10 games worth of time a week to play then those 10 games should be reflective of that players skill. Except they arent. They are coin tosses.
Overwatch failing to do something does not mean its not possible lol. Its just the devs refuse to make a better product
Performance based matchmaking would immediately increase match quality across the entire game. People who play badly will actually fall and people who play well will actually climb.
People who play consistently good will be matched together more frequently and ppl who play inconsistently will fall until their performance actually stabilises
1 Like
If he did after his team died and died on the process, he lost the ability to retrieve/contest the point, wasted an ult and desync with his team, which he was already desynced to begin with, because his teammates were already dead and he didn’t took the point and wasted an ult. He effectively throwed the match.
Because the system would favor the side with more folks on the point. Which meant the one who killed the reaper and avoided the capture. So he effectively hindered any kind of regroup on his team and effectively made all the ones who died to respawn at time the ones who survived.
Think this way: your team foght 4vs5 lost 4 teammates and killed 1. That your reaper killed 3 and died. Remained 1 in the point increasing the time for your team respawn while those 3 respawning, mostly, at same time as the one that ended up dying against your team. The 4 reagroups faster with the one in the point even faster if the one retreats in a couple seconds. Your team would need to fight another 4x5 because the reaper died outside the timeframe to make a single respawn timer. Even if your team killed 2 and the reaper ended up killing 3 and dies. Nobody is in the point to contest it, which would reflect on a loss anyways.
Solo ults are one of the least likely moves to work it out, due breaks teamwork and tempo between the team. Only low ranked players would do that and they’re in there for a reason.
That case his stats would be inflated because the move were faded to fail. Statistically speaking his odds of achieve the desired result would be really low, due if his teammates already lost a 4v5 teamfight the likelyhood to lose another one would be really high due the enemy ult economy would be at better state than the ones on your team.
Tbh, if someone plays 10 matches in a week, that player shouldn’t be playing comp to begin with.
If you really think this way I suppose this explains a lot on why you think is a good idea. Even if isn’t.
We already know this leads to people not properly playing the game as intended. Anyone who plays the objective is taking on the risk of losing more MMR than everyone who is not playing the objective.
1 Like
Kid … that isnt how the game works loool
Actually know how the game works before making wild statements pretending you know what youre talking about lmfao
If 1 enemy stays on point that doesnt increase the respawn time for the enemies. What the hell are you on about
If theres a team fight and my team all die but then i go on to kill 3 before dying myself, those 4 teammates are going to be back to point faster than the 3 enemies I killed after they had died. So my team are coming back as 4 vs the enemies remaining 2 players and should win. If they dont then there is an issue and as I said if I was that player I would be annoyed losing the same rank as people who lost a 4v2 when i soloed 3 by myself
Nah you can’t be a real human and believe that lol.
You have to be a bot. You dont even know how the game works
1 Like
I’m LTTP, and as many have already pointed out, making a performance-based MMR system that’s even remotely accurate in a game like OW (or MR, for that matter) is nearly impossible.
That said, I’ve got to play devil’s advocate here—because even though I don’t agree with it, this approach actually makes a lot of sense from a business standpoint.
Most players don’t care whether a performance-based MMR system is truly fair or accurate. All they want is for the game to confirm their belief that they carried but lost because their team sucked.
And MR’s devs know this. So they built a system designed to stroke players’ egos and keep them hooked, even if it comes at the cost of competitive integrity and rank inflation. And that mindset is baked into the entire game—whether it’s ranking up just by grinding games (despite a sub-50% win rate), constant rank resets (to control rank inflation), releasing new heroes every month (to fuel the CC hype machine), or even, well… “physics”.
MR knows exactly who their audience is, and they’re making a game tailored to them.
3 Likes
devils advocate: didn’t blizzard just add in an anti-smurf boost? What do you think that actually is? It’s performance based sr, and depending on how quickly it does it, it giga boosts you.
I’ve barely followed it, but that’s certainly waht it sounded like.
1 Like
This right here.
2 Likes
This is a pretty convincing argument. Games are for fun after all so I suppose it doesn’t matter much how unfair it is as long as people are having more fun. So more people might be able to rank up, but rank will also mean less.
Personally I’d just get rid of competitive mode entirely, but I know that would never fly.
Maybe you aren’t, but people are.
Thats a you problem though.
1 Like
If we are talking about competitiveness, thats a different story.
Some people play to get better and have a truly competitive experience.
Having a ranked system which is not fair/doesn’t accurately show ones skill is not fun to those people.
But the funny thing is, most of the people who claimed Overwatch is “unfair” and then went on to praise MR claim to belong to this group.
The amount of times people cried for the stop of “rigging” and then went on to play a game which literally hands you free wins vs bots…
1 Like
Plus allowing you to climb with a sub 50% winrate…
1 Like
Actually it is aside the defenders part being removed on ow2.
Group respawn mas made at season 7 an improved on wave respawn at season 12.
The timeframe is 6 seconds. Which a teamfight can take more than that while reaper’s ult can take about 2.5-4sec to kill 3 foes.
If the teammate died within that timeframe would generate a singular spawn wave among those 4 players, otherwise a wave of 3 players.
While your team would, most likely, take 2 spawn waves to reagroup or a single one having similar time to the one prior to it.
Making either 4v5 or 4v4 fight. Due reaper itself wouldn’t be on the spawn wave, if it does would be a fight of 2vs4 , 2vs5 or 3 vs 4 or 3vs5. Due someone would make you on their own spawn wave.
At ow1, that’s how it worked. They removed at some point in ow2. At least the defender/contesting timer. My guess that was at ow2 season 7 on group spawn, which later turned to be spawn wave.
The one who dies first sets a wave of 12 sec if I remember correctly, depending on the mode the number varies and if nobody enters in the wave also changes too, if a teammate dies within 6 seconds they enter in that wave, otherwise creates another one.
A reaper’s ult create a wave due 3 folks dying within 6 sec. The 4v5 fight could be longer than that, but let’s say that didn’t.
For a fair compairson, let’s pick control map.
Suppose that reaper killed after 2 seconds of the fight being lost. Suppose also that the one on defender who died, died 3 seconds prior.
Leading both teams having spawn waves of 4 players. Let’s be really forgiving and say that the one on the defenders side died at second 4 of that 6sec battle timeframe. Making the spawning within 3 seconds of advantage, reaper’s side. While the other having one in the point, which retreats to regroup and the rest of the team.
If they rush to the point would take 2-3 seconds to reach it. Meaning being at the point at second 2 or 3. Taking more 4 seconds to capture if 3 or more reaches and stays on the point. While if is only one taking 8. So, in total 6-7 to capture if all 4 gone in there.
At the second 3, the opposite side spawned meaning they also could reach and contest at plus 2-3 seconds. But they have one wild card, a character that was already alive that could buy time or delay if required. Which in this case doesn’t need due 5-6 would be within the reach of contest prior to capture.
The new fight would begin, most likely, without your team having the point. Reaper dead for about more 2-4 seconds in a 4vs4 clash at best and at worse 4vs5. Only reaching the point after 4-6 seconds. Which usually the teamfight ended at similar margin of time.
What exactly the reaper’s ult did? To me was pretty much wasting time and giving even more % to the opposite side.
Similar thing would be true on push, clash and flashpoint. But the perks in there differ a bit.
The point is, previously the more folks in the point more time were added on spawn, on ow2 they made spawn waves to folks respawn together within 6 sec timeframe from the first died.
Even if with a stroke of luck the reaper killed 6 seconds after the first kill those 3. The benefit would be negligible, due his own timer would be longer to reagroup to it’s teammates. Due they would have 2 folks in the point and more 3 on the way, while even if your team picked the point if they backed off, would need to fight another 4v5 fight with worse ult economy and the reaper without ult.
The likelyhood of the reaper killing 3 foes would be pretty slim to begin with, the likelyhood hood to hit the more than 6 second mark would even more unlikely and all this crazyness would already gave at least 8% on top of the other 8% on the teamfight and the capture time another 4%. On the best case scenario reaper spent 20% of objective time to get about 5% if all stars aligned.
So, yeah. Pretty much throwing. Due would be easier for you team to win a teamfight than actually the reaper be productive with that move.
Placement matches works like that. Puts your team on different scales and try to guess your mmr.
They don’t check your metrics, at least, as far I’m aware. They simply put you on different ranges of mmr and see the result. On wins, keeps putting you on harder matches, on loses puts you on easier matches. At some point you will be somewhat defined
The deranking aspect is pretty much straightforward, if you drop too many ranks rapidly something is wrong. Also climbing too faster after your rank being asserted too.
They will not overcomplicate stuff, they will not follow much what you do, but follow the result of matches that you were supposed to win or lose. As far they explained, is how it works.
They use the result to define, not your overall stats. I think in the past they used it, but currently doesn’t appears to be the case. Your mmr would be put against the supposed match mmr based on both team values and roles, that if your mmr is lower and win, you get more points, if you lose lose less. Which is what their “current competitive progression system” asserts.
They don’t have ingenuity and would take effort to gauge you among other folks using the hero x and trace a parallel, at least not on role based match, on hero queue mirrored deathmatch would be fantastic, but on rq or open where folks would use different tools, is like judging a paper’s ability to be a rock and vice-versa. Doesn’t make any sense.
The reason is because I realized all modern games are going to use systems to drive engagement. But Mahvel is simply a better game. I am not defending their ranked system, per se. I just feel as if I have more fun and ironically have better teammates. Maybe that’s the true rigging. But I am going to favor rigging that gives me human beings over donkeys. Lol
1 Like