Okay then lets make anchor ranks like 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000 => that should solve some of the issues and be kind of 50/50 solution.
I really donât see the positive of such system. You will still have the same scenarios like in Apex where a boosted/bad players gets to a rank they have no business being in, and instead of dropping, they are stuck at the edge of that rank and CONSTANTLY ruin matches.
1 Like
because with that system people who play more but not necesarilly improve will climb eventually and someone who doesnt play much suddenly gets stuck with those people meaning any match quality thats left will be thrown out of the window. And realisticly all this would do is change the bubble of where most players are from Gold/plat to likely Plat/diamond, or even worse diamond/masters. And at that point your rank already means nothing as its not even an accurate representation of your skill but more of your ability to mindlessly play non-stop.
1 Like
Well I need SOMETHING so that I donât pointlessly wonder between 2100-3300 :=).
Tank role.
ohhhh, I remember you now from when we play on Gibraltar like a year or so ago. Do you still only play Reinhardt? If so I believe you would benefit from another tank as well. I can also hit you up with a VOD Review later if you like <3
1 Like
because it was (and is) an opinion
but it is stated as if it were a fact
this is another example of an opinion stated as if it were fact
it actually is not a fact â it is an opinion
this also is an opinion stated as fact
that said, I tend to get the most value out of Mercy when I use all of her abilities, as dictated by circumstance
play in OWL and play in the game per se are two different things
what works in the OWL doesnt necessarily work in the game per se
First, Mercy imo is and always has been a main healer
Second, while the opinion (not fact) about how to best play Mercy are noted, and I agree that this is a valid way to play Mercy, I find it suboptimal in most cases. I also only rarely see her played his way in games I watch at many tiers of play
this is a discussion forum
its for discussing
overwatch topics
this is an overwatch topic, and I am discussing it
it is inappropriate to tell one to stop discussing an OW topic on forum explicitly created for that very purpose
the opinion - not fave - stated here is noted
as stated above, this style of playing Mercy is a valid one, but I generally find it to be suboptimal, as do many other forum members who have stated the same on these forums and on other internet discussion sites
âMeantâ is essentially irrelevant
As long as one plays with the intent to win, one can play a selected character as one wishes
I have watched quite a bit of higher ranked gameplay
and not only do I not know this to be true, more precisely, I know it to be generally false. I say generally, because there are times when it works well. Just not often.
already covered this above.
there is no âone wayâ to play this game
There are no ranks here on the forums
What I have to say is equal - not better or worse - than any other forum member
Same for us all
That said, stating opinions as if they are facts is generally bad policy
This sort of comment is generally referred to as attempted rank shaming
Ones rank in the game has absolutely nothing to do with oneâs forum presence
I personally find such attempts as rude, childish, and highly inappropriate
this is opinion stated as if it it were fact
there is no one measuring stick one can use to compare all of Mercys abilities (or any characters abilities) to get an objective valuation of which is better.
as such, this is an entirely subjective measure
100% subjective
not at all
I play her for her complete kit
not just damage boost
I know many other players who choose to use her complete kit as well, and see other players use all her abilities in matches I watch at all tiers of play
The value of damage boost is entirely situational
For one, if no teammate in range is attacking, this isnt a time when damage boost is of value
true of all her abilities - not just damage boost
I swear, you literally canât make this up 
Mercy is a main healer and best used as a healbot?? WTF??
Watch any high tier play and you will see her actually played well, the Bronze mercy gameplay in your games is literally the opposite of optimal
3 Likes
I stand by every statement I made above
None of it is made up
I mad eno such statements
I ask that you do not put words in my mouth, as I find this highly offensive
I have
Tons of it
not at all
the differences are not so simple, nor is there just a single aspect of play that makes the difference.
and no, they are not the âoppositeâ of optimal; nor could they ever be, since the Bronze player has the exact same kit - character - to work with
Then explain
1 Like
I already have
So you are trying to convince me that a bronze mercy will be able to utilize mercyâs kit as well as a GM one?
And what about gameplay, mechanics, teamwork, gamesense, decision making and etc?
Either make precise statements or stop with the non clear constant generalisation
3 Likes
clarification: I am not trying to convince you specifically of anything
I made no such statement
Forum rules permit the forum member to make whatever statements one wishes, as long as (of course) they confirm to said rules
There is no requirement that I, or any forum member, make statements that conform to how other forum members want/wish them to be made
Finally, I have addressed the request to âstopâ earlier in this thread
You do have a personal rating for in-game performance, itâs called Match Making Rating (MMR).
MMR is hidden from you. Itâs used to algorithmically handicap every match you play. Your matches are handicapped to keep you frustrated with ranking and addicted to Overwatch.
These statements made me stop and scan your responses before replying to really make sure that I wanted to go down this road again. And itâs clear that conversing with you is essentially the act of making correction after correction, and pointing out how and why your conclusions or observations or summations about the conversation, of which you werenât even originally a part, are misguided and sloppy. I find myself having to check or confirm or correct YOUR interpretation of some OTHER interpretation made about my statements and those of the other party, etc. Itâs tedious. Itâs constant error-correcting and fact-checking you to make sure that your understanding of the context and flow is right (and it usually isnât).
Iâll be talking to someone, and you jump in and start commenting on and answering nuanced questions/statements that were directed â at them. Why would I engage in a 3rd partyâs second hand analysis of someone elseâs thinking? Hereâs what itâs like. Two people are standing on a street corner talking. Youâve overheard the entire conversation. I ask the person a series of specific questions in response to their specific thoughts on a topic, and you run up, push them out of the way and start providing highly questionable ideas about whatâs being discussed.
Further, I donât know what else to call you but intentionally obnoxious, which is a problem because it just makes an already dubious conversation that much less interesting and petty. Iâll be the first to admit that I can be blunt, but I donât go out of my way to be catty and condescending âjust because,â and I think you do. I absolutely could do that, but I donât, because at the end of the day Iâm here to discuss ideas and reason through peopleâs logic (as well as my own), and being overly boorish deteriorates the whole thing.
But I donât feel like the discussion of ideas is your main purpose. I feel like the topic is just an excuse to mix it up with people. Worse still, I think your conclusions are mostly dull and sloppy and tangential (because I think you care less about carefully considering topic than you do about sparring). Youâre either not sharp enough or donât care enough to really grasp the nuance of whatâs being said, so your conclusions are facile and bad and in need of constant correction, before even getting to the ideas themselves.
This forum suffers from people engaging in too much negativity and rudeness when really itâs totally unnecessary, and I see you being a part of that. Combined with not finding your commentary interesting or engaging or precise, you can see how it doesnât make sense for me to continue.
I have no problem rank shaming people people like you who think they know better than the top 1% of the ladder. Sure there is more than one way to play the game, but unfortunately your way is quite awful. You can also play widowmaker as a brawl dps, that doesnt mean you arenât throwing. Which is why nobody past plat heal bots. Also mercy as a main healer just shows how clueless you are.
2 Likes
Yes, absolutely, prioritizing heals is the cause of some wins: pumping large amounts of healing into teammates was, is, and will continue to be a (I said âaâ not âtheâ) reason for wins, particularly at lower ranks, where countering your teammatesâ mistakes and bad plays is just as important, if not more important, than enabling their offense, particularly when the other healer is neither putting out lots of healing NOR enabling their team or when damage boosting your teamâs poor offense has little pay off. If youâre vastly outhealing the other team, yes, pumping out heals IS enough to win the match.
Most low ranked players are barely even healing, much less making plays and enabling their teammates. So yes, effectively healing for your team when the opposition is neither healing well enough NOR enabling their team is adequate.
Youâre also asserting that healbotting is always ineffective. It obviously isnât. Thereâs a difference between playing sub-optimally and being ineffective, and your argument wants to blur that line or assert that no such difference exists.
Not only is this an âabsoluteâ which is wrong for the same reasons that exaggeration is fallacious, this is something you have no hope of providing evidence for, so itâs got to be rejected.
Again, youâre conflating sub-optimal play with poor play. âHealbottingâ as you want to call it, is perfectly fine (though sub-optimal) in a number of circumstances, particularly when the other supports are also âhealbotting,â but doing so less effectively, which is an EXTREMELY common scenario between two lower ranked teams.
Iâm talking about one stat because for the sake of conversation since we cannot simultaneously discuss every possible metric that might lead to the greater allotment of points based on performance, so Iâm choosing one as an example.
And obviously thereâs going to be a high correlation between kills and damage when youâre talking about certain kinds of numbers. And getting kills isnât the only factor here. Doing lots of damage in Overwatch can be highly effectively because of the kinds of pressure and effects it tends to have on the oppositionsâ resources. What would an enemy teamâs rein and healers rather face: tons of damage or little damage? The answer is obvious. Iâm not saying damage is the ONLY thing that matters, but Iâve played on enough teams where damage and kills are low, and all things being equal, Iâd rather have players on my team doing high damage. High damage doesnât just mean spamming, it can, but the suggestion that high damage is necessarily trash damage is obviously false. There are plenty of situations where high damage is obviously good and wins matches.
Obviously this is where data comes in, and in designing such a system you do the work to find the correlation between A and B. There IS of course a relationship between damage and winning and losing. Tons of matches have been lost matches due to low damage, and tons of matches have been won due to high damage. It becomes about finding where the balance lies. No system is perfect, but as I stated, giving people a reason to keep playing and chasing high performance (partially through performance based rewards) is not JUST about crafting a perfect correlation between some in-game metric and point allotment: itâs an incentive to keep people motivated and committed when they might otherwise give up and decide to expend low effort. Because as it stands now, people DONâT try and they stop caring because they view a loss as inevitable or âwhy bother?â If you give people a reason to keep playing, some bonus, some reward when they otherwise wouldnât. I think it helps the game. No one wants to work their a$$ off and lose just as many points as the person who didnât do anything. I think if you asked most players: âwould you like to be rewarded for high kills or damage or XYZ? Would you be more motivated and feel better about losses if PBSR was expandedâ I think the overwhelming response would be: âYes! Give me that!â Both your model and mine have pros and cons. Thatâs a fact. Itâs subjective as to which model is better, but they donât aim to do the same things.
And in terms of padding, you obviously do not incentive players to start padding to the point where they start soft throwing matches to pump up their stats. You still incentivize them to prioritize winning, but you hedge their losses through PBSR (which we already have, but the argument here is to expand it and make it more generous).
As I said elsewhere:
âIt doesnât have to be all raw numbers, but raw numbers can and should be a factor in the allotment of points. If a Junkrat gets 30k damage, putting his performance in the 95th percentile of all junkrats at that rank and in similar circumstances, and the player loses, in my opinion thatâs not a good outcome. And I think most people would be inclined to agree. This is why star athletes are compensated differently for great stats even if their teamâs performance is abysmal. And for obvious reasons, there is no concern that a star player would âinflateâ their stats by, say, never passing allowing them to get 50 points a game while guaranteeing constant losses. Yes, their individual stats matter, but the system is structured in such a way that losing is still a disincentive for inflationary behavior.â
Again, youâve not proven that theyâve played badly, and you donât know whether they played badly. Youâve made assumptions about their play by comparing it to an ideal, but you havenât established that the player played badly or was the cause for the loss.
3 Likes
And it got removed above diamond. I wonder why.
Again, itâs only worth if for them to give it to the average player. Does that not tell you all you need to know?
How? Letâs use support as an example.
Your team wins the two fights convincingly. What stats would the support have to show for it? Offensive assists and elim contribution?
What about something as small as a tank taking enough space for the dps to do their jobs successfully?
Like I say, in theory it could work. Blizzard arenât good enough to make that theory a reality.
It doesnât. It would exist in all ranks if it was any good.
No itâs not.
In solo queue, the only Co stant is the Individual. There is literally 0 incentive to play for your team outside of winning the match.
Does the nba use the same ranking system as overwatch? No? Then youâll have to explain to me how you think itâs relevant.
To increase the damage boosted targets uptime.
Same as above.
She is. Unfortunately, playing mercy in the optimal way relies on the damage boostwd target to not take damage.
A good player makes any hero work. Sym otps exist in GM, yet no one would dare claim sheâs a good hero.
Itâd also a complete waste of time to expend any energy on something you canât control.
You are the only constant, take some accou tablility and get better.
I never claimed this was not the case.
If blaming someone 3lse is hypocritical then there is no excuse. Op blamed the teams lack of adaptability but refused to even try a different t hero. Itâs hypocritical, therefore placing the blame with anyone other than themselves is scapegoating at best.
If they were good, they wouldnât be complaining about teammates on the forum dude.
I never claimed otherwise. I said that after 6 years of potential improvement, if you canât carry then you are at least part of the issue.
Get better and youâll carry more. Carry more and youâll gain more sr. Gain more sr and youâll get better teammates.
1 Like
Wrote out a whole angry response but Iâm just gonna boil it down for the sake of both of us. You definitely did pivot your argument from heal botting to using mercyâs entire kit. Before this comment: âthere are plenty of reasons where she is the best pick or a sufficient pick given the circumstances,â you didnât actually mention the rest of her kit. You did however say that there are scenarios where heal botting is correct, which it is not.
You got angry with me for discussing on a public forum meant for discussion. If you want one on one conversations go into a dm. No one has replied that they disagree with what I said or angry that I spoke for them. It is not an issue.
Last thing about the mercy. Itâs quite a long video but you can get the point quickly. Even in a mercy zen comp where you would expect the mercy to be outputting the most heals, does she not prioritize it. Moth ignores low teammates to get that extra damage out to win fights. This is in a grand finals game where the enemy team is putting infinitely more pressure than any ranked game could.
You shouldnât take the conclusion that mercy should never heal, which you did. The best support players basically heal as little as possible to output as much damage as possible, in mercyâs case damage boost. That is why pro support players on ladder have just average healing per 10 but up to double damge per 10 of even other t500 supports.
Hopefully you understand the point better.
2 Likes
Must be why there are so many support players (a lot of mercy players mostly) who come crying to the forums about putting out over 20,000 heals in a game.
1 Like
If anyone put up substantial healing or damage in a game, at least that is some evidence of positive contribution to the team. Not necessarily someone who is carrying but likely not the first person you should point the finger at either. If you analyze the replay of someone who got 20k healing or damage in a regular length game, I bet there is someone else on the team who provided far less value overall and a much better use of an avoid slot. But the anti-riggers never seem interested in how your teammates performed. Even if they played 1000 sr below the mean. Except of course when it is their own teammates underperforming.