Just curious.
Since we have only three slots to avoid players (for what ever reason)
How many of you do things to try and cause other players to avoid you since your slots are full and want more than 3 players not on your team in the future.
edit: The reason for asking, is mainly to determine that if more avoidance slots were provided, the behaviour they are trying to discourage would reduce.
canāt say I have, but I do use the good old āinvite to groupā trick to see whoās grouped up to make the avoids go further. For those times when the lobby is really at each otherās throats
yes iāve used that too. Just trying to get a statistic on how the apprehension of adding avoid slots is contributing to toxic and detrimental game play, chat, v-chat.
edit: I suppose we could add, or seen other players exhibit this behaviour (so as to not incriminate your selves)
I havnāt found enough annoying people to fill 3 slots āyetā
I swap out my avoids almost every match. Theres usually at least one person to avoid bc if I didnāt get my last avoid in my game I doubt Ill get him next game but I could get the bad tank or support on my team again that I just had.
The reason i avoid people? Bad atitude one trick play the hero wrong (ground pharah for ex or plays the heros I play but worse.
Yeah, I do mostly the same, throwers, really bad players (usually ones that have been carried too far up in a group and then keep losing solo cause theyāre not good enough for that level), one tricks/refusing to counter.
Rarely do I avoid players simply because they are toxic. My skin is pretty thick in that respect, but it causes me to give as good as I get sometimes which contributes to toxicity.
If I had more avoid slots I could avoid them too, thereby reducing toxicity overall. It seems queue times are more important than reducing toxicity though. And yes, it seems Iām rotating out players every few games and/or every day or two.
When players are toxic they make the team play worse. Negativity loses most of the games that could be winnable. I dont like to deal with paper thin mental.
I can agree with this but must qualify it. They play worse compared to themselves playing without the negativity, and it does not mean they will achieve a better result against their opponent without it either.
This I can not, but suspect that it may be my interpretation of what you wrote vs. what you meant to say. Iāll ask a question and maybe you can clarify.
Personally I find that 60 of 100 losses are a result of one or more players poor decisions, erroneous conclusions, and a lack of meta-cognitive ability to realize those two things in themselves that lead to a) the loss, and b) the negativity.
30 of 100 losses I would equate to smurfs, cheaters, and throwers (excluding the reason above) Which leads usually to negativity.
1 of 100 losses, what I would call luck. Things like in the last split second of the game, you have 1 shot to prevent the loss, you take it, you hit, but they live with 1hp and cap the win. Iām not saying this is the exact result in 1 of 100 losses, just trying to clarify what I mean by luck. There just seems to be those games, where the other team appears to be mostly evenly matched but lands more of those pivotal shots/plays. Could it be network related? Sure. Could it be skill difference? Maybe, but not based on their performance the other 99% of the match.
Lastly 9 of 100 losses I would say are just pure outplayed matches. not smurfs or cheaters, no negativity, no pivotal luck moments, they where just better.
All in all, I feel 90% of losses have negativity. Out of 100, thatās 600 players.
Even if we say that only 30% of them are unique players (200) having only 3 avoid slots to manage a minimum of 90 players (1 toxic player per loss of 90% of losses) upto (in my experience 3 toxic players a loss of 90% of losses) you would hit the unique player cap (200) and it means that of those 100 loses, you would have multiple games with the same toxic players in them.
3 avoid slots to manage 90-200 toxic players is imho an unrealistic expectation if you are interested in reducing toxicity in the environment. Especially when I am not including out right racist and discriminatory players that need to be avoided.
I feel the excuse given for not providing more, does not equate to a greater benefit to the players. That is queue times. More toxicity for shorter queue times is not better imho.
Itās antiquated thinking.
Many people have more than one monitor now a days and can easily do something else while waiting. For those that do not, as long as you enable sound in background (is that even capable of being turned off?) and use a widely common feature of Windows ALT + TAB you wonāt miss a queue pop in 10 mins, 30 mins, 1hr 26m unless your sound/headphones are off.
Yes I sat in a queue for 1hr and 26 mins once, then the system kicked me out and had to requeue, think it was another 38mins. The kick bothered me, the wait didnāt. I think I was blender/photshop/3d animation on my other two screens for those two hours.
Im saying that games that would have been winable was made not winable by people being toxic. So maybe one out of 8 lost games wouldāve been winable but was made non-winable by toxicity.
Queue times is the reason friend. 
I mostly use avoid slots to map dodge 2cp in qp (avoid a member on your team, then you canāt re-queue to the same game).
In comp?
If Iām being honest I rarely encounter a player where Iām like āOMG NEVER AGAIN.ā
The easiest way to avoid them is simply wait 1-2 mins before re-queuing after your last comp game. 