Two big problems in Overwatch at the moment:
- Toxic people
- Long queue times
So what does community think about adding a priority queue based on your endorsement level?
Make it scalable with level (5 is fastest, 3 - a bit faster, 1 is default) or just make a cut off at 3 or 4 (priority vs regular queue). Details will matter later, if the idea is accepted in general.
To assist this system, a small QOL change: always show endorsement panel at the end of the game, center it on the screen that way we get more data, otherwise people can forget to vote.
Naturally, you can see how this will help with toxicity.
11 Likes
But people who are toxic will still hate on this idea
3 Likes
4Shrug just don’t be toxic.
Seriously tho, the issue I can see with this is the decay. If you don’t play often you will never get endorsement high enough. I think they can change it, so your endorsement decays not with time, but with time actively played (per game perhaps). So if you played 10 games without being endorsed it goes down.
1 Like
I actually like this idea, and it would give Endorsements an actual, practical purpose. While we’re at it, why not make PoTG Endorsement based as well? For instance: If the game flags you as a Toxic POS, you’re basically placed at “the kiddy’s table”, with the clown cups, and your existence is just ignored (including increased queue times) — Including recognition for good plays until you learn how to play nice with others.
Edit: I’m even willing to go as far as toxic people get a debuff on them that makes them take more damage, and screws with their aim.
3 Likes
That makes more sense if that means that people have to endorse to stay up aswell.
1 Like
That might be a necessity. League requires you to give “endorsement” to just get out of the game. I feel like when you force people to do something like that, they tend to just click random person. But I agree there should be something “in it” for the people endorsing, more than 50 XP lol.
2 Likes
But what would this mean for OWL players?
2 Likes
I don’t know if this a real question or you are poking at Blizzard never caring about anything but OWL. Either way I don’t know, after all they are still players, if they want to play on ladder and get fast queues they also need to act decent.
2 Likes
Like the loading times would have to be fixed up cause that means they get less time to pick and ready the plan for the game.
1 Like
I disagree heavily with this. Just mute/ignore/report the toxic people.
I more have a problem with leavers/rage quitters not being punished enough.
1 Like
Can you elaborate why do you disagree, maybe I can make changes to the proposal based on what you say?
The endorsement based system does punish leavers/rage quitters in the sense that no one would ever endorse them, so they will sit in long queue and ruin less games.
1 Like
Reports should be what gets these people out of games. Higher leaver penalties as well.
Endorsements arbitrarily improving queue times makes little sense to me. What if someone does a great job but goes unnoticed? Why do they deserve less priority? And vice versa…what if someone does a pretty average job but gets a ton of endorsements because they are nice or talk a lot?
3 Likes
OWL players are .000000001% of the community. Who cares?
1 Like
There’s 3 options.
1.) Lets get rid of endorsements because they’re pointless
2.) Lets put the power of Endorsements into the hands of players
3.) Let’s let the Game decide who gets Endorsed and for what.
Which one of those are you more comfortable with? Those are literally the only options.
I think what you are saying is the queue time reduction is a big deal and if it should be added, it should be based on player performance (or absence of in case of leavers) and not on their niceness and talkativeness. Correct me if I got that wrong.
In this case I do agree, and I would say player performance can be “endorsed” as well. We can add a couple of options to the endorsement list like (not literally) -
“Carry”
“Space maker”
“Team peeler”
… u get the idea.
1 Like
I was thinking exactly about that yesterday. I’ve put so much effort to get endorsement level 4 and going to level 5 but I’m matched with people endorsement level 1, very unfair in my opinion.
Sometimes I think in screw up all of this endorsement level because blizzard don’t put valor on that.
2 Likes
I keep going back to League in my references, and I know half the people here are thinking “IDGAF about League”, but it’s on my mind because of that other thread.
So in League your Honor matters a lot, including restriction from playing on PBE until you get certain Honor level, which is higher than default. It brings additional cosmetics at the end of season, and I believe something else.
2 Likes
The problem is that people are naturally biased and cannot be trusted to discern who contributed the most to the team. Endorsements giving cosmetic benefits is enough; perhaps a unique skin if you get above like a 3 at the end of season.
League is worse in terms of toxicity btw.
1 Like
I see what you mean, and it’s kind of leading to the bigger issue of Democracy vs Autocracy. I guess the remedy to this is that even though individual people are biased, disconnected masses (the span of separate matches and roles) are pretty good at making the judgement.
For example, you might be able to “pop off” or talk your way into getting endorsed one game, maybe the next game; but look at it over the spam of a season - you have to “pop off” almost every time, which means you deserve an endorsement or you bring something to the quality of the game through conversation, again I believe you deserve to be in more games.
The word toxic is brought up so loosely you literally can’t even say facts like hero stats without someone finding a way to take it personally and label you toxic. “Hey brig and lucio is mathematically low heal and our tanks are getting destroyed, can we get a moira or Ana please?” Gets you “I have gold healing wtf you’re so toxic, everyone report this guy REEEEEEE” from your brig