The ranking system in Overwatch 2 should be less of a grind because the current setup creates frustration that outweighs the sense of accomplishment. A competitive system is supposed to measure skill, but when players have to go through dozens of matches just to see small updates to their rank, it ends up feeling more like a test of patience than a test of talent. Some people might argue that grinding keeps players invested and ensures that only the most dedicated rise, but dedication should be proven by consistent performance, not by how many hours you can pour in. Others might say that a slower system prevents players from swinging up and down too quickly, but in reality, a more responsive ranking system would better reflect actual ability and reduce the feeling of being âstuckâ in the wrong tier. If someone counters that the grind makes rank feel more âearned,â the truth is skill is what makes a rank earned, not time wasted waiting for the system to catch up to how well youâre actually playing. By making progression more immediate, the game would reward improvement quickly and motivate players to keep getting better, and cut down on burnout and the gap between the person that has the ability to sit at home all day with no responsibilities and play the game, and the working man or woman will be closed in on which I think overall would be a good thing. At the end of the day they still have to win to rank up.
This is where I will disagree.
The comp system should reward improvement and winning. You win, you climb, you must improve to keep winning. How it should be.
The âgrindâ element for me is only when someone stagnates at the improvement part. No one is stuck, they just arenât getting any better.
Making it easier, or less of a grind to climb, would mean you would have more people in higher ranks. More people with a larger variety in actual skill⌠Which would just mean most games would be awful quality.
The system already rewards winning and improvement, no oneâs disputing that. The issue isnât that people want to climb without earning it, itâs that the way progress is shown doesnât respect the time investment of the average player. If someone only gets 30â50 games in during a season, even if theyâre consistently improving and winning more than losing, the climb can still feel stagnant because the updates to their rank come too slowly. That doesnât reflect their skill in the moment, it just reflects how many games they had the time to grind out.
Making progression more responsive wouldnât suddenly put unskilled players into higher ranks, theyâd still need to win, just like now. The difference is that the players who are performing at a higher level wouldnât be artificially âcappedâ by the slow update system, and theyâd see their progress sooner. That would actually improve match quality, because it gets people into the ranks that better represent their ability more quickly, instead of keeping them mismatched for dozens of games. The grind doesnât filter out bad players; it filters out players with less free time, and that doesnât have anything to do with skill.
Letâs use low platinum to diamond as an example:
The math actually shows the point I was making, it isnât about handing out ranks to unskilled players, itâs about how long the system takes to reflect skill. If Plat 5 is 2500 SR and Diamond 5 is 3000 SR, thatâs a 500 SR gap. At a 55% win rate, which is legitimately better than average, and assuming youâre getting the top end of SR gains (about +30 on a win and â30 on a loss), your expected net gain is only +3 SR per match. It would take 167 games to achieve diamond 5.
If losses are a bit softer (say â25) it drops to 96 games, if wins are smaller (say +25) it jumps to 200. Either way, even with a positive win rate youâre looking at on the order of 100â200 matches to move that 500 SR. So yes, the system still rewards wins and improvement but it also strongly rewards time and repeated matches. If a casual player only gets 30â50 games in a season, thereâs almost no realistic path for them to show steady improvement in rank even when their play is objectively better. Thatâs what Iâm arguing against, not that suddenly unskilled players will be Diamond, but that players with limited time canât get their rank to accurately reflect where they actually belong, with their limited time. People have kids. People work and have responsibilities. Ppl touch grass bro.
If your definition of awful quality is the opposite of current matchmaking, then please bring on the âawful qualityâ games.