its a very good start. lets see how it works out.
and give a chance for avoided player to fix whats wrong…he also said that…
200 starts to match the need of how many people behave badly you don’t want to be grouped with.
Not everyone wants that many. Having a limit of 200 or more doesn’t mean many people will reach it, just like the limit on friends list.
No, it wouldn’t break the game.
The avoided player wouldn’t even know they’re on the list would they unless the blocker tells them? Regardless, that’s what the ‘temporary’ option would address.
If I’m in a match where someone spends the match in chat saying, say, offensive sexual things all match, I don’t need the game making my block of them temporary so they can ‘fix’ their behavior. I’ve found such people don’t plan to ‘fix’ it any time soon, and I can decide whether to give them another chance.
Now, all I can do is block them until I log off when the block is removed, and now have two slots they can be put in no more than seven days.
Yeah, but this is Overwatch community we’re talking about here.
If given the ability to permanently avoid 200 players, there are undoubtedly some players who are salty enough that they’d put 5 players on it every time they lost a match.
It wouldn’t take long to hit a cap of 200, trust me.
It might not become much of an issue for the matchmaker to work around a single person with 200 permanently avoided players.
But it would get incredibly hairy when dozens (hundreds? thousands?) of people are in queue at once and they’ve all got 200 players avoided.
Trust me, I feel you when you say there are some players you never want to play with again. I know exactly what you’re talking about. But there are far too many whiny sooks playing this game who would perma-avoid players because they happened to be on their team when they lost.
No it’s not horribly designed, you seem to know very little about design if you think so, this is a testing phase (hence it’s on PTR) and they did say the number could be increased in the future if it turns out 2 slots is too few, that’s how design works, not just splash large random numbers and hope for the best.
They did specifically say that this system won’t have a big negative impact on any tier where there is a large pool of players but on higher tiers where there is a limited number of players it could have a severe effect if all players start avoiding each other exponentially increasing the matchmaking time.
You could argue that the number of slots could change based on the tier, yeah maybe it could, but they need to test the impact of the whole thing first before deciding that to see how big the impact of a large number of players choosing to avoid each other on the matchmaking time.
But let’s look at your argument (or rather suggestions), 200 is obviously a random and ridiculous number to suggest, you clearly didn’t even think how much impact a system like that will have on the entire game, you just thinking selfishly about spamming avoid on every player who disagrees with you, what impact that will have to waiting time and matchmaking, nah … doesn’t matter.
And knowing very well how these things work, yes it’s good there is a fall off date, because people change and giving players the power of “avoiding” any other player on a whim will need to be counterbalanced by something else (and players who get avoided a lot will get warnings about it, letting them know people don’t like playing with them), if they listen to you the game will eventually turn into a dead virtual space where everyone is just added each other to avoidance list and forgot about while the names pile up and you eventually even forget why you added there people to the list, i agree maybe increase the limit to 2 weeks or even a month (max), but making it permanent is ridiculous, this isn’t Facebook.
Calm down and let them test it before complaining.
The game is not as popular as it used to be a year ago. In order for it to work, without adding insane waiting times it has to be 2 players.
It’s slightly better than nothing. As I said, credit for recognizing the need - but not for addressing it.
To your point about how some people might use the 200 limit - ok, let’s do the math.
How many players do you think Overwatch has, as a pool to match them with?
I don’t have a number, but presumably many thousands (only a small percent of whom might be online at the time - but that applies to the list also.)
So, say, they go from 10,000 potential teammates to 9,800 - why do you think that causes a big problem?
Or, online at the time, from 100 to 98, proportionally?
You know what else reduces matchmaking? People not playing over jerks.
Not really sure how to explain it, but basically the matchmaker would try to have to create teams where no two players have avoided each other.
1 Like
2 does seem too few. But hte fall-off works, at least in comp - genuinely terrible people (whether in play or personality) tend to sink in ranks (or horribly, sometimes rise) so they’ll end up away from your games on their own before the falloff most likely.
It’s a good stopgap for when you keep getting the same knuckleheads in a night (Say if you’re like me and play in the wee AM of PST)
It already has insane waiting times. Not playing with people who behave badly is more important than a slight increase in queue times.
What do you think is worse: the reaction of my team because we got that griefer or group of griefers making the team lose, or waiting a few seconds?
The answer is, my team (from friends list) had far more of a ‘don’t want to play this game, disgusted’ by getting people like that on the team.
They are addressing the problem completely incorrectly. I understand the importance to balance for the highest level of play, especially when it comes to hero patches. But, at the lower levels toxic players are incredibly much more common; you can’t just block two not worry about it anymore.
I know I’m a scrub in gold but I hate having to play all my games with level 25s without mics. I don’t want to be a valve fanboy but the CS:GO 'Trust Factor" system works incredibly well. Along with players ranking they should be awarded a ranking based on: their level, whether they leave matches, and getting commended. This would separate players as a whole into different groups based off of how they play, and I think that’s fair. There are just too many toxic players to ban, even if you can ban 200 of them.
3 Likes
A reputation system might not be such a bad idea, but it will need to factor in the matchmaking so players with terrible reputation get to play together and players with good reputation get to play together.
Mind if a make a topic about it?
Oh yeah for sure hmu with the link when you’re done.
1 Like
Not at all. I’ve long been a fan of things that incentivize good behavior in communities and use reputation.
That does get pretty tricky in a game like Overwatch, separating social and game skill, and the ways people can grief and misuse a system.
1 Like
TBH 2 is too much. I’d be happy with 1. There are probably less than 500 people in my region close to my rank and I don’t want this feature messing up the matchmaker even more.
Another post from someone who doesn’t give a crap about the problem.
People that make posts like this annoy me…
Why?
…because the same people are posting next week saying they CAN’T FIND A GAME.
Do you think about the implications of what you’re asking for?
If everyone can avoid 200 players then queue times will skyrocket…
1 Like
There should be a limit on it, or people will just abuse the heck out of it like the reporting system.
Also, its a valuable feature that people have been requesting for ages and like all things of value it comes in small quantities.
Is the limit of 2 too small? Seriously who cares, leave that figure too blizzard to balance. I wouldnt be suprised if they are simply being over conservative right now.
There are a lot less people playing this game at a specific time and rank than people think. Even in Plat you will get the same dozen or so people over and over again during off-peak hours.