Every time im tank, I get so bad dpses on my team compared to the enemy team. This game needs this feature or better matchmaking in QP. This is so broken and not fun for me at all loosing every match as tank.
Also when I outperforming the enemy tank as well in kills, mitigation, space making, this game is so bad
1 Like
It will be like leaver penalties in QP but a hundred times worse.
Just leave and requeue. If you get queue banned then you clearly donât enjoy the game and can find another game to play that you might enjoy more.
Sure i donât mind this. What i need is an option to get out and not be held hostage. Rivals does this, and many times. One I decline we just proceed with the game - we end up getting smashed then another surrender vote is issued and it passes. So clearly it works.
We need this in comp not in quick play. I dont lose anything in quick play, neither do i care if my widow is performing at her peak. She maybe practicing. I maybe practicing.
Every time Iâve seen a surrender request in Rivals, if the vote fails, whoever initiated it stops trying until the match is over and flames everyone else inthe meantime. All a surrender system does is encourage people to give up, and matches are almost always winnable.
4 Likes
Sure. Good luck getting a team to make that decision together, let alone understand when the odds are stacked. Bet there will be at least one person saying ânah we got this famâ as they go 2-0-10 and everyone else throws
Only the people that stack, bully, smurff and cheat badly want this to remain a thing where we cannot surrender. Because then they cant dance on our corpses and get enjoyment out of it.
Im all for surrender options since we have leaver penalties in quickplay. Its time to throw up the white flag and put an end to a match that cant get more than 25% underway or when the other team cant make any progress on a capture point.
i mean essentially there is zero reason to continue.
1 Like
But that would deprive the stomping team of their serotonin hit, which the matchmaker relies upon to sell skins and retain players.
2 Likes
Yes, I want a surrender option. But only the people that vote âyesâ lose MMR. For others in the team it counts as a draw (no change).
3 Likes
I thought of this one as well. I agree with you on this point.
Just to be clear i am only asking this as an option in Comp where we are facing a team which is exceptionally good and we have no way to win.
Agreed, we can spend that time in reque or something else.
Ofcourse skins are good for stomping but in comp you need skill and player who is skilled will stomp regardless of skin or default mode.
It does not work like that, you are opening the door for abuse of the system. The key is we all agreed as a team that there is no way for us to push forward and win this. It is not the question of who is staying or who wants out.
If you think you can win, you are more than welcome to hit no on the surrender. If the team thinks like you. Then majority of the vote wins.
1 Like
Not always, sometimes folks just doesnât care. Which is pretty common if you ask me.
I won, âunwinnableâ games by simply being the glue that sticks the entire team. If I didnât made the effort the defeat was certain, but due my effort to enable folks those folks started to play around me. Result? I enable them to do their job.
Folks get tired, folks aims for fun, folks have problems. At end of the day, they just want to play. If their experience is plain bad and you give them a hand, they usually take it. But it is a risk, because you would need to be the one taking the leap of faith and enable them.
The lower the rank, the less folks are prone to both teamwork and take those leap of faith. Most ranks are simply willingness to change their mindset or actually be the glue.
Presence applies pressure, having a soldier/widow/ashe/cassidy reduces by example the window of opportunity of a pharah. While if theyâre bad, they wouldnât counter. But still would reduce.
Heroes have threat level towards others. Sombra/junk makes hammond and doom be more aware and so on.
If you can enable those to have some impact, even a minimum one, they will give you more room at same time. Jus because my hitscan canât kill pharah doesnât mean that I as tank couldnât. But that would take the effort for them to compensate elsewhere, like managing their tank on those timeframes.
Folks unwilling to change stances, not even mentioning heroes, are the problem. Those problems are tied to mindset no âimpossible gamesâ. RQ folks queue for Roles, which usually folks blurs it with âheroesâ instead. Open by example gives you the ability to fix, anytime, your team structure by providing what your team needs.
One makes folks less flexible, the another more. Your ârankâ is determined by your ability to perform, not by the hero you play. If you only perform with a single tool, youâre not that rank on any role, just in that hero. Thatâs why Open only requires 1 rank, while RQ tries to have 3, although both modes should only had one to begin with. Due Role Limits would be a better suit than RQ itself.
Thatâs the thing, is not. Folks think it is but usually is because one side have someone with flexibility, while the other not. Having otp in a specific hero on masters is not the same of having a flex player on masters. A flex player, even playing outside their comfort zone, would perform just fine on heroes theyâre playing for the first time. Otp? Give any tool that isnât their main and their performance would nosedive.
Donât mistake playerâs rank in specific hero and playerâs rank itself. Are distinct things and, usually, only tanks in 5v5 under RQ could be considered similar. That with huge asterisks due if the opposite team hinder the performance of the said main with tools advantageous against it, that âplayerâ would be as good as their team to compensate itâs flaws to make it perform at least at bare minimum.
On cases that folks are dying and the other team have overperformers, I would hit where it hurts. Disrupt and divide. OW matches are based on flow and teamwork. If you put roadblocks, even smallest ones, that provides ripple effects.
Is not unwinnable match. Even on cases of 4x5 or 5x6 those matches can be won. But would be ridiculously hard to pull it off, requiring way higher degree of coordination, teamwork and effort comparatively to the opposite side.
Yes, yet how many folks actually leave their comfort zones? The individual impact is like being a shot caller. Not being the carry, but being the glue.
If you enable your team to work as team, your individual impact is enourmous but rarely actually visible or âhighlightedâ. A split second IF, a sigmaâs ult at payload on overtime to remove folks and zero the bar. Those plays are often tied to sync/rhythym/tempo being aligned between teammates.
Those arenât obliged to have kills, just distract/disrupt/disable. Kills, usually are consequences of those actions.
Both kingsmaker and limit 2, are steps on the right direction. While at same time as way to solve RQ problems. But RQ are way too deep on several folks for some time already, the change would be as disruptive as if tomorow blizzard say that RQ being replaced by Limit 2. Which was what happened with open, the only difference and that most folks that kept some open mentality, adapted towards roles not heroes.
Even in chaos, thereâs order. Open queue can appear to be chaotic, but only is if folks playing it doesnât care to be a teammate. Similarly to RQ the example you gave of one player being way negative in stats. Those are the same type of chaos, the difference is that in one, you can bring the order through knowledge of several tools and stuff to fix it. While the other youâre conditioned to not take the effort and throw the blame to the chaotic variable.
Complaints are louder and usually reported, while expected experiences and enjoyable ones are usually forgotten/unoticed.
Anything negative would have more views, posts and reports than anything positive. Tv news survive because of that.
Bad teammates will always exist, because to have a good teammate you need to have a bad one too. The point is, someone needs to be the glue that makes those bad teammates work properly towards the team. Even if they do it without conscience.
Humans are creatures of habits and repetitive behaviors. If someone in the team understand their gears/loops. Can be that glue. Some matches the glue would need to be you, others player number 1, others player number 2, others player number 3, others player number 4 and in 6v6, the player number 5. Due you would be the last player on all lists, if you see the problem, usually, youâre the glue. If you donât. Youâre expecting someone to be the glue.
Each match thereâs 1/5 or 1/6 odds to you be needed to be the glue. That if your teammates are always the same. See where Iâm going? The one that, often, can turn the tide is the one seeing the problem, to do that, they need to be willing to take the mantle of being a glue.
That glue is not exactly as team chief. Usually is a leader or simply someone willing to win the game by enabling others.
One of the key aspects of any match is team morale, which is the turning point for those glues to happen. Look around you, seek the pattern, find solutions. Rarely the losing match doesnât have one.
The moment you realize that. Is the moment you usually understand why Iâm stating those stuff. Some goes towards replays and analyze what key events disrupted the flow, if theyâre willing they would consider what if I did this, instead of that? Experiment on other matches and compare overall results. You would be surprised how âaccurateâ/âacceptableâ the matchmaking is in their initial metrics, even with several noises in the match.
One report wouldnât solve anything. Thatâs the thing. They could sabotage and avoid you as teammate. Unless it happens several times in a row which usually a 3-stack, eventually only one would be reported. Your report would be at nothing. While theirs if you keep trying towards others 3-stacks, the odds of being report is 50% for your smaller team, while theirs 33.33%. Remember that only one report counts, but if they cycle who sabotage, their odds of penalty would be 33.33% while your group 50%.
On the long run they will get penalized, but the odds are that would be easier to you be penalized faster. Due less odds of being matched towards strangers are on their side and more folks to share the hits. Thatâs why I said, everyone or nothing.
I understand that sometimes mmr gives some curveballs and matches are badly balanced. But usually what we perceive as badly balanced is just teamwork/formation issue, due folks with different physical and mental states, but also with different minsets are playing together.
Sure you did the right thing here but you dont convince me that I need to do this 50% of the time. Since we know that it is a forced win/loss ratio.
Why do i need to give them a hand in comp. This is a team based game and we should expect a certain rank player will be at a certain skill level. I am not talking here about the solider who ok or above average.
I am clearly talking about that dps who goes 2-16 while red team dps is 30-0. Clearly there is a massive skill gap here. What is me giving him a hand going to do for me ?
Pleases donât go off on a rant. I am only mentioning that we should be allowed to surrender if the player, let it be any role is unable to play at a certain rank and that is bringing the team down.
I am not asking for flexibility, presence or dps role in killing a certain hero. We are way past that.
YOu need to focus on the topic that is - Surrendering should be allowed. What are you talking here ?
are you implying that a player does not have to perform extra hard to get out of ELO ?.
You say a point and then you contradict your self. This is called an argument not debate.
Again, you need to focus on games which is in an unwinnable situation. You seem to act like you have never been in this situation ? I highly doubt that is the case for any overwatch player.
Emongg yesterday on stream, that was unwinnable anyways. These are his words. WHo are you or me to be better than a PRO player ?.
Again i am clearing point out to the game where you are team diffed ? Not a single player. Surrender usually on Marvels happens when your DPS is failing, heals are dieing, tank is dieing. The root cause either stems from one role which is weak and failing at their role.
You now pick which role you want that to be. As a tank main, my games, i run into low skilled dps.
False - i showed you stats. You are selling me words.
I showed you what overwatch players are posting - you are selling me your personal stats and personal outcome.
I gave you multiple set of data - you showed me your word.
If you were true and everyone had your mentality - we would have these multiple posts. So who is credible here now ?
A toxic player is going to be toxic.
A thrower is going to be a thrower.
I report players who are sabotaging my game. All they are doing is adding up reports on their end.
It is not my duty to wonder, is he throwing the next game ? That is games responsibility.
Eventually they will meet their fate and game will decide or a GM will decide why this player has earned so many sabotage reports.
Next time try to stick to the topic and not go off on a rant. Community does not care how skilled you or me are. Try to show how you are going to address the issue of stomp in competitive mode.
a stomp is completely different from ââwe can do thisââ.
1 Like
Iâm Plat.
I get paired with Masters players frequently.
My teamwork is irrelevant with a rank discrepancy that large.
2 Likes
It should exist in both for Overwatch because it has much stricter punishments for leaving QP. This will kill two birds with one stone by also reducing the amount of leavers.
1 Like
But why do we need to surrender is quick play ?
How would I practice another role or hero ?
Quick play is meant for that. Surrender would be a good choice for comp because the game has decide that you all are a certain rank and skill.
In quick play. I could have a player who has never played comp due to letâs say finger disabilities or some kind of disability.
I canât expect him to be at his peak he is just chilling.
Because if the game is giving out punishments on a competitive scale, then a certain degree of seriousness is not only expected, but required in order for each player to have an equally enjoyable experience.
If Iâm not allowed to leave a match that with players who arenât trying without receiving significant penalties, then at the very least I should be able to put it up for a vote. If a disruptive player is ruining the game for 5 people on a team, they should be allowed to surrender and go next.
1 Like
I donât agree with your point due to a single factor.
In competitive the game has decided that this group of players are equally skilled +/-
Once we face the team and we are getting decimated. There is no competition it is a one side game.
There is zero competition in quick play mode. I could be stacked with a player who is playing on Switch against a full pc red team.
This would be the exact game where I could increase my game awareness as the odd are stacked us me.
Now on comp we are all on the same platform. If we are failing mechanics it clearly a skill issue. Could be you, your dps or your heals. It is a complete diff.
I think a surrender option should only be available when two things occur:
- Game is almost at the end with a severe advantage
- One team has stats like 15 kills and 0 deaths while the other has none
This is why the surrender function in MR annoys me. Iâve had some silly goobers start spammng it halfway through the first round and many of those games we won.
Even the games we get demolished the first 1.5 rounds can still pull around.
Itâs more annoying than useful.
I not saying you should. Just putting in perspective that odds would be all over the place, usually is more tied to mindset, you wouldnât need to do those kind ratio or stuff if more folks were willing to do so. Which is why on higher ranks there are more cohesive teamwork and lower ones way less. Reinforcing that Open could work greatly on higher ranks but due on lower the amount of options can become a problem to not know what to chose and be overwhelmed.
Because you canât win alone, neither them. At higher ranks folks understand the value of teamwork and coordination. But at lower ranks, usually folks will try do their own thing. The problem is that with RQ folks would fingerpoint others, while Open would be too complex for starters.
The new player initiative is a decent addition but is not enough to make players understand the game intricacies. Role limits can help, we had something at OW1 launch like âhints too many snipersâ âtoo few tanksâ âtoo few damageâ too few supports"
Those kind of things improves new player experiences, but having an entire cast at disposal is really complicated either. Should have some heroes, preferably with lower difficulty ratings at all 3 roles. Giving some space to folks start to unlock others.
Iâm not ranting just highlighting that, due I didnât knew what page we were and is a public forum, simply gone a bit deep on the PoV to make others aware about certain stuff I tried to bring.
Is associated with the topic, but required a broader view on why was associated.
To leave specific ELO, folks should perform as they were that said ELO. But due theyâre in the middle of a ELO that behaves a bit differently they need to be the glue more often than should. Is not performing extra hard is being the glue more often. You can be a glue and not exactly be the best player in the lobby. Is a team based game after all, if you enable your teammates to perform more often than not, you will climb.
On RQ doesnât make sense to have surrendering option, on Open makes. But for different reasons, RQ because folks, mostly, would look for themselves and point fingers towards others to no take responsibility while on Open the burden is shared among the team, which on the case of nobody wanting be the glue the surrendering option would be viable.
Is not a contradiction, due youâre doing something that you are not âtrainedâ or âusedâ to do.
You can win unfavorable matches, folks do all the time to climb through ranks on comp by example, those unfavorable usually means theyâre the glue or someone on the team were. Having less players on the team is a huge handicap, that would take way more effort than should, if your intent is to win that said match you would need to bypass the handicap and that folks canât get used to it, unless they specifically train for scenarios that they would be put on those conditions, which is not the norm.
Perceived unwinnable matches are different of unwinnable matches. I was in situations that were perceived unwinnable matches, because I also was a part of the problem. When nobody wants to be a glue or actually see thatâs not worth to be a glue, those are perceived unwinnable matches.
To have a perceived unwinnable match. You, more often than not, is not willing to be the said glue. Due the likelihood of an unwinnable match is really low. I only had 15 since 2016. Those 15, I with conviction know that at least 2 of those were perceived unwinnable matches.
Doesnât matter the player, what matters is if is willing to do the effort. On those 15 matches I mentioned, I decided that was not worth it. Yet on those 15, I later successfully replicated 2 of them, the result was that could be won but the effort and willingness to do so wasnât present at the moment. So, at that time, was unwinnable match due I didnât had patience, energy or willingness to take the effort to make it work, which on the ones replicated I won but didnât worth it the effort.
So, when whatever person says something is âimpossibleâ or âunwinnableâ, more often than not is not. But the effort and energy usually doesnât worth for the person that time. Like I mentioned I had scenarios that we won against all odds and replicated actual lost games and changed the result. Scrimm matches are a good way to measure that, but also on the older days were easier to play against same folks repeatedly along the week or even the day.
Just make a experiment, revisit some replays of matches you consider unwinnable. Save as video due OW deletes replays after patches. Try to analyze the PoV of each player to understand their behavior.
Question yourself, Could you had done something to change the outcome? If the answer is no keep looking. Because, more often than not, you could. Until you find a decisive proof that was impossible (which usually you donât find, the only cases that could be considered unwinnable due you, really, did all you could and wasnât enough because something outside of your power was at play, like mass disconnect, lag, some device malfunction or smurf with a coordinated team) or notice that you could but didnât saw before or didnât had energy/willingness to make it happen.
Those are âperceived unwinnableâ matches, but because the reward and effort are skewed. Theyâre perceived unwinnable because you wouldnât put the effort to try to change the outcome. You just accept or take the loss.
Team diff is more tied to teamwork and formation. Either you do the effort to solve that and convince your teammates that could work, is up to you. You gauge and balance if is unwinnable or not, but that is a perceived unwinnable situation.
On Open and MR, âthe root cause is not one role being weak or faillingâ because everybody have the same role. If your tank is under-performing you can solve it with another tank or enabling that tank. If your dps is under-performing you can solve it with another dps or enabling that dps.
RQ tries to put a blame on specific folks, while in reality is a team effort to win the match. Folks use the Role as shield to avoid the blame. While RQ hinders your options to do stuff, mei, sym and torb can offset a tank underperforming, while soldier and sombra can offset a support underperforming. zen/bap/kiriko can offset a dps underperforming
You showed that number X/Y were better than W/Z, while if those things were true you would never win matches with lower stats than the opposite team. Which is false, due C9 is one example that those stats can be ignored for the winning/losing purposes. Objectives win matches not K/D, they have some kind of trend but arenât cause-effect.
Iâm suggesting you to experiment, not believing on what other folks say. Mentality is the key factor on those perceived unwinnable matches.
You gave multiple set of data? Other players posting?
Search for:
- Herd mentality, path of least friction and following what an individual or group says as true without questioning or reflect on it.
- Group IQ which is usually lower when that said group increases.
He is not the only âpro playerâ out there. Several of them had different stances and changed their stances over the years, because everybody is an human and have bias. Even devs stated that the likelihood of those matches are really low. Also stated that your performance changes due several human factors, like how tired, first match of the day, last match of the day and so on.
Iâm motivating you to bypass your inherent bias and look outside it, the world is not black and white. What folks consider impossible or unobtainable is just a question of perspective, effort and tools at time.
While some situations can happen due noises in the system, like smurfs. Those matches if the said smurf is alone arenât exactly unwinnable. Similarly to things outside your control, like power outages, disconnections, devices issues and so on.
The repetitive behavior will hit faster on the weakest link. If you trigger the surrender and they dislike it, the odds of them being toxic increases towards you. At some point you will start also being toxic due the contact with it. Toxic behavior spreads really fast.
A common example is The chain of screaming.
I didnât made a rant, if you think I did. Youâre mistaken. Community doesnât care also by emotional states of strangers, which is why it contradicts themselves when theyâre on the least fortunate end of it. There are several cases on those forums of folks willing to agree with folks with opposite opinions when their comfort were affected as if were empathy/solidarity. Folks seek to self-preserve and look for their own emotional states and seek comfort, at expense of other feelings and situations. Leading to situations like the one you tried to bring and many others did in the past.
Sometimes, folks will not find is a waste of time to stay in a perceived unwinnable match due either not care or simply donât see that way. Because unwinnable matches are often associated to perception not reality. What I say or anyone say will not change your PoV unless youâre willing to look outside your own bias and judge by yourself through experimentation.
About MR / Open aspect as long everybody is on the same page is fine, majority will not. Due that triggers toxic behavior.
In no moment I deviated from the topic, I just gone through a big scenario to reach the point:
We donât have surrender option because RQ and because would elevate toxicity due how RQ conditioned folks to behave.
For that I explained why:
Unwinnable matches are usually perceived unwinnable matches. Individualistic behaviors exist and got exacerbated through RQ. Majority vote would lead to toxicity.
I always was on topic, just took a different approach to explain those things. Either you agree or not, is up to you. I just showed that, maybe, you should revisit your optics about how perceive unwinnable matches.
Similarly to the devs optics about 5v5 and 1-3-2 ice-cream debacle . Ideas can be on the right place. But execution, not always.
1 Like