Your Competitive system is clown shoes

Dear Blizzard, I know it’s been said before, but I have to say it again. Your competitive system stinks to high heaven. Your continuance in adhering to this current system that neither works well nor is accurate is infuriating to people who just want to play the game and have some fun.

It is impossible to climb up as a loss is more detrimental to the score than a win is in the positive direction. And if you get curb stomped by a team it just wipes out the score increase in your wins. The fact that you calculate in previous performance is inane and witless. I purchased a second account so that I can see where I might place in a system that does not count previous seasons. And even with my competitive placements having leavers where I lost on more than once, I placed higher on my new account than I did on my legacy one.

You can’t explain the logic in that to me. And I am unsure how you justify calculating it. I am not even sure why you do this or who you are protecting, but it has to be someone.

And to clarify, I have a second account that I paid for and I play it correctly as the game intends. It is not so that I can de-rank (because I am not THAT good of a player) and grief low level players. I have been playing OW for a long time. And while I know the tiers have changed, once you drop down in rank it is damn near impossible to get back to where you were. I am probably a gold player at best, which I am fine with being. But good freakin’ luck in me getting back to gold.

Which brings me to issues Blizzard doesn’t seem to give two craps about. You have way too many leavers in a comp match and the penalties are not severe enough for ditching. You need to do something smarter, and better to even things out when someone leaves. For example, since you love roles, if a tank leaves, then a tank gets a time out on the other team. If the player returns, then the other tank can come back. This way you make it a bit more fair. The tank in time out should receive no adverse penalties for not being able to participate.

This way if a person decides to jet because they are toxic or a crybaby or even if their network goes out, then the other 5 players are not punished. Because that is what happens. Seems like something you could implement. I don’t know if it is a grand idea or if it would work. But it seems a darn sight better than what we have.

You could, alternatively, add in a bot for the leaver team; however, your AI is awful - really awful. And you know it. The playing against AI is worthless. You may as well remove it from the game it is so worthless. I have seen better AI in NES games.

I currently slipped into bronze in Comp. Which would be fine if the player base wasn’t not only so disjointed but littered with people throwing and smurfing. Not only does it happen, then openly admit it in voice and text chat. Which leads me to believe you do nothing about it and don’t really care. Yes, I report people who purposefully throw and admit to smurfing. I have no idea what happens to those accounts. And for all of your updates about heroes or role queues and the like, I haven’t heard anything about these issues. Jeff certainly isn’t going to chime in on it. He won’t even touch that topic because it would be admitting the system is broken and they openly have people ruining matches - consistently.

This isn’t a sometimes thing. This is pretty much an every other match thing.

I am not trying to complain like a whiner here - although, I guess it can be seen as that. I love Overwatch as a game. It’s fun. I play it a lot. You make decent updates and add new content. So, thank you for being awesome in that way. I will give you credit where it is due.

But can you tell me how you plan on adjusting and fixing your competitive system?

And, it would be nice if you had better training or something to take care of dullards who refuse to switch to a character’s counter. That is essentially throwing a match. There could a team vote system for switches or you could implement tutorials on counters in lieu of your terrible AI training. SOMETHING to help people understand how to play the game you created. Because the intro section doesn’t go in depth enough.

Lastly, damn it let us see what our team mates are doing. I want to be able to see my team mates’ eliminations, heals, etc. There is no reason to hide this information. In fact, I think it could cut down on people complaining as you could see if someone is doing something right.

Thank you.

9 Likes

Are not video games meant for this? I have not played this " ranked game mode " yet, but what i have played so far this game has been a lot of funny moments. My younger brother actually recommended me to buy this game so i gave it a shot !

I’ve never understood why players equate a 30 hour account to an account that has hundreds of hours played. The two are not equal.

I’ve gone from silver to diamond in this game. It’s possible to climb in the current competitive system. If a player wants to climb, stop focusing on peripherals and focus on the one thing you can control—you.

Leavers, griefers, smurfs, alts, and bad teammates infect everyone’s matches, not just one person. It’s frustrating. Correction, it’s beyond frustrating, but forget about them and learn from your play. It’s the only way to climb.

1 Like

That really wasn’t his topic, but ok. Climbing is possible but not efficient. And most complaints about the comp system have little to do with climbing. People like to interpret it that way, inadvertently rank shaming. The issues are gameplay ‘violations’. As a byproduct, we get “slow” mobility and “incorrect” ranking, until everything “averages out” and you get to where you belong.

It’s akin to a traffic jam. Yeah, everyone can eventually get to where they want, but watching the cars block, turn around, reverse, block, and bumper themselves is horrendous. Now you’re late for work, because the freeway has been like that since 2016 and no one got laid off!?

You just can’t log-on for a 3 hour comp session and have a set of well-calibrated, good games. You’re waiting for 20 minutes between matches. There will be leavers, cancels, and smurfs, and maybe your “constant in the noise” will net you +100sr for the night, despite playing +1000sr above where you belong the whole time.

1 Like

Actually pretty much anyone can. Placements are inexact. You’ll lose games as you play more on your 2nd account and settle to within 200 SR of your main account. Come back after 100 more games on both accounts and make a thread when they’re the same SR.

I played for well over 3 hours yesterday, and I had really good matches. Most of the matches I won and lost were close.

I’ve had multiple comp sessions lately with good matches. Sure I’ve had my fair share of leavers, but I haven’t had many griefers or throwers. One player, whom I had to report, was wildly toxic in chat, but I just muted him, and we ended up winning.

Yeah, this is about right. If you can net +100 Sr each time you play comp, then you’re climbing pretty well in my opinion.

This cannot be measured, especially introspectively. It’s why everyone thinks they are better than their rank.

Almost every complaint I read about (and have had) are about rank. It may not be said explicitly, but the underlying tones of many forum rants and topicsare, “I’m better than my rank.”

People don’t like to rank shame contrary to what you think but when you spout nonsense like this, one has to look at your rank and conclude that you are delusional about your skills.

It’s easy to always say “my team sucks”. Sure, that’s happened to me at times when there are legitimate grounds for that but more often than not, the team isn’t the problem. The reason why your games don’t seem “good” may be because your skills aren’t as good as you think you are. You may be the feeder but nope, got to blame the team.

Do you really think you are playing 1000 SR above? Come on.

Try playing competitive for a couple years and playing without a group and get back to me.

Actually, Jeff recently admitted that smurfing is a problem and said they’re working on a solution but noted it’s a complicated issue due to how account creation works on consoles.

If the comp system is the clown shoes,

Then what’s the clown nose?

I’m the whole circus actually!!!

Yeah, the matchmaking sucks, I think we all agree on that.
But I am so upset about it because that’s what all Blizzard games have in common.
At the beginning the game is good and then it gets worse and worse during the life cycle.
Sometimes I get the impression that they had a completely different development team for the initial development of the game and replaced them all with different people for the following maintenance phase.

It’s a real pity that Blizzard doesn’t comment on the matchmaker, I would like to know if they are satisfied with the current matchmaking.

3 Likes

That’s because at the beginning of the game there’s no smurfs/alts/whatever accounts to have a detrimental effect on the matchmaker.

Oh, I am fully aware that if I keep playing on that account an losing then my score will drop. I am talking about the initial placement only here.

You missed the point. The question was why the same person on a second account qualifies for many 100’s of SR higher than an older account. Same person, same skill, different tiers for different accounts. In other words, he is exposing evidence that the system can tell his skill is high but the slope for SR gain is arbitarily shallow on the old account which makes climbing take forever.
Again, the climb is not the question, it is the ovbious disparity between two accounts where the only difference is the age of the account.

4 Likes

Geez, I am really tired of people saying this to me.

No, I didn’t miss the point. 99% of all “the competitive system” posts are about the players inability to climb.

Now they can disguise this any way they’d like, and most of them do, but the subtext of every post is the same—the system is holding me back.

The idea that players would use a 30-hour account to show that their 300 hour account is improperly placed is pure confirmation bias.

I am going to use a metaphor to answer this because saying something explicitly hasn’t been working.

A person wants to play shortstop for a minor league baseball team. There are three teams: A, B, and C—A is the most skilled players, B is the middle of the pack, and C is the least skilled.

Tryouts are 90-days long, and the criteria for making the team is based on three categories, all of which are judged via scrimmage:

Batting
Fielding
Teamwork

In the first scenario, the player is at tryouts from the beginning, which nets 90 days of data for the coaches to make a decision.

The scrimmages allow for hundreds of fielding opportunities, hundreds of at bats, and hundreds of moments to show he or she can function well as a team.

Throughout the course of the tryout, all of the players may show moments of being an A team member, a B team member, and a C team member, but a pattern begins to reveal itself after 30 days, so the coaches begin splitting the players into the tiers, which will give the players 60 days to rise or fall.

In the second scenario, the player arrives with one week left in tryouts, so instead of 90 days of information, the player will only have 7.

Based on the format of the tryouts, the coaches don’t have as much information to judge the player, so instead of placing him on A, B, of C after 30-days, the player is put on a team after 2 days.

This allows for a few fielding opportunities, a few at bats, and a few opportunities to show great teamwork skills.

Comparatively, the amount of information in scenario 2 doesn’t justify the the team the player is placed. Maybe the player in scenario 2 hit 4 home runs on 7 at bats, and they are placed on team A. Where in scenario 1, the same player hits 4 home runs on 90 at bats, so they are placed on team C. Same player, different result.

Once the players are placed on teams (whenever this takes place), moving between teams A, B, and C is a slow process, though it will be easier to drop from team A that it will be to climb from team C, but over the course of tryouts and the season, the player will settle into their spot. The more data the coaches have, the more accurate the placement.

Walk forward in a clump to the objective. Sounds like NES to me.

What you say makes absolutely zero sense logically. The account with hundreds of hours and a win loss ratio pre-determined has nothing to do with a new season. Once you begin a new season, the score from a previous season should have nothing to do with the current one. Why have seasons at all if this is the case?

For the love of god, they have placement matches every season and no matter what they place you where you have been ranking - no matter what.

If I can place in gold/silver on a new account then there is zero reason I should place in low bronze on a legacy account. None. Zero. 0. Comprende?

On a side note, and this is to anyone else reading this - I don’t know how you all deal with these forums. The WYSIWYG editor sucks, it doesnt work with markup, html well at all. I hate trying to use the blockquote feature here.

And, worse of all, Blizzard has a really dumb rule that doesn’t let me reply to more than one person. After I reply to ONE person when I try to reply to another - on my own Fing post, I get told I have to wait for other people to interact.

Blizzard, seriously? You can’t get forums right? What is wrong with all of you. My god. It’s okay though. You all just keep cashing your money from whatever you sell people and assign woke points to your OW characters while you conveniently forget to get ride of the multitude of smurfs and griefers in your comp matches. I mean, it is not like most of the player base for OW is bronze, right?

Oh wait. Yes, they are. This is why you won’t release accurate numbers of how many people are actually playing this game on a daily basis.

SMH at Blizzard and their forums. Sorry I had to add that. Don’t feel like “waiting for my turn” like I am in gradeschool.