Yeah, so at least it is a devastating punishment for the leaver. That will take many many hours or days to recover. I think this part is good since it needs to be harsh as a deterrent.
1 Like
i agree 100% that part is right where it should be
Was basically the other side of the fence.
âI was 5-0 and someone quit, but I get no rating.â
So they changed it, and itâs now
âI was 0-3, but was about to get 3 games against the weak link, so I may have went even.â
Shuffle is just bad design in general. Should have just did what they did with BGB and made Shuffle rated 3v3 skirms. People would be less apt to leave anyway if itâs just one match, but losing a couple games and realizing youâre going to get tunneled for 4 more, itâs hard to blame someone for not wanting to eat abuse for 15 minutes so other people can get rating.
3 Likes
agreed the 6 rounds when first announced sounded dope but it probably would have just been better just random 1 round 3v3s
Maybe they got overly clever with it. I do think that the current design does a nice job giving some actual game time after the queue, but maybe the way the rounds meta out can be toxic.
Still seems like they could just not give anybody a rating loss in a leave scenario and just reward the winners.
1 Like
yeah agree with your statement completely I struggle to think to what it would hurt just giving the people that are positive at the time the leaver leaves rating gains and others just no rating change. The only thing I can think of like I said is people abusing it somehow but I do believe there would be few scenarios when it would happen and I do think those players would get banned quickly because it would be easy to pick up on people doing it.
1 Like
People say that but then look at things like blitz. You get a team of NPCs, lose, and have no opportunity to get the rating back, and vice versa. Too much RNG, too many people getting lucky and unlucky. Itâs a bad game mode and terrible design.
With how heavy the punish is on the leaver account, whatever it is seems like it would be excessively high effort and not worth it.
Yea its kind of unfair because if you rolled bad luck and get 3 games with a healer thats just getting outplayed and he leaves on the 4th game where you are supposed to get your 3 wins and leave even⌠you are screwed.
your probably right
Because you lost rounds already.
Why should you lose 2 rounds, someone leaves in the 3rd and then you magically get rating for losing?
Doesnât matter if you have the potential to win other rounds, because by that logic you should get 1800 just for logging in since you maybe might possibly win some rounds somewhere down the line.
Like ???
Why is this a hard concept?
1 Like
if you get the healer thatâs going 0-6 that leaves after 3 matches in a row with you, that is definitely still scuffed, no matter the opportunity, sometimes its just not possible.
Gotta carry harder.
no one expects to gain rating, but losing rating shouldnât be a thing if you have more games to play to make up for it
You arenât really being punished assuming everyone did their best to win the rounds you completed.
There are two sides to this coin, one can be a lot more easily abused (and knowing gamers, would be), in that people queueing multiple accounts, or people managing to get into the same lobby with their friends/alts can just manipulate leaving so as to boost someone, thereby giving them a get out of jail free card even if they happened to lose 1-5 rounds.
You kind of have to stop necessarily thinking that itâs an all or nothing because itâs 6 rounds, and instead think of it from the perspective that each round is like an accelerated 3v3 match (e.g., each round matters in terms of going up/down rating, despite you not seeing any change until after the lobby is over).
Why should you be, in effect, rewarded because someone else leaves even though you lost 3 rounds (e.g., rewarded in that you suffer no rating/mmr loss despite losing 3 rounds in a rated format)?
In other words, losing rounds = losing rating/mmr accordingly, and it doesnât (and shouldnât) matter if you complete all 6 rounds. Donât get me wrong, I agree with you that it is not a perfect system, but itâs better than the alternative of just giving everyone that lost X rounds a free pass anytime someone else leaves. There has to be some consequence to losing (if you disagree with that, then thatâs another matter, but if that is the case, Iâd recommend m+).
You also have to realize your bias on this too, because from a numbers perspective, youâre more or less just as often on the beneficial side of things, e.g., youâre on the team that didnât have the weak link, you got 3 wins, and now due to someone leaving, you ended with a 3-0 while some other poor chap got a 0-3, and if all 6 rounds had played out, then you would have lost the other 3 rounds, thereby going 3-3 (this is just an example).
Would you similarly prefer things as they were, where you could be 5-0, then someone leaves, and then you get no rating? I think not, and if you say otherwise, youâre being disingenuous.
1 Like
Yes it absolutely should because then youâre not losing rating for the games lost.
Why should you lose and hold onto CR?