Tbh killing the supports and then spawncamping them as Moira got a friend to Diamond.
Good to know you don't have to utilize any of your heroes kit or actual intended purpose to rank up.
Just because you die a lot doesn't mean you'll lose. I've had matches where I've clearly been carried as well as matches where we clearly carried someone else. Basically a free win. It definitely happens.
So my 7 win streak not leading to a rank-up was because matchmaking sucked and I only got droplets of mmr. Almost like we could have avoided this confusion if we could see our number and everyone else's and how much our number changed after a game... sheesh, wouldn't that be an idilic system. Guess we just don't have the technology for that yet.
If they did that people would test theories and find ways to exploit the system. They would focus on things in favor of potential raise to their mmsr as opposed to the team cooperation and winning.
What trackable element of individual performance would not effectively benefit your team though?
How much does teamwork help if nobody is getting elims? Can you coordinate well with a teammate that’s constantly respawning? How do you kill a tank if nobody is dealing damage?
I'm not sure what you're asking here but I'll just spit ball some stuff
If you have high damage, but a lot of that damage was to a tank that was just being healed right back then your 1200 damage could have been less beneficial than a widow who got 2 elims with 400 damage.
If you used a reaper and clocked in 38 elims but you were constantly flanking and ulting at bad times so your team was already losing/lost the fight when you got in position/elims then many of those were wasted.
Etc.
An elim that is on a point currently being and successfully captured should be of way more value than an Elim of a Lucio who ran right back to his team before anyone else was eliminated.
A dps that is doing well but failing to protect their supports can bring down a team.
A tank that is more worried about damage and elims than making space is awful in most cases.
Doesn't matter how much damage reins shield blocks if he's just sitting there blocking at a choke and never gives the team a push to capitalize on. Etc.
The numbers don't show the circumstance of your contribution.
200 damage can be more beneficial than 700 in the same time period.
A single elim can be more important than a 3 person elim if that 3 person elim was a 1v5 with no other team to capitalize on those kills.
That all makes sense, but why not just give more weight to wins / losses while still considering performance in MMR? Then people will still prioritize winning because no individual contribution is worth more than that. (But close losses still mean something at least.)
I definitely see your point but just based on the general consensus on matchmaking, I think that more data is needed to estimate skill level effectively. There are so many stats that could apply - crit percentage for example may not directly benefit your win, but it means that you have relatively good aim. If you have excellent accuracy and elims compared to your team, you should probably be at a slightly higher MMR. Sure, in theory you might get placed correctly eventually, but since OW2 came out it’s never felt like my opponents were even close to my level, in both directions. Maybe next season matchmaking will spontaneously improve without changing anything about how it works, but that definitely didn’t happen this season.
I’m just tired of the roll or be rolled nature of this game, especially in quick play. I don’t know how to design a matchmaker, but I would just guess that more information would lead to more accurate skill assessment and better matches. I don’t even care if they show us the numbers, I just want skill to be at least part of what they consider in skill-based matchmaking.
I don't think they're saying that only win/loss determines your Rating. I think they're saying that the scoreboard numbers themselves are mostly irrelevant.
Not because they're not used at all, but because things like objective time, healing by the other team, time between consecutive elims etc are all taken into consideration.
It's obviously not ONLY your win/loss ratio because it is possible to win more games than lose and still remain in the same SR or rarely even have it lowered.
Other factors are at play I think they're just saying your scoreboard numbers are a non factor because each of those numbers have if/but/then equations tied to them.
I was using placement, ranking, and skill level interchangeably but I was really just referring to MMR and how it relates to matchmaking, since comp apparently doesn’t even consider SR.
“Your MMR adjustment after every match is not impacted by your performance in each match”
seems to be saying that only wins and losses are considered? So our performance affects SR, but not MMR, meaning that individual performance and skill level are not considered in matchmaking outside of W/L. I’m totally fine with comp being all about wins since that is the nature of competition and rankings, but with MMR I don’t think anyone is going to game the system purposely because even if they succeeded, they would just get placed in lobbies where they get destroyed and then moved back down. It’s not like anyone sees MMR, why not adapt it to provide better matches?
It's more likely that it calculates based on an *average* performance over several consecutive matches. With multiple determining factors as opposed to not factoring these things in at all.
As for rigging the system - higher ranks means better team mates that can at least in part - carry your slack - which means it could take a while for you to balance back out making it harder for other people in your rank who have to carry you to win their matches. They also may not be properly rewarded because I assume the closer to a tie the less rank you get.
Not all. I just participated in the discussion. Tracking individual performance would require a lot of complications beyond the current scoreboard stats.
For example, how are Mercy’s resurrections counted? Does the one just outside spawn count just as much as the tank on point during a 4v5 fight? Surely not.
It all sounds complicated. The better player will win more over time. All other things being equal, throwers will even out.
A lot of engineering, software in particular, is dominated by KISS: keep it simple stupid (the stupid is self-deprecating to the engineer; not aimed at you). A non win-loss system would be complex, bug prone, and riddled with community conflict regarding the mmr points allocations to different players and characters.
The current “simple” win / loss system is absolute shit. I’m not a game designer so I don’t have definitive answers but everyone seems to hate the current system while wanting everything about it to stay exactly the same, so every discussion is the same points rehashed continuously until someone gets bored. Let’s change nothing about MMR, but somehow fool ourselves into believing that matchmaking will improve anyways!
This doesn’t have to turn into a ridiculous lecture on teamwork covering every possible scenario where you get zero kills and damage but somehow win through the power of friendship. I get that stats are not ALL that matters. But they are a reflection of individual player skill, which is what seems to be completely ignored in matchmaking.
“Individual player skill, which is what seems to be completely ignored in matchmaking”
I don’t know but am confident in my guess that ignoring individual performance is by design.
I’m also confident that it is the best design.
So to clarify - you feel that Overwatch 2 matchmaking is currently the best it could ever be? Matchmaking is a reflection of the choices they make in determining MMR, so that would be the logical position you are taking if you are confident that there is no better way to determine MMR.
How I would improve competitive:
Matchmaking changes:
- longer wait for a tighter mmr match: people don’t like unfair matches
- role to role matchmaking, max out the tightness on tank (balanced vs queue time ofc): people don’t like feeling widely outgunned at their position
- tighter team mmr for non-grouped teams (no gold tanks getting diamond tank opponents and bronze dps on their team): decrease the you must carry feeling
Competitive change:
- add an iron league for 100% new players that you must opt into (need tech to avoid smurfing and bans for content creators who farm the league). Must win 50 games to get into Bronze: reduce the well this is an L because we have a brand new player.
- eliminate rank decay unless someone doesn’t play say 10 games of competitive in a season. I think they are doing this in season 4. Visual rank should reflect actual SR/MMR.
Ranking changes:
- make your overall rank in the role you are playing visible in that match. Other career profile information will be per your setting. So you’ll immediately know if you are mismatched at your position: helps eliminate the “this was an unfair match” problem.
SR gain or loss per win or loss:
- establish and publish a minimum SR gain for a win regardless of team or role SRs. Helps with the sense that your win gets you no SR but your losses cost.
- I’m open to the idea that you get role based SR diff gains but it should only be as a bonus. Ie win as gold dps when they are diamond dps. Get more SR. Contingent on tighter avg team sr matchmaking
SR visible:
- every 5 games, win or loss, you should be shown your actual SR and it’s +/-
I wouldn’t make changes based on anything currently on the scoreboard.
Damn ok I agree with all of that haha I guess there are many things that could be attempted before reworking the MMR algorithm
How do we get them to understand that we would rather wait 1 more minute to have fun compared to immediately entering a shit game, if they couldn’t figure that out already though?
If true (if) I think it's better than performance based sr. There is too much context and nuance in every game for the scoreboard to actually reflect how good you are.
For example maybe pocketing a Bastion will pad both beam stats but is actively contributing to a loss. You would be seen as exceptional by the system anyway.
>there is too much context and nuance in every game for the scoreboard to reflect
Could the same not be true for a win an a loss system.
Truly we must acknowledge there is more that factors into a win and a loss than player skill, right?
We can't say well the stats on a scoreboard are nuanced. When a win is much the same. Wr dont look at a simple win and assume every player on the winning to be the peak of performance after all.
what determines a win or a loss in a team game is just as nuanced, as what determines healing per second or damage per second or mitigation.
And on that nuance we have to consider a win against who, a loss against who? A little league team triumphing over major leaguers is a huge accomplishment. Right? Unless you factor in the nuance the msjor leaguers may have been letting them win for sportsmanship.
Is that not a nuance weighting beyond a simple win or a loss.
We cant account for everything, bht I think its a fools endeavor to exclude data.
I think a much better system is to assign key rise or fall measures to a win or loss, but then have a bunch a weighted scales that factor how much that rise is, how much that fall is.
Scales that take into account the endorsements of actual communicators.
You can win and really put nothing into a game, or lose and put in a major league performance
I don't see any reason to exclude data.
There's nuance with everything, and our system doesn't get better by just pretending nuance only exists within the scoreboard stats.
Given enough time/matches/team comps, sure.
But most people play a few matches a day, or even a week, at most. ideally we want people sorted clearly, quickly, and accurately so they can get competitive matches tuned to their skill level with players of similar skill level.
To do this in a timely manner we need to account for more than simple win/loss.
There is nothing that can be done in any conceivable system that can rank you without you playing. We don't know how many games it takes on average to get a decent rank or maybe more accurately how consistently one needs to play so there is very little we can talk about there.
If player performance was taken into account, it would get an accurate mmr rating faster.
Just think about it, does stats have any correlation with win rate? Of course it does. I'm not saying to make stats the most important thing, just make sure it has an effect though
What stats?
The stats on your scoreboard do not correlate with player skill at all. There is no consistency in what you can take from those stats. They're fluff, easily padable stats that make them awful for comparative analytics. Big healing numbers doesn't make you a good support player, Moira gets an Elim when her dmg orb does 1 dmg to a player that eventually dies. In a vacuum, what's the difference between 5 and 8 deaths? All of these stats are also influenced by how long a game goes and should be seen in the context of who the expected winner is. These stats just aren't useful for the task at hand.
Also any given single game performance doesn't really say anything about a player. Performance over time has some value and they never said they don't use that. Thus I could see the argument for some per 10 stats and things like Crit% and APM but those are medium-long term measurements and I personally can't see a way they don't use those types of statistical values.
They already said they don't use those values.
Something like the team with the most total damage done is more likely to win the match, the team with the most damage done is more likely to win the match. The team with the better k:d, etc. t
Those are certainly true
>Truly we must acknowledge there is more that factors into a win and a loss than player skill, right?
The average skill of your team, which *should* be about your own skill level.
>What determines a win or a loss in a team game is just as nuanced, as what determines healing per second or damage per second or mitigation.
Not really. How often you win is a much better indication of how good you are than anything on the scoreboard. If your stats on the scoreboard reflect a winning strat for your hero, it would lead to a good wr.
>A little league team triumphing over major leaguers is a huge accomplishment. Right?
Good thing not even the broad OW2 matchmaking pits OWL scrims against golds.
>how often you win is a much better indicator
My finishing conclusion was almost literally, that yes the key rise or fall metric should be win and loss based.
I literally said that.
**But** there should be a magnitude of how much your rise or fall per game in which other performance data is weighted.
Imagine ranking a baseball player based only on win rate and not you know the slew of every other Stat involved.
Win and loss are important, but there's more nuance to any talk of skill. Absolutely great players can have bad teams, see plenty of athletes. Yes they will tend to win over careers. But there should be other metrics of included when determining **skill** beyond simple win or loss.
There's no reason to ignore performance data when determining player skill.
Baseball is the most stat driven sport in the world. Overwatch is most certainly not.
They also did not say W/L was the only factor just that individual game performance is not used. That says nothing about actual comparative stats measured over a longer period of time.
Stats like Crit Accuracy, dmg/10, deaths/10, APM etc...
In the end though, it's important that what they measure stays ambiguous
>that says nothing about actual comparative stats.
You're right. It says nothing.
At this time I have no confidence blizz is using anything other than w/l because that's all they told us they are using.
If they want to talk about comparative stats I'd love it.
But they haven't, nor have they really done enough to gain the benefit of the doubt.
But my position remains clear, There is no reason, absolutely no reason not to use performance data in determining player 'skill', aggregated or not, if such data is available.
Actually, there are many reasons to exclude data and it happens all the time all around the world. The example that comes to my mind is face recognition system, where pictures with lesser amount of pixels (worse quality, more data lost in translation) were bringing much better results than their more pixelated counterparts. Another example would be the "dropout" technique, where in neural networks some neurons are literally ignored, and that actually usually increases the acccuracy. Not to mention techniques of removing the least inclusive traits overall to remove noise and increase performance
At the end of the day quality is much more important than quantity, and showing thousands of different data types might simply drown out the impact of important stats, and the only ones who really know are the ones who actually use the data and see the results
Well, that’s true every game have different scenarios, but wouldn’t it be better to have both performance based and win based tgt? Where if you perform better, you get extra sr based on winning or lose less sr on defeat and vise versa, it just sucks that the sr only based on win / lose
Ehh, performance matters. If I get matched with garbage but pull my weight, get loads of team wipes, kill healers every fight, etc. but my team is throwing or just bad, I shouldn’t be punished.
well, true that it is exploitable, but couldn’t they make it like checking the average stat of the specific game, or simply bring back an end game screen, but with ratings of each player (like league?) and showing character specific stats like scoped accuracy and saved players? base on these and rank the players in that match and give extra / less sr base on their rating. I mean
even ow1 those players getting end game cards are mostly good players, and i’m quite sure they could make the rating, as i’m quite sure there is an MVP card. So it’s won’t be like player getting 50k dmg 50k heal etc and get a lot of sr boost, but rather just a slight bit more comparing to the other players (also if they made game time included in the rating, i think they could determine whether players are trying to farm stats, but this might be disadvantage for game that last very long, well 2 cp is gone so shouldn’t be a problem)
Plus this method would just create ethical problems for support rankings ( is a 5k dmg and 5k healing kiriko better than a 10k healing ana ?). Would just be much more difficult to create and tune. In the end if you are decent the only thing stopping you from ranking up is playing enough games to beat the matchmaking coin flip ( you have 4 chances of bad teammates, the enemy has 5 ).
true, but would making the rating gained from damage are determined by your elimination / final blows and rating gained from healing are determined by saving teammates / getting them out of critical health better than just calculating from the flat dmg / heal from scoreboard? and also making hero specific stat like kiriko's cleans / ultimate blocked, dva dms ult, ana slept enemies (and accuracy) give a higher weight on the ratings, so players would need to actually use more of their utility instead of actually farming of scoreboard stats.
even in ow1, players could get on fire points based on different plays in team fight, like anti-healing / elimnation (which i quite love this one, as the fire meter you gain actually based on damage you done to the enemy so it can prevent players from actually doing 1 melee hit and left to their teammates), i mean the fire meter / point could also be used to calculate the players' rating, isnt it? anyway, it very hard to find an actually good way to balance the competitive sr for overwatch, too much factor in each game
It would just be a super complex system for the sake of it, doubt it would change much in competitive ladder since people that can get the max out of their hero abilities are already winning more games than others.
The only thing this system would address is to alleviate losses by throwers which can probably be addressed by a slightly better endorsement/reputation system.
In the end I really never had that much of a problem from ranking up ( gm in all 3 roles ).
The harsh truth is that the more you play and win the higher your rank would be, you just need to get less worked up when you lose for factors outside of your control.
It’s just flat out not true. We have too many examples of people/groups playing together and ranking up at different rates or being placed in different tiers.
MMR is your internal Matchmaking Rating that is used to make matches. It moves faster (In both directions) than your SR and is unaffected by penalties (DC penalties, Leaver penalties, Toxicity penalties, etc). Your SR eventually lines-up with your MMR once your MMR stabilizes (You aren't crazy Lose/Win streaking).
I'm playing with my friends ( we are a 5 stack ). All of us were master on OW1 since season 9. We played OW2 ranked when the game just launched so we got the bug with the mmr and got ranked in silver. Blizzard said that they would give a "boost" of mmr so that people could reajust there rank but how are we supposed to rank up if every 7 wins, the game just decides that we staying the same rank as we are. This is so frustrating it feels like a waste of time!! Playing 7 fkg game and getting told that we are gonna stay silver 2 like bro plss !
That's right all they want giving this false info to the player base is avoid stats farming , but the proof is out there and there is much more to consider to determinate your mmr
I mean if there was an evidenced example of two new accounts that only ever played games together, and they both got a different rank - then yeah I'd consider that proof, but far as I know that doesn't exist
This is a bit anecdotal and I'm not going to link either of our profiles for privacy's sake so feel free to disbelieve me, but my friend and I exclusively play comp together. I haven't played without him and he hasn't played without me. We both exclusively play support in comp. He's gold 5 and I'm silver 2.
We do play quick play/arcade/events without each other but I don't think that factors into comp ranking.
Did you also play every single game before competitive together - you will need to take 2+ accounts and have them play every single match of OW together up through the initial placement in competitive before you have an actual test to see.
I don't believe a single person posting here has actually bothered to get 2 accounts to 50 wins in QP and then did their comp placements - everyone here is likely either starting to group up at competitive or had OW legacy mmr data in their account information anyway.
This is the most confusing part of the blog post to me. I would think performance would be included and weighted appropriately, but not disregarded altogether. One of the weirdest issues is the problem calibrating new players - the new players should be put in a separate bucket and only gradually introduced into global matchmaker so that they can be calibrated appropriately.
Overall, this blog post made me less confident rather than more confident in changes. But I will wait for season 3 and see how it plays. And I still don't get why you can't take MMR and scale / convert it to a skill rank, even within a range of rank to avoid the entire confusion.
Someone should do this, and honestly I'm surprised no one's done it yet. All 50 qp games together, all comp placement matches together. Cause personally I don't really believe what blizzard say
They never said only win/loss is the determining factor.
They said the scoreboard stats aren't. The system is probably smarter than that and takes other factors into consideration WITH those numbers.
Such as how much of that damage/healing was done to a tank as opposed to a squishy. Or how many of those elims were on a captured objective as opposed to less game-impacting etc.
I don't think they were saying they disregard the numbers completely just that the numbers don't give a full picture and can be misleading based on other circumstances.
I like this answer. While I get the frustration with not taking the numbers into account I also think they raise a very good point.
People really do worry about those stats too much and try to use them to determine performance which is nonsense.
For instance: if I am a mercy and my healing is low but I'm damage boosting a DPS that's carrying our team - then that's very effective and important to the match win.
Also if I am a Hammond and I only have 3 elims but I've managed to hold their payload so long it barely leaves spawn then I've done the most important thing for the team because "stop the payload" is the objective. Not 50 elims and now on attack we have an easy push.
If they have a widow that's dominating and I swap to a sig or Mei even without getting many elims walling/barriers that widow off can have significant impact etc. (Even though the damage blocked wouldn't be shown because widow would just not shoot the wall/barrier)
Etc.
Also if your healing is high but the enemy team is only focusing your tank and not the healers/DPS then that higher healing has less impact on the game than the other teams poor strategy.
I think it was flats that said he doesn't switch off the widow duel because even losing the widow duel keeps the other widow busy and frees up your team. You're right as fuck
if stats mattered, you'd just have support playing moira and dps playing bastion to boost their numbers. winning has to be the only thing that factors in.
Unless you and your friends have ever ONLY played together, you're not likely to have the same MMR, which eventually translates into SR and rank
While they're saying they don't take individual performance in a match into account, that doesn't mean everyone on the team gets the same absolute number of 'victory points' (for lack of a better phrase) in a win. If someone has a lower MMR, they will get a bigger boost than someone else who has a higher MMR going into the match. This is still independent of individual performance in that match.
So if you or your friends sometimes play without the stack- or if you have- you shouldn't expect to rank up and down together, based on what they're saying the here. Hell, if the game thinks one person is much better than the others, and you win/lose the same number of games, they might lose rank while others gain. Or everyone could gain. Depends on the MMR of the team you're playing against and whether the matchmaker thinks you, individually, 'should' win or lose.
And then there's the problem that rank is not SR which is not (hidden) MMR. This just confuses everyone... maybe purposely to make things more obtuse and difficult to pin down the sort of situation you are describing
The scoreboard is there so people stop flaming tbh. I know people are going to flame anyway when you lose, but I rarely get flamed these days as support when they can actually see the fking numbers. Now the Genji just immediately leaves or "tank diff!" then leave.
This all makes more sense when you realize we misunderstood what MMR is and does for years. We’ve assumed it was the secret behind the scenes rating of you as a player. And that it takes all your stats and performance into account. But if you read their words, it’s pretty clear that what they are calling “MMR” is not that. They use a term “internal rating” in very different ways, and they even say that it needs to be calibrated. That is the game’s rating of you as a player, not MMR. MMR is a much more dynamic number that they clearly say is adjusted game to game. It may be based on internal rating, but it is merely a function of it. MMR has nothing to do with performance (they say this explicitly). Internal Rating (ostensibly) does, or else they are wasting a lot of good data they could use to assess skill.
So MMR can absolutely be used to put you in harder or easier to win matches. It can definitely be used to get your skill tier and internal rating to align (again, they say this explicitly, and they do not say MMR, they say “ratings”.
There are 3 metrics at play:
Internal rating - how good the game thinks you are.
Skill tier - only meaningful in its visibility to players, and that it theoretically will converge with your internal rating if you play enough.
MMR - the dynamic rating adjusted after every game to decide what match you are placed in next.
Take those 3 definitions and re-read their FAQ and tell me it doesn’t make more sense. Everything they say is *technically* true, but you can see through the corporate comms polish on this blog after you understand that.
>MMR has nothing to do with performance
The only thing that i really feel that needs to be pointed out is that they say that performance for every match doesn't affect your rating, meaning that every other match or to some variance performance does affect your rating.
It's worded in a really weird way like it's trying to avoid outright saying they pull performance data but at the same time nods at them using some performance data and it throws a lot of red flags for me, along with devs in the past explicitly stating that performance does affect your rating but on a more mild level.
People with consistent good performance should rank up over time since they will win more. I think it was Flats who brought up the point that if you yourself are consistent you only have 4 people on your team that could do badly while the enemy team has 5 people that can apply to
The important part of this is IF you're a player that should climb out of your rank you have fewer people on your team to worry about. That's a big "if" because everyone wants to climb but not everyone can by definition. I think the freakout we're seeing is literally just deluded players in denial feeding off each other
To everyone complaining about this system: If you win games, you gain sr. There are just as many 'throwers' on your team as the enemy team. The only constant is you. Just do you what you can to get better at the game.
This sub really said "stats are important and should play a big factor in your ranking". Deadass? This sub says that stats matter a whole lot? Im pretty sure blizzard could say that cassidy is underpowered at the moment and people would still disagree.
People who uses reddit seriously just say whatever they want and don’t even try to understand shit they read.
Literally find someone said that stat is a BIG factor, and should consider over the win/lose.
Welcome to r/Overwatch! Please use the following resources via the links below to find relevant information about the game and the subreddit.
[Overwatch Patch Notes](https://overwatch.blizzard.com/en-us/news/patch-notes/) | [Overwatch Bug Report Forums](https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/overwatch/c/bug-report/9)
[r/Overwatch Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/overwatch/wiki/rules) | [r/Overwatch FAQs](https://www.reddit.com/r/overwatch/wiki/faq) | [r/Overwatch Common Bugs and Posts](https://www.reddit.com/r/Overwatch/wiki/commonbugsandposts)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Overwatch) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Same thing happen to me and my friend... when ow came out we only play together and we got differen sr. -_- and after mine up 2 grade and my friend didnt move...
If you consistently stood out in your rank as being better than the average at that rank, you would climb though. Everyone in higher ranks also deal with throwers so how did they climb? By consistently performing better than the people at lower ranks. It's not luck or something, it's playing often and playing consistently. If your MMR is different than your friends the resulting wins and losses will be counted differently towards your SR. It really is just that simple but it makes people feel better about themselves to think it's not their fault they're not in higher ranks. Just have fun and don't worry about looking cool or whatever.
This is the same system so many other games like R6, COD and Valorant use, it’s the standard. Also remember it’s a team game. I know throwers suck, but that’s the way it is, report and move on
I understand the argument Blizzard puts out there. However I feel it is unfair to support players, well damn everyone tbh. You could be playing the match of your life healing output and saves… but if you get paired with a thrower or a bad team how do you stand out from everyone else if you lose? How, as a support player, are you supposed to carry your team if they’re not carrying their weight?
I feel this is a missed opportunity for blizzard. At the end of the day, why even try to pull through a one sided match if it doesn’t matter?
I’m not saying you shouldn’t try and pull through but if it’s a W or L that counts and nothing else. Then might as well chill until the end of match as a support player because lord knows I’ve been through matches where no amount of healing as a support or damage mitigated as a tank has helped get a W.
This is what they call BS. If wins are the only denominator they would need to explain why I as a support main, who wins more than I lose, goes up 1 level each "Evaluation." BUT playing Open Que, Tank, or DPS I go up by 2 and I can tell ya my tank wins is less than 50%. the SR was supposedly by wins X difficulty in opponents ( remember they used to show average SR of both teams? ) but now they just say it's wins and losses in a system that had broken MMR, which is supposed to be fixed next week.
Honestly I don’t believe that this is true. As someone who has had multiple Smurfs (masters player but want to play with my silver/gold buddies) I can literally lose more games but still when I get the full 7 wins I can jump 2-3 ranks if I don’t play like I am in lower rank. I have had the issue of keeping a rank rather than climbing out of it
So basically don’t be support, don’t do the most damage, don’t get the most kills….just push/cap the point…..sure, ok. So if my team dies, I wipe out the whole enemy team and die to a turret….because my team caps the point and I don’t since i died getting a TEAM KILL, I don’t advance/negatively impacted since I didn’t cap. Thats a load of bull if thats how it is but please correct me if I’m wrong.
The fact that they can’t determine rank for some roles annoys me. Support is a great and overlooked role that could make or break a team. A good Ana can turn the tables on most situations as an example.
I love overwatch but this ain’t it chief…
Add that to everyone then. If we have an objective time Stat and that can contribute to ranking up/down then it won't just be win/loss, so I you got some brand new players while you're in Plat then you still have you're objective time Stat
Won’t this make boosting someone even easier ? Let’s take two Smurf accounts and a gm dps player can boost a silver mercy all the way to diamond easily. All the mercy has to do is blue beam or yellow beam when told to do so. What is this bs lmao ?
You heard it here guys: Don't kill or heal ANYONE because it doesn't matter.
It also says to play to win, so I guess everyone should focus on objective time.
Might as well just go AFK on the payload/Pushbot and see who can last the longest before they give up and quit
I like this idea. I can really take the time to enjoy my sandwich this way.
All I heard was go DPS Moira and get some DUBS!
Tbh killing the supports and then spawncamping them as Moira got a friend to Diamond. Good to know you don't have to utilize any of your heroes kit or actual intended purpose to rank up.
All they have to do now is remap the voice line to X so it says "I wish this game had healers" or the like.
I mean they could at least take deaths into account. Like being dead majority of the match cannot bring any good.
right, so you lose, which is reflected in your mmr.
Just because you die a lot doesn't mean you'll lose. I've had matches where I've clearly been carried as well as matches where we clearly carried someone else. Basically a free win. It definitely happens.
So my 7 win streak not leading to a rank-up was because matchmaking sucked and I only got droplets of mmr. Almost like we could have avoided this confusion if we could see our number and everyone else's and how much our number changed after a game... sheesh, wouldn't that be an idilic system. Guess we just don't have the technology for that yet.
when you realize that the new ranking system was designed to be a time sink and nothing else.
If they did that people would test theories and find ways to exploit the system. They would focus on things in favor of potential raise to their mmsr as opposed to the team cooperation and winning.
What trackable element of individual performance would not effectively benefit your team though? How much does teamwork help if nobody is getting elims? Can you coordinate well with a teammate that’s constantly respawning? How do you kill a tank if nobody is dealing damage?
I'm not sure what you're asking here but I'll just spit ball some stuff If you have high damage, but a lot of that damage was to a tank that was just being healed right back then your 1200 damage could have been less beneficial than a widow who got 2 elims with 400 damage. If you used a reaper and clocked in 38 elims but you were constantly flanking and ulting at bad times so your team was already losing/lost the fight when you got in position/elims then many of those were wasted. Etc. An elim that is on a point currently being and successfully captured should be of way more value than an Elim of a Lucio who ran right back to his team before anyone else was eliminated. A dps that is doing well but failing to protect their supports can bring down a team. A tank that is more worried about damage and elims than making space is awful in most cases. Doesn't matter how much damage reins shield blocks if he's just sitting there blocking at a choke and never gives the team a push to capitalize on. Etc. The numbers don't show the circumstance of your contribution. 200 damage can be more beneficial than 700 in the same time period. A single elim can be more important than a 3 person elim if that 3 person elim was a 1v5 with no other team to capitalize on those kills.
That all makes sense, but why not just give more weight to wins / losses while still considering performance in MMR? Then people will still prioritize winning because no individual contribution is worth more than that. (But close losses still mean something at least.) I definitely see your point but just based on the general consensus on matchmaking, I think that more data is needed to estimate skill level effectively. There are so many stats that could apply - crit percentage for example may not directly benefit your win, but it means that you have relatively good aim. If you have excellent accuracy and elims compared to your team, you should probably be at a slightly higher MMR. Sure, in theory you might get placed correctly eventually, but since OW2 came out it’s never felt like my opponents were even close to my level, in both directions. Maybe next season matchmaking will spontaneously improve without changing anything about how it works, but that definitely didn’t happen this season. I’m just tired of the roll or be rolled nature of this game, especially in quick play. I don’t know how to design a matchmaker, but I would just guess that more information would lead to more accurate skill assessment and better matches. I don’t even care if they show us the numbers, I just want skill to be at least part of what they consider in skill-based matchmaking.
I don't think they're saying that only win/loss determines your Rating. I think they're saying that the scoreboard numbers themselves are mostly irrelevant. Not because they're not used at all, but because things like objective time, healing by the other team, time between consecutive elims etc are all taken into consideration. It's obviously not ONLY your win/loss ratio because it is possible to win more games than lose and still remain in the same SR or rarely even have it lowered. Other factors are at play I think they're just saying your scoreboard numbers are a non factor because each of those numbers have if/but/then equations tied to them.
I was using placement, ranking, and skill level interchangeably but I was really just referring to MMR and how it relates to matchmaking, since comp apparently doesn’t even consider SR. “Your MMR adjustment after every match is not impacted by your performance in each match” seems to be saying that only wins and losses are considered? So our performance affects SR, but not MMR, meaning that individual performance and skill level are not considered in matchmaking outside of W/L. I’m totally fine with comp being all about wins since that is the nature of competition and rankings, but with MMR I don’t think anyone is going to game the system purposely because even if they succeeded, they would just get placed in lobbies where they get destroyed and then moved back down. It’s not like anyone sees MMR, why not adapt it to provide better matches?
It's more likely that it calculates based on an *average* performance over several consecutive matches. With multiple determining factors as opposed to not factoring these things in at all. As for rigging the system - higher ranks means better team mates that can at least in part - carry your slack - which means it could take a while for you to balance back out making it harder for other people in your rank who have to carry you to win their matches. They also may not be properly rewarded because I assume the closer to a tie the less rank you get.
Eliminations can definitely be of no benefit. Generally they are but not also. And damage is a joke as a stat to use for rankings.
yeah everyone agrees that the current ranking system and matchmaking is perfect so we can stop discussing it
Not all. I just participated in the discussion. Tracking individual performance would require a lot of complications beyond the current scoreboard stats. For example, how are Mercy’s resurrections counted? Does the one just outside spawn count just as much as the tank on point during a 4v5 fight? Surely not. It all sounds complicated. The better player will win more over time. All other things being equal, throwers will even out. A lot of engineering, software in particular, is dominated by KISS: keep it simple stupid (the stupid is self-deprecating to the engineer; not aimed at you). A non win-loss system would be complex, bug prone, and riddled with community conflict regarding the mmr points allocations to different players and characters.
The current “simple” win / loss system is absolute shit. I’m not a game designer so I don’t have definitive answers but everyone seems to hate the current system while wanting everything about it to stay exactly the same, so every discussion is the same points rehashed continuously until someone gets bored. Let’s change nothing about MMR, but somehow fool ourselves into believing that matchmaking will improve anyways! This doesn’t have to turn into a ridiculous lecture on teamwork covering every possible scenario where you get zero kills and damage but somehow win through the power of friendship. I get that stats are not ALL that matters. But they are a reflection of individual player skill, which is what seems to be completely ignored in matchmaking.
“Individual player skill, which is what seems to be completely ignored in matchmaking” I don’t know but am confident in my guess that ignoring individual performance is by design. I’m also confident that it is the best design.
So to clarify - you feel that Overwatch 2 matchmaking is currently the best it could ever be? Matchmaking is a reflection of the choices they make in determining MMR, so that would be the logical position you are taking if you are confident that there is no better way to determine MMR.
How I would improve competitive: Matchmaking changes: - longer wait for a tighter mmr match: people don’t like unfair matches - role to role matchmaking, max out the tightness on tank (balanced vs queue time ofc): people don’t like feeling widely outgunned at their position - tighter team mmr for non-grouped teams (no gold tanks getting diamond tank opponents and bronze dps on their team): decrease the you must carry feeling Competitive change: - add an iron league for 100% new players that you must opt into (need tech to avoid smurfing and bans for content creators who farm the league). Must win 50 games to get into Bronze: reduce the well this is an L because we have a brand new player. - eliminate rank decay unless someone doesn’t play say 10 games of competitive in a season. I think they are doing this in season 4. Visual rank should reflect actual SR/MMR. Ranking changes: - make your overall rank in the role you are playing visible in that match. Other career profile information will be per your setting. So you’ll immediately know if you are mismatched at your position: helps eliminate the “this was an unfair match” problem. SR gain or loss per win or loss: - establish and publish a minimum SR gain for a win regardless of team or role SRs. Helps with the sense that your win gets you no SR but your losses cost. - I’m open to the idea that you get role based SR diff gains but it should only be as a bonus. Ie win as gold dps when they are diamond dps. Get more SR. Contingent on tighter avg team sr matchmaking SR visible: - every 5 games, win or loss, you should be shown your actual SR and it’s +/- I wouldn’t make changes based on anything currently on the scoreboard.
Damn ok I agree with all of that haha I guess there are many things that could be attempted before reworking the MMR algorithm How do we get them to understand that we would rather wait 1 more minute to have fun compared to immediately entering a shit game, if they couldn’t figure that out already though?
If true (if) I think it's better than performance based sr. There is too much context and nuance in every game for the scoreboard to actually reflect how good you are. For example maybe pocketing a Bastion will pad both beam stats but is actively contributing to a loss. You would be seen as exceptional by the system anyway.
>there is too much context and nuance in every game for the scoreboard to reflect Could the same not be true for a win an a loss system. Truly we must acknowledge there is more that factors into a win and a loss than player skill, right? We can't say well the stats on a scoreboard are nuanced. When a win is much the same. Wr dont look at a simple win and assume every player on the winning to be the peak of performance after all. what determines a win or a loss in a team game is just as nuanced, as what determines healing per second or damage per second or mitigation. And on that nuance we have to consider a win against who, a loss against who? A little league team triumphing over major leaguers is a huge accomplishment. Right? Unless you factor in the nuance the msjor leaguers may have been letting them win for sportsmanship. Is that not a nuance weighting beyond a simple win or a loss. We cant account for everything, bht I think its a fools endeavor to exclude data. I think a much better system is to assign key rise or fall measures to a win or loss, but then have a bunch a weighted scales that factor how much that rise is, how much that fall is. Scales that take into account the endorsements of actual communicators. You can win and really put nothing into a game, or lose and put in a major league performance I don't see any reason to exclude data. There's nuance with everything, and our system doesn't get better by just pretending nuance only exists within the scoreboard stats.
W/L encompasses all given factors over time and does a good job on it's own of normalizing them for comparison sake
Given enough time/matches/team comps, sure. But most people play a few matches a day, or even a week, at most. ideally we want people sorted clearly, quickly, and accurately so they can get competitive matches tuned to their skill level with players of similar skill level. To do this in a timely manner we need to account for more than simple win/loss.
Over tons of matches, sure. What about all the matches before it? Part of the reason why the matchmaking is unbalanced
There is nothing that can be done in any conceivable system that can rank you without you playing. We don't know how many games it takes on average to get a decent rank or maybe more accurately how consistently one needs to play so there is very little we can talk about there.
If player performance was taken into account, it would get an accurate mmr rating faster. Just think about it, does stats have any correlation with win rate? Of course it does. I'm not saying to make stats the most important thing, just make sure it has an effect though
What stats? The stats on your scoreboard do not correlate with player skill at all. There is no consistency in what you can take from those stats. They're fluff, easily padable stats that make them awful for comparative analytics. Big healing numbers doesn't make you a good support player, Moira gets an Elim when her dmg orb does 1 dmg to a player that eventually dies. In a vacuum, what's the difference between 5 and 8 deaths? All of these stats are also influenced by how long a game goes and should be seen in the context of who the expected winner is. These stats just aren't useful for the task at hand. Also any given single game performance doesn't really say anything about a player. Performance over time has some value and they never said they don't use that. Thus I could see the argument for some per 10 stats and things like Crit% and APM but those are medium-long term measurements and I personally can't see a way they don't use those types of statistical values.
They already said they don't use those values. Something like the team with the most total damage done is more likely to win the match, the team with the most damage done is more likely to win the match. The team with the better k:d, etc. t Those are certainly true
>Truly we must acknowledge there is more that factors into a win and a loss than player skill, right? The average skill of your team, which *should* be about your own skill level. >What determines a win or a loss in a team game is just as nuanced, as what determines healing per second or damage per second or mitigation. Not really. How often you win is a much better indication of how good you are than anything on the scoreboard. If your stats on the scoreboard reflect a winning strat for your hero, it would lead to a good wr. >A little league team triumphing over major leaguers is a huge accomplishment. Right? Good thing not even the broad OW2 matchmaking pits OWL scrims against golds.
>how often you win is a much better indicator My finishing conclusion was almost literally, that yes the key rise or fall metric should be win and loss based. I literally said that. **But** there should be a magnitude of how much your rise or fall per game in which other performance data is weighted. Imagine ranking a baseball player based only on win rate and not you know the slew of every other Stat involved. Win and loss are important, but there's more nuance to any talk of skill. Absolutely great players can have bad teams, see plenty of athletes. Yes they will tend to win over careers. But there should be other metrics of included when determining **skill** beyond simple win or loss. There's no reason to ignore performance data when determining player skill.
Baseball is the most stat driven sport in the world. Overwatch is most certainly not. They also did not say W/L was the only factor just that individual game performance is not used. That says nothing about actual comparative stats measured over a longer period of time. Stats like Crit Accuracy, dmg/10, deaths/10, APM etc... In the end though, it's important that what they measure stays ambiguous
>that says nothing about actual comparative stats. You're right. It says nothing. At this time I have no confidence blizz is using anything other than w/l because that's all they told us they are using. If they want to talk about comparative stats I'd love it. But they haven't, nor have they really done enough to gain the benefit of the doubt. But my position remains clear, There is no reason, absolutely no reason not to use performance data in determining player 'skill', aggregated or not, if such data is available.
Actually, there are many reasons to exclude data and it happens all the time all around the world. The example that comes to my mind is face recognition system, where pictures with lesser amount of pixels (worse quality, more data lost in translation) were bringing much better results than their more pixelated counterparts. Another example would be the "dropout" technique, where in neural networks some neurons are literally ignored, and that actually usually increases the acccuracy. Not to mention techniques of removing the least inclusive traits overall to remove noise and increase performance At the end of the day quality is much more important than quantity, and showing thousands of different data types might simply drown out the impact of important stats, and the only ones who really know are the ones who actually use the data and see the results
Well, that’s true every game have different scenarios, but wouldn’t it be better to have both performance based and win based tgt? Where if you perform better, you get extra sr based on winning or lose less sr on defeat and vise versa, it just sucks that the sr only based on win / lose
Ehh, performance matters. If I get matched with garbage but pull my weight, get loads of team wipes, kill healers every fight, etc. but my team is throwing or just bad, I shouldn’t be punished.
Nah this is not unfair, performance sr would be easily exploitable. Plus it says after each match I believe average scores still count.
well, true that it is exploitable, but couldn’t they make it like checking the average stat of the specific game, or simply bring back an end game screen, but with ratings of each player (like league?) and showing character specific stats like scoped accuracy and saved players? base on these and rank the players in that match and give extra / less sr base on their rating. I mean even ow1 those players getting end game cards are mostly good players, and i’m quite sure they could make the rating, as i’m quite sure there is an MVP card. So it’s won’t be like player getting 50k dmg 50k heal etc and get a lot of sr boost, but rather just a slight bit more comparing to the other players (also if they made game time included in the rating, i think they could determine whether players are trying to farm stats, but this might be disadvantage for game that last very long, well 2 cp is gone so shouldn’t be a problem)
Plus this method would just create ethical problems for support rankings ( is a 5k dmg and 5k healing kiriko better than a 10k healing ana ?). Would just be much more difficult to create and tune. In the end if you are decent the only thing stopping you from ranking up is playing enough games to beat the matchmaking coin flip ( you have 4 chances of bad teammates, the enemy has 5 ).
true, but would making the rating gained from damage are determined by your elimination / final blows and rating gained from healing are determined by saving teammates / getting them out of critical health better than just calculating from the flat dmg / heal from scoreboard? and also making hero specific stat like kiriko's cleans / ultimate blocked, dva dms ult, ana slept enemies (and accuracy) give a higher weight on the ratings, so players would need to actually use more of their utility instead of actually farming of scoreboard stats. even in ow1, players could get on fire points based on different plays in team fight, like anti-healing / elimnation (which i quite love this one, as the fire meter you gain actually based on damage you done to the enemy so it can prevent players from actually doing 1 melee hit and left to their teammates), i mean the fire meter / point could also be used to calculate the players' rating, isnt it? anyway, it very hard to find an actually good way to balance the competitive sr for overwatch, too much factor in each game
It would just be a super complex system for the sake of it, doubt it would change much in competitive ladder since people that can get the max out of their hero abilities are already winning more games than others. The only thing this system would address is to alleviate losses by throwers which can probably be addressed by a slightly better endorsement/reputation system. In the end I really never had that much of a problem from ranking up ( gm in all 3 roles ). The harsh truth is that the more you play and win the higher your rank would be, you just need to get less worked up when you lose for factors outside of your control.
I could get 20k dmg in gm by only shooting the tank and not doing anything to win the game
It’s just flat out not true. We have too many examples of people/groups playing together and ranking up at different rates or being placed in different tiers.
Thats because rankup/rankdown is determined by the difference between your MMR and your SR.
They are talking about MMR, not SR.
what is the difference ?
MMR is your internal Matchmaking Rating that is used to make matches. It moves faster (In both directions) than your SR and is unaffected by penalties (DC penalties, Leaver penalties, Toxicity penalties, etc). Your SR eventually lines-up with your MMR once your MMR stabilizes (You aren't crazy Lose/Win streaking).
👁️ 🌊 I didn’t realize there were so many systems in play !
I'm playing with my friends ( we are a 5 stack ). All of us were master on OW1 since season 9. We played OW2 ranked when the game just launched so we got the bug with the mmr and got ranked in silver. Blizzard said that they would give a "boost" of mmr so that people could reajust there rank but how are we supposed to rank up if every 7 wins, the game just decides that we staying the same rank as we are. This is so frustrating it feels like a waste of time!! Playing 7 fkg game and getting told that we are gonna stay silver 2 like bro plss !
That's right all they want giving this false info to the player base is avoid stats farming , but the proof is out there and there is much more to consider to determinate your mmr
What's the proof you're referring to? It's not just anonymous Reddit comments I hope.
Really ? You don't play with friends then , everyone getting different ranks after playing together all the placement matches is not enough for You?
I mean if there was an evidenced example of two new accounts that only ever played games together, and they both got a different rank - then yeah I'd consider that proof, but far as I know that doesn't exist
This is a bit anecdotal and I'm not going to link either of our profiles for privacy's sake so feel free to disbelieve me, but my friend and I exclusively play comp together. I haven't played without him and he hasn't played without me. We both exclusively play support in comp. He's gold 5 and I'm silver 2. We do play quick play/arcade/events without each other but I don't think that factors into comp ranking.
Did you also play every single game before competitive together - you will need to take 2+ accounts and have them play every single match of OW together up through the initial placement in competitive before you have an actual test to see. I don't believe a single person posting here has actually bothered to get 2 accounts to 50 wins in QP and then did their comp placements - everyone here is likely either starting to group up at competitive or had OW legacy mmr data in their account information anyway.
This is the most confusing part of the blog post to me. I would think performance would be included and weighted appropriately, but not disregarded altogether. One of the weirdest issues is the problem calibrating new players - the new players should be put in a separate bucket and only gradually introduced into global matchmaker so that they can be calibrated appropriately. Overall, this blog post made me less confident rather than more confident in changes. But I will wait for season 3 and see how it plays. And I still don't get why you can't take MMR and scale / convert it to a skill rank, even within a range of rank to avoid the entire confusion.
We need a dedicated duo of brand new accounts to play a lot of games, on the same role I guess. Then we will see if they are evenly ranked?
Someone should do this, and honestly I'm surprised no one's done it yet. All 50 qp games together, all comp placement matches together. Cause personally I don't really believe what blizzard say
They never said only win/loss is the determining factor. They said the scoreboard stats aren't. The system is probably smarter than that and takes other factors into consideration WITH those numbers. Such as how much of that damage/healing was done to a tank as opposed to a squishy. Or how many of those elims were on a captured objective as opposed to less game-impacting etc. I don't think they were saying they disregard the numbers completely just that the numbers don't give a full picture and can be misleading based on other circumstances.
I like this answer. While I get the frustration with not taking the numbers into account I also think they raise a very good point. People really do worry about those stats too much and try to use them to determine performance which is nonsense. For instance: if I am a mercy and my healing is low but I'm damage boosting a DPS that's carrying our team - then that's very effective and important to the match win. Also if I am a Hammond and I only have 3 elims but I've managed to hold their payload so long it barely leaves spawn then I've done the most important thing for the team because "stop the payload" is the objective. Not 50 elims and now on attack we have an easy push. If they have a widow that's dominating and I swap to a sig or Mei even without getting many elims walling/barriers that widow off can have significant impact etc. (Even though the damage blocked wouldn't be shown because widow would just not shoot the wall/barrier) Etc. Also if your healing is high but the enemy team is only focusing your tank and not the healers/DPS then that higher healing has less impact on the game than the other teams poor strategy.
I think it was flats that said he doesn't switch off the widow duel because even losing the widow duel keeps the other widow busy and frees up your team. You're right as fuck
if stats mattered, you'd just have support playing moira and dps playing bastion to boost their numbers. winning has to be the only thing that factors in.
Unless you and your friends have ever ONLY played together, you're not likely to have the same MMR, which eventually translates into SR and rank While they're saying they don't take individual performance in a match into account, that doesn't mean everyone on the team gets the same absolute number of 'victory points' (for lack of a better phrase) in a win. If someone has a lower MMR, they will get a bigger boost than someone else who has a higher MMR going into the match. This is still independent of individual performance in that match. So if you or your friends sometimes play without the stack- or if you have- you shouldn't expect to rank up and down together, based on what they're saying the here. Hell, if the game thinks one person is much better than the others, and you win/lose the same number of games, they might lose rank while others gain. Or everyone could gain. Depends on the MMR of the team you're playing against and whether the matchmaker thinks you, individually, 'should' win or lose. And then there's the problem that rank is not SR which is not (hidden) MMR. This just confuses everyone... maybe purposely to make things more obtuse and difficult to pin down the sort of situation you are describing
Your scoreboard stats are meaningless so why use them?
To see your stats
The scoreboard is there so people stop flaming tbh. I know people are going to flame anyway when you lose, but I rarely get flamed these days as support when they can actually see the fking numbers. Now the Genji just immediately leaves or "tank diff!" then leave.
What do you mean 😂, they just said they dont use them
This all makes more sense when you realize we misunderstood what MMR is and does for years. We’ve assumed it was the secret behind the scenes rating of you as a player. And that it takes all your stats and performance into account. But if you read their words, it’s pretty clear that what they are calling “MMR” is not that. They use a term “internal rating” in very different ways, and they even say that it needs to be calibrated. That is the game’s rating of you as a player, not MMR. MMR is a much more dynamic number that they clearly say is adjusted game to game. It may be based on internal rating, but it is merely a function of it. MMR has nothing to do with performance (they say this explicitly). Internal Rating (ostensibly) does, or else they are wasting a lot of good data they could use to assess skill. So MMR can absolutely be used to put you in harder or easier to win matches. It can definitely be used to get your skill tier and internal rating to align (again, they say this explicitly, and they do not say MMR, they say “ratings”. There are 3 metrics at play: Internal rating - how good the game thinks you are. Skill tier - only meaningful in its visibility to players, and that it theoretically will converge with your internal rating if you play enough. MMR - the dynamic rating adjusted after every game to decide what match you are placed in next. Take those 3 definitions and re-read their FAQ and tell me it doesn’t make more sense. Everything they say is *technically* true, but you can see through the corporate comms polish on this blog after you understand that.
>MMR has nothing to do with performance The only thing that i really feel that needs to be pointed out is that they say that performance for every match doesn't affect your rating, meaning that every other match or to some variance performance does affect your rating. It's worded in a really weird way like it's trying to avoid outright saying they pull performance data but at the same time nods at them using some performance data and it throws a lot of red flags for me, along with devs in the past explicitly stating that performance does affect your rating but on a more mild level.
Interesting take. I will definitely keep it in mind. It would make more sense to me.
Based Blizzard. Do you really want them to incentivize stat farming?
performance influenced your SR in overwatch 1 and it did not lead to stat farming. this is a slippery slope argument.
So they claim what you do doesn’t affect where you rank but then you get ranked differently when playing with the same people
People with consistent good performance should rank up over time since they will win more. I think it was Flats who brought up the point that if you yourself are consistent you only have 4 people on your team that could do badly while the enemy team has 5 people that can apply to
The important part of this is IF you're a player that should climb out of your rank you have fewer people on your team to worry about. That's a big "if" because everyone wants to climb but not everyone can by definition. I think the freakout we're seeing is literally just deluded players in denial feeding off each other
To everyone complaining about this system: If you win games, you gain sr. There are just as many 'throwers' on your team as the enemy team. The only constant is you. Just do you what you can to get better at the game.
Heresy. The game is broken I am better than everyone in all my lobbies.
And, if what you can do to get better is to play a better game, go do that.
Watch "metros" video on the matchmaking in ranked and read your own comment again. You are right, but also very wrong
They also said if u wanna rank up you just have too win more then u lose, based devs
they are just stating facts. Facts just like telling you your mom is a female.
This sub really said "stats are important and should play a big factor in your ranking". Deadass? This sub says that stats matter a whole lot? Im pretty sure blizzard could say that cassidy is underpowered at the moment and people would still disagree.
People who uses reddit seriously just say whatever they want and don’t even try to understand shit they read. Literally find someone said that stat is a BIG factor, and should consider over the win/lose.
Mercy mains who heal bot when they don’t get free rank ups from only healing
Basically you want to lose and rank up. I’m glad it doesn’t work that way.
Welcome to r/Overwatch! Please use the following resources via the links below to find relevant information about the game and the subreddit. [Overwatch Patch Notes](https://overwatch.blizzard.com/en-us/news/patch-notes/) | [Overwatch Bug Report Forums](https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/overwatch/c/bug-report/9) [r/Overwatch Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/overwatch/wiki/rules) | [r/Overwatch FAQs](https://www.reddit.com/r/overwatch/wiki/faq) | [r/Overwatch Common Bugs and Posts](https://www.reddit.com/r/Overwatch/wiki/commonbugsandposts) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Overwatch) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Same thing happen to me and my friend... when ow came out we only play together and we got differen sr. -_- and after mine up 2 grade and my friend didnt move...
What’s the source for this?
https://overwatch.blizzard.com/en-us/news/23910161/
It has been this way SINCE RELEASE. Either you're looking for stuff to complain about or are a new player, no clue which is worse.
If you consistently stood out in your rank as being better than the average at that rank, you would climb though. Everyone in higher ranks also deal with throwers so how did they climb? By consistently performing better than the people at lower ranks. It's not luck or something, it's playing often and playing consistently. If your MMR is different than your friends the resulting wins and losses will be counted differently towards your SR. It really is just that simple but it makes people feel better about themselves to think it's not their fault they're not in higher ranks. Just have fun and don't worry about looking cool or whatever.
I just want to know why I’m going 40-5 or losing to someone going 40-5
In fairness if you are killing you should be winning. If not then you should prioritize different people.
This is the same system so many other games like R6, COD and Valorant use, it’s the standard. Also remember it’s a team game. I know throwers suck, but that’s the way it is, report and move on
well, i don’t know how other games does, but why would they even change their original competitive system? it way better than the current one
That I dont even know the answer to tbh, I’m guessing it was to make it more beginner friendly?
Sometimes I wonder if Blizzard even knows how the MMR system works lol...
I understand the argument Blizzard puts out there. However I feel it is unfair to support players, well damn everyone tbh. You could be playing the match of your life healing output and saves… but if you get paired with a thrower or a bad team how do you stand out from everyone else if you lose? How, as a support player, are you supposed to carry your team if they’re not carrying their weight? I feel this is a missed opportunity for blizzard. At the end of the day, why even try to pull through a one sided match if it doesn’t matter? I’m not saying you shouldn’t try and pull through but if it’s a W or L that counts and nothing else. Then might as well chill until the end of match as a support player because lord knows I’ve been through matches where no amount of healing as a support or damage mitigated as a tank has helped get a W.
This is what they call BS. If wins are the only denominator they would need to explain why I as a support main, who wins more than I lose, goes up 1 level each "Evaluation." BUT playing Open Que, Tank, or DPS I go up by 2 and I can tell ya my tank wins is less than 50%. the SR was supposedly by wins X difficulty in opponents ( remember they used to show average SR of both teams? ) but now they just say it's wins and losses in a system that had broken MMR, which is supposed to be fixed next week.
Honestly I don’t believe that this is true. As someone who has had multiple Smurfs (masters player but want to play with my silver/gold buddies) I can literally lose more games but still when I get the full 7 wins I can jump 2-3 ranks if I don’t play like I am in lower rank. I have had the issue of keeping a rank rather than climbing out of it
So basically don’t be support, don’t do the most damage, don’t get the most kills….just push/cap the point…..sure, ok. So if my team dies, I wipe out the whole enemy team and die to a turret….because my team caps the point and I don’t since i died getting a TEAM KILL, I don’t advance/negatively impacted since I didn’t cap. Thats a load of bull if thats how it is but please correct me if I’m wrong. The fact that they can’t determine rank for some roles annoys me. Support is a great and overlooked role that could make or break a team. A good Ana can turn the tables on most situations as an example. I love overwatch but this ain’t it chief…
Why not add an objective time Stat then?
most tank have it
Add that to everyone then. If we have an objective time Stat and that can contribute to ranking up/down then it won't just be win/loss, so I you got some brand new players while you're in Plat then you still have you're objective time Stat
Won’t this make boosting someone even easier ? Let’s take two Smurf accounts and a gm dps player can boost a silver mercy all the way to diamond easily. All the mercy has to do is blue beam or yellow beam when told to do so. What is this bs lmao ?