Overwatch

LOL

Well, gives me some hope. My placement matches started out good and individually I have been strong in them, but now I'm just getting matches with people picking widow on night market and junkrat+sym picks vs team with pharah ;/

So everything I'm reading indicates that S3 placements are going to be within 50-100pts of S2 final, regardless of performance in matches. Sort of makes the process of doing 10 matches feel time consuming and pointless.

The system really does seem broken. There are definitely some decent players in low 2000's, certainly some shit ones as well, but there are people who play as a team and do all the right things and get stuck in this silver/gold death spiral. I was hoping that this new season would reshuffle the deck and put the truly bad players in bronze where they belong, but it doesn't seem like that's the case. I think it would be an interesting experiment to just buy a second box and see how a fresh placement looks. It would definitely confirm or deny for certain the concept that your skill is whatever your MMR says it is.

Cybsled said:

LOL

Well, gives me some hope. My placement matches started out good and individually I have been strong in them, but now I'm just getting matches with people picking widow on night market and junkrat+sym picks vs team with pharah ;/

Click to expand...

welcome to quick play! lol People picking sombra on defense. Its been really bad, but i been doing good in all but 2 of my matches. So we will see where i get placed. gotten 3 golds in 4 of the 6 i have played so far, 1-5. People still thinking they are good with Sombra and no one is wanting to play offensive characters tonight. Just mei and junkrat.

fuck soldier this patch, lads

With people saying tha most season 3 starting SR's are within 100 of season 2 finish im really really regretting not trying for the last 2 weeks. Not looking forward to grinding out of the 2200's again

Kind of a frustrating mechanic when you add in the Sombra fest that was the last two weeks of comp. I'm grateful for the content, but she shouldn't of been in competetive mode so close to the end of the season. Keep her in Arcade/QP until players figure her out.

Deruvian said:

The system really does seem broken. There are definitely some decent players in low 2000's, certainly some shit ones as well, but there are people who play as a team and do all the right things and get stuck in this silver/gold death spiral. I was hoping that this new season would reshuffle the deck and put the truly bad players in bronze where they belong, but it doesn't seem like that's the case. I think it would be an interesting experiment to just buy a second box and see how a fresh placement looks. It would definitely confirm or deny for certain the concept that your skill is whatever your MMR says it is.

Click to expand...

There's been tons of studies done on MMR/Competitive rankings in games at this point (now that there's a lot more money involved), and unless Blizzard make up a completely unique system & algorithm, the ranking system is going to be accurate 99.99999999999% of the time. Most of the perceptions to the contrary are humans being humans. Even at the most fundamental level, in a team-based multiplayer game, it makes no sense to say you aren't where you should be after a lot of games because if you're better then the other players at your level you WILL eventually climb because the enemy team has 6 randos, and yours (at most) has 5.

One of the main problems with the way that games do ranking now is the dumb presentation of it - the front-end numbers that you see in League, for example, have next to no correlation with the back-end numbers in a LOT of cases until you play dozens and dozens of games. In OW, the number fluctuates up and down a lot - further making the numbers seem kind of arbitrary. Combine that with the human tendancies of seeing patterns where there are none, bad experiences standing out more than positive or neutral ones, the required games to really achieve "your rank", and the actual fluctuation of personal skill, and you have a whole mess of people not believing what is ultimately very simple math.

My season high for S1 was 61 and S2 I was 3102. Finished 3-7 placement, it put me at 2318 gold ;(

Cybsled said:

My season high for S1 was 61 and S2 I was 3102. Finished 3-7 placement, it put me at 2318 gold ;(

Click to expand...

Reading reddit this seems about on par with what most people are seeing. Ranking several hundred below end of season. I'd bet unless you're at the far end of either spectrum it will put you lower so you see more games and hit your true mmr.

Ranked 1900 after one week of playing. Was really shooting for atleast 2000, so I 'm a little disappointed. Brother finished at like 4150 last season, so I'm the overwatch retard of the fam.

Well, the one good thing about being put in gold is I am absolutely destroying people on Zarya lol

Yeah at low levels no one can handle Pharah either

I love watching these, sword looked great.

Monthly melee thing is on:

Server crashed, seems to happen to complexity alot. Must be a sombra thing?

And crashed again, Method is playin now. Anyone know any of overwatch's server engineers? They should attach a debugger to the server running complexity's match.

Amzin said:

There's been tons of studies done on MMR/Competitive rankings in games at this point (now that there's a lot more money involved), and unless Blizzard make up a completely unique system & algorithm, the ranking system is going to be accurate 99.99999999999% of the time. Most of the perceptions to the contrary are humans being humans. Even at the most fundamental level, in a team-based multiplayer game, it makes no sense to say you aren't where you should be after a lot of games because if you're better then the other players at your level you WILL eventually climb because the enemy team has 6 randos, and yours (at most) has 5.

One of the main problems with the way that games do ranking now is the dumb presentation of it - the front-end numbers that you see in League, for example, have next to no correlation with the back-end numbers in a LOT of cases until you play dozens and dozens of games. In OW, the number fluctuates up and down a lot - further making the numbers seem kind of arbitrary. Combine that with the human tendancies of seeing patterns where there are none, bad experiences standing out more than positive or neutral ones, the required games to really achieve "your rank", and the actual fluctuation of personal skill, and you have a whole mess of people not believing what is ultimately very simple math.

Click to expand...

Blizzard does have their own unique system for Overwatch, and they admitted that certain characters were not ranking up or down the way they should have been compared to other characters. At the end of August Jeff Kaplan posted as much on the forums. I bitched and bitched about being lower than I should have been during season 1 as Lucio and basically got the same "you suck" response over and over again. But something magical happened, I stopped playing him and went up 20 ranks. I didn't suddenly become better, I just stopped playing a class that Blizzard (admittedly) was fucking over in ranking. And Lucio was just the worst case, there were (and most likely still are) other classes that don't get the rank they deserve, both up and down, so while it's easy to pull out the same old MMR arguments they might not so easily apply to Overwatch.