Overwatch

What do loot boxes have to do with competitive ranking? lol

Some games are unwinnable, even for the best players in the world, but you gotta stop blaming your team so much. It's just not a conducive attitude to help you rank up. If I lose it's always my fault because I have to carry. I don't expect or want anyone to carry me. I can see very clearly when I can play better. I mostly play Reaper and if you miss a single shot with him, you've messed up. I will never blame my team for losing if I miss a single shot on Reaper, because if I hit every shot we'd almost certainly win.

Every competitive team game that I can think of rates you on your wins and losses. If it was purely based on your individual performance that would be extremely weird. I couldn't imagine losing a game and gaining rank.
 
Last edited:
H2F Scott said:
Every competitive team game that I can think of rates you on your wins and losses. If it was purely based on your individual performance that would be extremely weird. I couldn't imagine losing a game and gaining rank.
Click to expand...

In placement, it is purely about individual performance though from what I've read/seen? You can loose and benefit. Why the switch afterwards? It should be based upon wins/losses, just not so heavily i.e somewhere between placement and what occurs afterwards as I understand it. If you place higher than what you can attain within a further 25+ games afterwards knowing overall you have played as well as if not better than, surely that tells you that you're loosing to luck of matchmaking more than anything else?
 
Last edited:
This ranking is rubbish, well for solo q'ing any way. I have two accounts one I am Rank 65, the other 41. There is no difference in the skill level of players playing between accounts. General yo-yo'ing of ranks on both accounts. Huge part is how fortunate you were in getting half decent teams, or no leavers e.t.c for your initial placement. Games between those accounts are indistinguishable between those skill levels at least.
 
I would like to see a system where individual performance at least limits or boosts your gain/loss of rank. The other day I had a king of the hill match where I got 4 gold's and 1 silver for healing as when my team mate kept switching around I shifted to a healer then back to diva when he decided he actually wanted to supp again. Despite fighting hard and being the only one on my team to appear on the final commend board we lost 2 matches to 3. That's fine not always gonna get a good team in solo but why with my performance did I lose a good third of a rank exactly the same as another match where I will admit to being tired and just plain crap?

And the way leavers are handled is just silly, one match in and someone leaves and i lose a chunk of rank because we are now a man down and despite playing with an obvious handicap the game doesn't seem to care. Fair enough if said leaver is in my party but when he is a random it is silly to penalise me.
 
Finally finished my placement matches. Rank 55!
That was for a 7 wins/3 losses record. A guy I grouped with at the end also got 7 wins, 3 losses and rank 55 (we finished on the same 2 matches). He was clearly a better player than me, and appeared on a lot of end-of-game cards. I got one PotG and that was it. That seems to suggest to me that the win loss record in ranked matches DOES have an effect.
 
jmc007 said:
This ranking is rubbish, well for solo q'ing any way. I have two accounts one I am Rank 65, the other 41. There is no difference in the skill level of players playing between accounts. General yo-yo'ing of ranks on both accounts. Huge part is how fortunate you were in getting half decent teams, or no leavers e.t.c for your initial placement. Games between those accounts are indistinguishable between those skill levels at least.
Click to expand...

Says it all.
 
jmc007 said:
This ranking is rubbish, well for solo q'ing any way. I have two accounts one I am Rank 65, the other 41. There is no difference in the skill level of players playing between accounts. General yo-yo'ing of ranks on both accounts. Huge part is how fortunate you were in getting half decent teams, or no leavers e.t.c for your initial placement. Games between those accounts are indistinguishable between those skill levels at least.
Click to expand...

Question - How do people have two accounts (You bought the game twice?) and Why?
 
Be nice to find a solid core of a couple people that would like to climb the ranked ladder.

Most of my mates have bailed (or are terrible at the game) and stopped playing.
 
Drollic said:
The matchmaking more often than not just seems to screw me at 51-53. According to the skill level system, I'm a worse player than after 12-13 competitive games (10 placement, 2-3 straight after) currently by 6 levels (56 down to 50). This simply isn't the case. This just gives no incentive to keep playing given I won't attain 57 due to future levels not being judged on individual performance until placement next season. I reckon at most I could hit 58-60 after placement, but doing that afterwards based upon win/loss and the random team as opposed to individual performance and I'd have no chance from say rank 50. It's a decent game, however the reliance on luck of the matchmaking for your own skill starts to become annoying in such a heavily orientated team based game. After placement matches, is there a reason why skill level isn't judged by say 80% of your own performance as opposed to mainly win/loss? I don't like the idea of gold players carrying bronze with 20 seconds of afk in the mix plus abusive chat.
Click to expand...

A lot of people got screwed by the placement system due to bugs, ranking is relative to the rest of the player base, so you may have been lucky, placed higher than what you should have been and have since gone to your proper rank, of course this may not be the case, but you don't know for sure, season 2 will be a better indicator. I placed at rank 53 and went to rank 65 and I've definitely improved since I played my placement games, my mate placed at rank 56 and went to 72 at his peak, I only ever play duo queue with him or sometimes solo q.
 
Mockingbird said:
Finally finished my placement matches. Rank 55!
That was for a 7 wins/3 losses record. A guy I grouped with at the end also got 7 wins, 3 losses and rank 55 (we finished on the same 2 matches). He was clearly a better player than me, and appeared on a lot of end-of-game cards. I got one PotG and that was it. That seems to suggest to me that the win loss record in ranked matches DOES have an effect.
Click to expand...

It has an effect, but there are more factors than just win/loss.
 
jmc007 said:
This ranking is rubbish, well for solo q'ing any way. I have two accounts one I am Rank 65, the other 41. There is no difference in the skill level of players playing between accounts. General yo-yo'ing of ranks on both accounts. Huge part is how fortunate you were in getting half decent teams, or no leavers e.t.c for your initial placement. Games between those accounts are indistinguishable between those skill levels at least.
Click to expand...
I highly doubt this... The difference from a rank 60 and 40 is pretty noticeable in accuracy let alone higher ranks usually class switch and fill in comps.

The difference from a rank 60 and rank 70 Mccree is a further example. I "main" a Pharah and getting to mid 60s was easy for me while mixing solo and small stacks. Once I started hitting into 70 it become signifiantly more difficult as the characters that could snipe me instead of getting body shots started to get headshots. It's why I have now started trying to learn more characters...

I've noticed at higher ranks people are far more willing to heal. Being a good Lucio is pretty easy compared to being an accurate Hanzo or Mccree!

Rank 50 or 40s are far far more likely to simply miss completely than land a hit compared to higher ranks. So I personally feel the rankings are working reasonably well the moment.
 
rawuk said:
I highly doubt this... The difference from a rank 60 and 40 is pretty noticeable in accuracy let alone higher ranks usually class switch and fill in comps.

The difference from a rank 60 and rank 70 Mccree is a further example. I "main" a Pharah and getting to mid 60s was easy for me while mixing solo and small stacks. Once I started hitting into 70 it become signifiantly more difficult as the characters that could snipe me instead of getting body shots started to get headshots. It's why I have now started trying to learn more characters...

I've noticed at higher ranks people are far more willing to heal. Being a good Lucio is pretty easy compared to being an accurate Hanzo or Mccree!

Rank 50 or 40s are far far more likely to simply miss completely than land a hit compared to higher ranks. So I personally feel the rankings are working reasonably well the moment.
Click to expand...

Nope, definately no discernible difference in general skill. You do realise that this game has in the forefront skills that matter and factor far more over good aim. I mean frankly, on either account, what is far more important over aim is basic team skills for Overwatch.
On both accounts it is far more noticeable if we have say a general team with a clue. Even at Rank 62, (Highest placement 67 on that one.) I regularly have teams that feel like the skill level of Beta play.
 
Solo queing is doing my brain in as well on competitive

Last night - Nepal

We lost the first two rounds, but I am Gold on Eliminations, Damage and Objective kills as Soldier 76, so I figure I'm doing ok and we have a discussion about changing the composition. 2 people switched, and we win the next two rounds, so it's 2 all - I'm still on the same 3 golds as Soldier 76.

Our healer switches to Roadhog, so I am now forced to play healer - Which I've no problem with, but he is terrible as Roadhog and we no longer have my DPS.

We lose the last round comprehensively.

Now I'm not saying we would have won for certain if he hadn't changed, but why switch to something you aren't good with in a deciding game?

Down to Rank 46...sigh
 
Last edited:
jmc007 said:
Nope, definately no discernible difference in general skill. You do realise that this game has in the forefront skills that matter and factor far more over good aim. I mean frankly, on either account, what is far more important over aim is basic team skills for Overwatch.
On both accounts it is far more noticeable if we have say a general team with a clue. Even at Rank 62, (Highest placement 67 on that one.) I regularly have teams that feel like the skill level of Beta play.
Click to expand...
I'm comfortable upper 60's so I have a reasonable grasp of what constitutes as "Overwatch skill". I never said there weren't other factors either simply that in my experience accuracy is noticeably different between the ranks.

I am more defending the fact higher rank players, while also having more general knowledge, are also better fps players.

What are your two account IDs? We can compare them on https://overwatchtracker.com/ and compare the figures.
 
Take my word for it, there is no difference from lower 40's to upper 60's. One one hand I find it frustrating on the other it is a testament to the depth of this game.
So many games when they are close are very close and I can even put the games loss down to one tiny error like one miss of an axe swing.
 
jmc007 said:
Take my word for it, there is no difference from lower 40's to upper 60's. One one hand I find it frustrating on the other it is a testament to the depth of this game.
So many games when they are close are very close and I can even put the games loss down to one tiny error like one miss of an axe swing.
Click to expand...

Sorry but that's a load of tripe. If you put a group of rank high 60's vs a group of rank low 40's there is no way the 40's would win. I've been placed in games with high 70's and got destroyed, got placed in games back in mid-60's and was wrecking again.
 
Aedus said:
Sorry but that's a load of tripe. If you put a group of rank high 60's vs a group of rank low 40's there is no way the 40's would win.
Click to expand...

Agreed - unless it's a smurf set of users, key thing being "knowing what you should be doing"

PS. Doesn't that video quote a certain person on this forum? ;)
 
Last edited:
Aedus said:
Sorry but that's a load of tripe. If you put a group of rank high 60's vs a group of rank low 40's there is no way the 40's would win. I've been placed in games with high 70's and got destroyed, got placed in games back in mid-60's and was wrecking again.
Click to expand...
This is my experience.

It's far easier to blame the system than your own abilities or simple bad luck. As funnily enough you will get silly players at lower ranks picking the complete wrong comp for the map.

However that does not take away from the fact a rank 60 is far more likely to be better than a rank 40 in just normal play. As I am confident looking at the stats would demonstrate.
 
tlrBeta said:
Agreed - unless it's a smurf set of users, key thing being "knowing what you should be doing"

PS. Doesn't that video quote a certain person on this forum? ;)
Click to expand...

I think you would be very surprised then infact how close those matches would be. If they were randomly picked teams, I am very confident.

Up untill high 60's into the 70's and beyond it is all about the grind and there are people of rank 40 far better than those ranked 60. That is it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom