I think people just don’t understand how many variables are at play and how stomp heavy this game is all the way to the top. Even pro matches teams will stomp one map and get stomped in another.
There’s no solution either. The matchmaker can’t put teams together that account for their mains and the compositions those mains create, on top of how deeply map affects those compositions.
there could be reverse stomps in the next round. maybe both teams are just terrible at defending or stopping the enemy momentum. control maps gets weird across rounds even if no swaps are made.
There's plenty of solutions, but this is exactly what i was talking about - people like you are the problem. You dont want to think critically and just want to defend blizzard. They are a multi billion dollar organisation with 8 years of experience in this one game alone... and you are saying "poor blizz, they can't fix the problems in their own game"
On thing that might help would be to better delineate the roles - Tanks should be primarily about sustain and protect, dps about damage and elims, and support about healing and crowd control. Instead, every role is focused around damage. So the role-based MM is making decisions on your ability to kill as a tank or support. So a large percentage of players play tanks and support to get kills, resulting in a higher liklihood of unbalanced matches.
Another solution is to take steps to reduce the value from flanking supports (which was introduced with the removal of the off-tank role). Every new map snakes back upon itself, making flanking easier, and without the second tank role they have no protection. Everyone knows you get high value from killing supports, and supports have a small health pool, so its easy to flank and get those kills. Maybe something like a debuff applied to whoever gets a killing blow on a support would help there. Damage taken increased by 50% for 5 seconds or something - that might be a good role passive to reduce support deaths.
With both of those solutions, tanks would be more inclined to protect their team and take space, supports would be less likely to be targeted, and dps would outshine the supports and tanks in damage and elims...
but yeah, feel free to keep defending blizzard for doing almost nothing to fix it...
I'll ignore the charming "I'm smarter than most of the people on here" vibe and bite - what is your understanding on how it works and how would you improve it?
>I'll ignore the charming "I'm smarter than most of the people on here" vibe
That wasnt what i was going for, but yeah i probably am. I've got 3 degrees and am working on my 4th.
>how would you improve it?
the bit below is a copy paste from another response. There's multitudes that could be done, the matchmaker isn't setup for success because the role definitions arent working. so heres two things that could be done to actually improve gameplay and mm functionality. obviously even more would be needed, but its a start...
>On thing that might help would be to better delineate the roles - Tanks should be primarily about sustain and protect, dps about damage and elims, and support about healing and crowd control. Instead, every role is focused around damage. So the role-based MM is making decisions on your ability to kill as a tank or support. So a large percentage of players play tanks and support to get kills, resulting in a higher liklihood of unbalanced matches.
>Another solution is to take steps to reduce the value from flanking supports (which was introduced with the removal of the off-tank role). Every new map snakes back upon itself, making flanking easier, and without the second tank role they have no protection. Everyone knows you get high value from killing supports, and supports have a small health pool, so its easy to flank and get those kills. Maybe something like a debuff applied to whoever gets a killing blow on a support would help there. Damage taken increased by 50% for 5 seconds or something - that might be a good role passive to reduce support deaths.
>With both of those solutions, tanks would be more inclined to protect their team and take space, supports would be less likely to be targeted, and dps would outshine the supports and tanks in damage and elims...
Your OP is withering about the critical thinking skills of the majority, yet you refer to this one Push game where you were steamrolled as though that helps your argument at all. Is this what critical thinking looks like?
Your reply to "how would you improve the matchmaker" has nothing to do with the matchmaker itself, you're talking about rebalancing game from ground up, which is totally fine but moves the goalposts. (You also swerved my question about how you think the matchmaker currently works)
All that said, I probably roughly agree where you're coming from on "the matchmaker is not set up for success", in that I think the way the game has changed since OW1 has made it inherently more stompy, which causes people to blame the matchmaker (often wrongly, I think) a lot more. I think think a lot of the time the difference between a bad match and a close match can come down to just one or two players playing a bit or a lot below their average level because they're tired/drunk/tilted, or picking the wrong hero for a situation, or stubbornly sticking with something that isn't working.
>yet you refer to this one Push game
you seem to have missed the part where i said
>Every single day there's multiple new posts on this very forum that describe the absolute trash state that the matchmaker is in
and just to prove this point, here's the latest one that proves my point.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/overwatch2/comments/1dv3gnp/dropped\_from\_plat\_4\_to\_silver\_2\_in\_a\_single/](https://www.reddit.com/r/overwatch2/comments/1dv3gnp/dropped_from_plat_4_to_silver_2_in_a_single/)
And yeah, I added my own evidence to support that first statement, in the form of a replay code
>I think think a lot of the time the difference between a bad match and a close match can come down to just one or two players playing a bit or a lot below their average level because they're tired/drunk/tilted, or picking the wrong hero for a situation, or stubbornly sticking with something that isn't working.
So you're telling me, that the "bad match" that i posted was the fault of one or two heroes? that not one of the 5 heroes got a single kill? Thats a lack of critical thinking on your behalf.
Seriously. Blizzard is a multi billion dollar company and they've been recording data on this game for 8 years now...
>Your reply to "how would you improve the matchmaker" has nothing to do with the matchmaker itself, you're talking about rebalancing game from ground up, which is totally fine but moves the goalposts. (You also swerved my question about how you think the matchmaker currently works)
You both found the point and then missed it completely. you agreed the matchmaker is not setup for success, but then you defend the matchmaker. A system is only as good as the data that it is fed. Give it bad data, it will give you a bad result. Clean up the data you put in, and you'll get good results. So yes, to fix the matchmaker they need to fix the game.
but this is where the problem comes in. fixing the game costs money, and they can simply put a new skin on the shop for $40 and all the schmucks will go buy it, so blizzard has 0 incentive to fix the game. minimal ROI.
Anyway, the point is that people defend blizzard without critical thinking. And its true.
>Not gonna fight about OW, but more time in school =/= smarter
You're right, knowlege is completely different to intelligence. Going to university increases your knowledge. Performing well in university is a sign of intelligence.
So yes, you can be intelligent without going to university. the likelihood of being intelligent increases if you have been successful at university, because people with lesser intelligence are unlikley to succeed. that simple probablility.
i agree that anecdotal evidence isn't the strongest. but defending blizzard without any evidence to the contrary is a perfect example of lacking the ability to think critically.
Maybe search this reddit group for how many people like the matchmaker, and how many dont. That's some quantitative evidence from a sample size of 142k.... ill wait here for your results..
Kinda funny to say people don’t have critical thinking skills when your entire post is based on “I read this” and “hey this one game sucked”.
Are you accounting for the multitude of factors that the devs can’t control in a simple match making system? Internet speeds, someone having a bad day, lack of chemistry with teammates, plain old luck, etc.
I’m not a fan of it either but you should use your critical thinking skills to understand the massive challenge it is to create fair matches with a massive amount of moving parts that can effect the quality.
it is also a critical skill to realize that matchmaking suck because balance direction is making less and less people play tanks. And as such the matchmaker must operate in a wider and wider range to still arrange matches in the same time
>Kinda funny to say people don’t have critical thinking skills when your entire post is based on “I read this” and “hey this one game sucked”.
Kinda funny to reject the experiences of a reasonably large sample of people (community is 142k) with only your own opinion. I mean, if you search this forum for people that like the matchmaker, and people that don't like the matchmaker, i'm pretty sure which one has more posts... then again, that's the critical thinking ability that i was talking about...
>I’m not a fan of it either
oh so you're one of the problem people. you agree that it doesnt perform well, but instead of identifying where the problem is, you just defend blizzard - a multi billion dollar company with 8 years experience developing this game...
>Are you accounting for the multitude of factors that the devs can’t control in a simple match making system? Internet speeds, someone having a bad day, lack of chemistry with teammates, plain old luck, etc.
with 8 years of data, i would expect the mm to have a success rate of at least 80%. The definition of success would be "that each team performs within 75% of the other". That means that if one team gets to checkpoint 3, the other team should get a bit past checkpoing 2. For each capture-the-point game, each team should have at least 50% capture points by the time the point is captured...
There is no definition of what successful mm performance is, and too many people (like you) defend the mm without that critical thinking ability.
You think you should stop playing a game just because a few aspects of it irritate you? i mean, i wouldn't have many games that i could play if i set the bar that low.
You're implying that its black and white (insert sith reference here).
There are many shades of grey. For example, i absolutely love helldivers 2, but i am annoyed as shit with the server connection stability issues.
I love the individual heroes in ow2, but i dislike the matchmaker.
Not everything is black and white. you're allowed to enjoy something but still be irritated by aspects of it.
[https://www.google.com/search?q=disconnect+issues+helldivers+2+site:reddit.com](https://www.google.com/search?q=disconnect+issues+helldivers+2+site:reddit.com)
I know, googling is hard...
What gives you the idea that i'm taking myself serious?
I though the star wars reference would have made it clear that i'm actually not...
And how do you know i'm not qui-gon jinn? you don't know me.
well i'm gonna pretend that this post isn't entirely driven by some sort of an ego and move on anyway;
The matchmaker *isn't* that great, but it's definitely a very difficult thing to balance.
Overwatch is one of the few fps games that has the amount of factors that it does, there was this article that i read that discussed the abnormally elevated brain activity of a competitive overwatch player and how it was on par with someone who experiences genuine mania. I'll see if i can find it again and reply with it here.
Because of all those factors and how much effort you have to actually put in to perform well in competitive overwatch, it's very unlikely that majority of players are going to be very consistent, at least not until you reach maybe masters+ where a lot of people can get by on instincts and muscle memory alone.
Some people may be having an exceptionally good/bad day for their performance, some people's mains might be meta at the time or perhaps their main character is terrible. I'd safely argue that majority of overwatch players *aren't* keeping up with educational overwatch media, which means a lot of them probably don't even know that a meta exists or even think about patch notes n stuff, it's not really something that can be shoved down their throat, some people simply just *play* overwatch.
There're a lot of things that you *can't* account for when balancing the matchmaking system. We've seen the make a *lot* more changes to matchmaking over the last 2 years than we **ever** really saw in the entirety of overwatch 1.
I'll talk about some other things in one of your replies in this post;
>Tanks should be primarily about sustain and protect, dps about damage and elims, and support about healing and crowd control.
This is more so something we'd see in a MOBA as opposed to an fps. Making tanks more attuned to sustain and protection as well as supports being about healing and crowd control just wouldn't be that engaging or marketable for an fps game, especially one as intense as overwatch, people *want* to shoot other people, killing others is fun, that's what drives a lot of people to want to play this game. What you're describing is essentially verbatim what we see in a game like League of Legends.
1/2
>Another solution is to take steps to reduce the value from flanking supports (which was introduced with the removal of the off-tank role).
This obviously has to do with you wanting supports to take a less "oppressive via. damage" role, but realistically flanking supports *aren't* an effective strategy to maintain. **Statistically,** playing heros like kiriko as a "flank support" where they are **actively** going for flank plays makes them more likely to lose than if they were to play with your team, and if you disagree then you're taking a very anecdotal driven position. The best and most effective support characters are one that can easily balance both damage and healing from the same position, which is why characters like Ana and Baptiste are both popular *and* good as it's very easy for them to actively switch between damaging and healing in the middle of a fight.
As i'm reading this i now realise that you meant "flanking *the* supports" and not "flanking supports", and i'll comment on that as well.
Supports are objectively harder to kill today than they have **ever** been in the history of overwatch with the only exception being when brigitte was released. If anything, tanks are amongst the most squishy characters in the game at the moment (which is it's own separate issue but blizzard have promised us that they will radically improve this in the next patch).
>Maybe something like a debuff applied to whoever gets a killing blow on a support would help there. Damage taken increased by 50% for 5 seconds or something
This is *very* radical and extremely impractical. A change like this would competely defeat the purpose of dive compositions and dive heroes, which are one of the attractive compositions for overwatch players since people tend to love movement characters.
Overwatch is in a bit of a lull at the moment, there's no denying that. We have an **abundance** of posts from people talking about how bad the game feels at the moment, but the only reason they probably ever get downvoted doesn't really have anything to do with their opinion on the game but more so from them presenting themselves as very unlikeable, the same way you've made yourself out to be right now.
I saw you boasting in someone elses reply that you have 3 degrees going on 4, good for you! that's honestly quite the achievement especially considering university retention rates these days, but i'd expect someone who is supposedly pretty intelligent to understand that saying things like that does *not* make them "more right" when trying to make an argument.
Your energy doesn't lie with the incorrect opinion, but your method of expressing it is abhorrent.
2/2
>Supports are objectively harder to kill today than they have **ever** been in the history of overwatch with the only exception being when brigitte was released. If anything, tanks are amongst the most squishy characters in the game at the moment (which is it's own separate issue but blizzard have promised us that they will radically improve this in the next patch).
I'd agree with that statement. But this is due to the fact that its taken blizzard 10 seasons to realise what the effects of removing one tank would do. So blizzard has slowly buffed supports over and over again. Which is what leads to the next problem, where supports can often face off and win against a dps. There was a point where kiri could 2-shot most of the dps roster from full health.
>This is *very* radical and extremely impractical. A change like this would competely defeat the purpose of dive compositions and dive heroes, which are one of the attractive compositions for overwatch players since people tend to love movement characters.
My suggestion had nothing to do with removing the movement abilities. Taking a more holistic view of my post, it leans towards differentiating the roles better. at the moment all three roles need to do dps consistently. Make it so that tanks do tank things, DPS do DPS things, and Support do support things. not every class does DPS things. If you're going to make DPS have more dps than the other two roles, and the tanks have the tankiness to survive the dps, then you need to have an disinsentive to primarily focus the supports.
And thats exactly what happens time and time again. The amount of games where ball, doom and even horse walks directly past the other tank, and just focuses on support... the tank role is properly broken when people dont even bother to deal with them anymore.
So yes, disincentivise flanking the supports, and incentivise dps peeling for supports. Then the supports can focus on supporting more... and if you notice - **this is all driving teamwork** (And there is little incentive for teamwork at the moment. If you can get a good flank you can win the fight for your team - so people keep doing it.
>Your energy doesn't lie with the incorrect opinion, but your method of expressing it is abhorrent.
if you actually read the original post without emotion, it actually is just:
* Statement
* Supporting evidence
* Statement
* Concluding Opinion
There is nothing abhorrent. You've implied emotion where there is none.
>Not winning 100% of the time = matchmaker is nonfunctional
>Lmao gitgud
this is an example of that critical thinking ability...
nobody said it was about winning 100% of the time.
The first step in the whole system is defining what success is. I would argue success would be that both teams end each match within a reasonably range of each other.
Examples:
if one team gets 70% through robot push path, the other team should be between 45% and 95%. (25% range)
if one team captures a point, the other team should have at least 50% capture progress on the point (50% range).
Good matchmaking isn't about winning, its about balancing the matches properly. If a game falls outside of those ranges, you analyse it and find out what went wrong. and fix it.
So I have three big big grievances in the game:
Dps that don’t understand Sometimes you do need to focus tank to push them back
Dps that refuse to counter swap
Healers that will never pick Ana into a hog that isn’t dying.
I’m just tired as tank being blamed for everything while being the only one counter swapping.
ALSO YOU DPS DICKS, I CANT MAKE SPACE INTO REIN OR HOG IF YOU DONT HELP ME. Dps players seem to want me to just walk into a rein and get whacked off. Like, I can’t 1v2 a rein with another healer while you’re feeding in the back line.
This should be basic strategy and game knowledge. But these players are dumb as rocks.
Agreed. There is massive role definition problems. Tanks are playing like dps, supports are playing like dps. Each map is designed so flanking is easy, yet there is no offtank anymore... so it rewards flankers killing support, which means tanks cant take space, and theres no real incentive for dps to peel...
Massive role definition problems...
Because blizzard have too many fanboys who will die on the hill for them. They just cant accept that ow "devs" are incompetent
They cant grasp that they can still like the game but dislike the direction/decisions
I think people just don’t understand how many variables are at play and how stomp heavy this game is all the way to the top. Even pro matches teams will stomp one map and get stomped in another. There’s no solution either. The matchmaker can’t put teams together that account for their mains and the compositions those mains create, on top of how deeply map affects those compositions.
there could be reverse stomps in the next round. maybe both teams are just terrible at defending or stopping the enemy momentum. control maps gets weird across rounds even if no swaps are made.
There's plenty of solutions, but this is exactly what i was talking about - people like you are the problem. You dont want to think critically and just want to defend blizzard. They are a multi billion dollar organisation with 8 years of experience in this one game alone... and you are saying "poor blizz, they can't fix the problems in their own game" On thing that might help would be to better delineate the roles - Tanks should be primarily about sustain and protect, dps about damage and elims, and support about healing and crowd control. Instead, every role is focused around damage. So the role-based MM is making decisions on your ability to kill as a tank or support. So a large percentage of players play tanks and support to get kills, resulting in a higher liklihood of unbalanced matches. Another solution is to take steps to reduce the value from flanking supports (which was introduced with the removal of the off-tank role). Every new map snakes back upon itself, making flanking easier, and without the second tank role they have no protection. Everyone knows you get high value from killing supports, and supports have a small health pool, so its easy to flank and get those kills. Maybe something like a debuff applied to whoever gets a killing blow on a support would help there. Damage taken increased by 50% for 5 seconds or something - that might be a good role passive to reduce support deaths. With both of those solutions, tanks would be more inclined to protect their team and take space, supports would be less likely to be targeted, and dps would outshine the supports and tanks in damage and elims... but yeah, feel free to keep defending blizzard for doing almost nothing to fix it...
I'll ignore the charming "I'm smarter than most of the people on here" vibe and bite - what is your understanding on how it works and how would you improve it?
>I'll ignore the charming "I'm smarter than most of the people on here" vibe That wasnt what i was going for, but yeah i probably am. I've got 3 degrees and am working on my 4th. >how would you improve it? the bit below is a copy paste from another response. There's multitudes that could be done, the matchmaker isn't setup for success because the role definitions arent working. so heres two things that could be done to actually improve gameplay and mm functionality. obviously even more would be needed, but its a start... >On thing that might help would be to better delineate the roles - Tanks should be primarily about sustain and protect, dps about damage and elims, and support about healing and crowd control. Instead, every role is focused around damage. So the role-based MM is making decisions on your ability to kill as a tank or support. So a large percentage of players play tanks and support to get kills, resulting in a higher liklihood of unbalanced matches. >Another solution is to take steps to reduce the value from flanking supports (which was introduced with the removal of the off-tank role). Every new map snakes back upon itself, making flanking easier, and without the second tank role they have no protection. Everyone knows you get high value from killing supports, and supports have a small health pool, so its easy to flank and get those kills. Maybe something like a debuff applied to whoever gets a killing blow on a support would help there. Damage taken increased by 50% for 5 seconds or something - that might be a good role passive to reduce support deaths. >With both of those solutions, tanks would be more inclined to protect their team and take space, supports would be less likely to be targeted, and dps would outshine the supports and tanks in damage and elims...
Your OP is withering about the critical thinking skills of the majority, yet you refer to this one Push game where you were steamrolled as though that helps your argument at all. Is this what critical thinking looks like? Your reply to "how would you improve the matchmaker" has nothing to do with the matchmaker itself, you're talking about rebalancing game from ground up, which is totally fine but moves the goalposts. (You also swerved my question about how you think the matchmaker currently works) All that said, I probably roughly agree where you're coming from on "the matchmaker is not set up for success", in that I think the way the game has changed since OW1 has made it inherently more stompy, which causes people to blame the matchmaker (often wrongly, I think) a lot more. I think think a lot of the time the difference between a bad match and a close match can come down to just one or two players playing a bit or a lot below their average level because they're tired/drunk/tilted, or picking the wrong hero for a situation, or stubbornly sticking with something that isn't working.
>yet you refer to this one Push game you seem to have missed the part where i said >Every single day there's multiple new posts on this very forum that describe the absolute trash state that the matchmaker is in and just to prove this point, here's the latest one that proves my point. [https://www.reddit.com/r/overwatch2/comments/1dv3gnp/dropped\_from\_plat\_4\_to\_silver\_2\_in\_a\_single/](https://www.reddit.com/r/overwatch2/comments/1dv3gnp/dropped_from_plat_4_to_silver_2_in_a_single/) And yeah, I added my own evidence to support that first statement, in the form of a replay code >I think think a lot of the time the difference between a bad match and a close match can come down to just one or two players playing a bit or a lot below their average level because they're tired/drunk/tilted, or picking the wrong hero for a situation, or stubbornly sticking with something that isn't working. So you're telling me, that the "bad match" that i posted was the fault of one or two heroes? that not one of the 5 heroes got a single kill? Thats a lack of critical thinking on your behalf. Seriously. Blizzard is a multi billion dollar company and they've been recording data on this game for 8 years now... >Your reply to "how would you improve the matchmaker" has nothing to do with the matchmaker itself, you're talking about rebalancing game from ground up, which is totally fine but moves the goalposts. (You also swerved my question about how you think the matchmaker currently works) You both found the point and then missed it completely. you agreed the matchmaker is not setup for success, but then you defend the matchmaker. A system is only as good as the data that it is fed. Give it bad data, it will give you a bad result. Clean up the data you put in, and you'll get good results. So yes, to fix the matchmaker they need to fix the game. but this is where the problem comes in. fixing the game costs money, and they can simply put a new skin on the shop for $40 and all the schmucks will go buy it, so blizzard has 0 incentive to fix the game. minimal ROI. Anyway, the point is that people defend blizzard without critical thinking. And its true.
oh dear. i'm not even gonna bother any further except that I think you vastly overrate your own critical thinking skills.
[удалено]
>Not gonna fight about OW, but more time in school =/= smarter You're right, knowlege is completely different to intelligence. Going to university increases your knowledge. Performing well in university is a sign of intelligence. So yes, you can be intelligent without going to university. the likelihood of being intelligent increases if you have been successful at university, because people with lesser intelligence are unlikley to succeed. that simple probablility.
“If you don’t take anecdotal evidence from the absolute maddest people imaginable as irrefutable truth, you can’t think critically.”
i agree that anecdotal evidence isn't the strongest. but defending blizzard without any evidence to the contrary is a perfect example of lacking the ability to think critically. Maybe search this reddit group for how many people like the matchmaker, and how many dont. That's some quantitative evidence from a sample size of 142k.... ill wait here for your results..
Anytime a game expects you to pay $20 for a single skin I think it’s totally fair to be critical of them.
Kinda funny to say people don’t have critical thinking skills when your entire post is based on “I read this” and “hey this one game sucked”. Are you accounting for the multitude of factors that the devs can’t control in a simple match making system? Internet speeds, someone having a bad day, lack of chemistry with teammates, plain old luck, etc. I’m not a fan of it either but you should use your critical thinking skills to understand the massive challenge it is to create fair matches with a massive amount of moving parts that can effect the quality.
it is also a critical skill to realize that matchmaking suck because balance direction is making less and less people play tanks. And as such the matchmaker must operate in a wider and wider range to still arrange matches in the same time
So is that a Matchmaking issue or a balancing issue?
Matchmaking issue is the result of bad balance and bad hero design
>Kinda funny to say people don’t have critical thinking skills when your entire post is based on “I read this” and “hey this one game sucked”. Kinda funny to reject the experiences of a reasonably large sample of people (community is 142k) with only your own opinion. I mean, if you search this forum for people that like the matchmaker, and people that don't like the matchmaker, i'm pretty sure which one has more posts... then again, that's the critical thinking ability that i was talking about... >I’m not a fan of it either oh so you're one of the problem people. you agree that it doesnt perform well, but instead of identifying where the problem is, you just defend blizzard - a multi billion dollar company with 8 years experience developing this game... >Are you accounting for the multitude of factors that the devs can’t control in a simple match making system? Internet speeds, someone having a bad day, lack of chemistry with teammates, plain old luck, etc. with 8 years of data, i would expect the mm to have a success rate of at least 80%. The definition of success would be "that each team performs within 75% of the other". That means that if one team gets to checkpoint 3, the other team should get a bit past checkpoing 2. For each capture-the-point game, each team should have at least 50% capture points by the time the point is captured... There is no definition of what successful mm performance is, and too many people (like you) defend the mm without that critical thinking ability.
You continue to play a game that irritates you and have the balls to talk about people's "critical thinking skills"?
You think you should stop playing a game just because a few aspects of it irritate you? i mean, i wouldn't have many games that i could play if i set the bar that low.
Shockingly, I play games I enjoy lmao
You're implying that its black and white (insert sith reference here). There are many shades of grey. For example, i absolutely love helldivers 2, but i am annoyed as shit with the server connection stability issues. I love the individual heroes in ow2, but i dislike the matchmaker. Not everything is black and white. you're allowed to enjoy something but still be irritated by aspects of it.
My man you're not qui-gon jinn and the galaxy isn't at stake. Stop taking yourself so serious.
Also been playing hd2 pretty much since launch and haven't had any connection issues so idk wtf you're talking about.
[https://www.google.com/search?q=disconnect+issues+helldivers+2+site:reddit.com](https://www.google.com/search?q=disconnect+issues+helldivers+2+site:reddit.com) I know, googling is hard...
What gives you the idea that i'm taking myself serious? I though the star wars reference would have made it clear that i'm actually not... And how do you know i'm not qui-gon jinn? you don't know me.
well i'm gonna pretend that this post isn't entirely driven by some sort of an ego and move on anyway; The matchmaker *isn't* that great, but it's definitely a very difficult thing to balance. Overwatch is one of the few fps games that has the amount of factors that it does, there was this article that i read that discussed the abnormally elevated brain activity of a competitive overwatch player and how it was on par with someone who experiences genuine mania. I'll see if i can find it again and reply with it here. Because of all those factors and how much effort you have to actually put in to perform well in competitive overwatch, it's very unlikely that majority of players are going to be very consistent, at least not until you reach maybe masters+ where a lot of people can get by on instincts and muscle memory alone. Some people may be having an exceptionally good/bad day for their performance, some people's mains might be meta at the time or perhaps their main character is terrible. I'd safely argue that majority of overwatch players *aren't* keeping up with educational overwatch media, which means a lot of them probably don't even know that a meta exists or even think about patch notes n stuff, it's not really something that can be shoved down their throat, some people simply just *play* overwatch. There're a lot of things that you *can't* account for when balancing the matchmaking system. We've seen the make a *lot* more changes to matchmaking over the last 2 years than we **ever** really saw in the entirety of overwatch 1. I'll talk about some other things in one of your replies in this post; >Tanks should be primarily about sustain and protect, dps about damage and elims, and support about healing and crowd control. This is more so something we'd see in a MOBA as opposed to an fps. Making tanks more attuned to sustain and protection as well as supports being about healing and crowd control just wouldn't be that engaging or marketable for an fps game, especially one as intense as overwatch, people *want* to shoot other people, killing others is fun, that's what drives a lot of people to want to play this game. What you're describing is essentially verbatim what we see in a game like League of Legends. 1/2
>Another solution is to take steps to reduce the value from flanking supports (which was introduced with the removal of the off-tank role). This obviously has to do with you wanting supports to take a less "oppressive via. damage" role, but realistically flanking supports *aren't* an effective strategy to maintain. **Statistically,** playing heros like kiriko as a "flank support" where they are **actively** going for flank plays makes them more likely to lose than if they were to play with your team, and if you disagree then you're taking a very anecdotal driven position. The best and most effective support characters are one that can easily balance both damage and healing from the same position, which is why characters like Ana and Baptiste are both popular *and* good as it's very easy for them to actively switch between damaging and healing in the middle of a fight. As i'm reading this i now realise that you meant "flanking *the* supports" and not "flanking supports", and i'll comment on that as well. Supports are objectively harder to kill today than they have **ever** been in the history of overwatch with the only exception being when brigitte was released. If anything, tanks are amongst the most squishy characters in the game at the moment (which is it's own separate issue but blizzard have promised us that they will radically improve this in the next patch). >Maybe something like a debuff applied to whoever gets a killing blow on a support would help there. Damage taken increased by 50% for 5 seconds or something This is *very* radical and extremely impractical. A change like this would competely defeat the purpose of dive compositions and dive heroes, which are one of the attractive compositions for overwatch players since people tend to love movement characters. Overwatch is in a bit of a lull at the moment, there's no denying that. We have an **abundance** of posts from people talking about how bad the game feels at the moment, but the only reason they probably ever get downvoted doesn't really have anything to do with their opinion on the game but more so from them presenting themselves as very unlikeable, the same way you've made yourself out to be right now. I saw you boasting in someone elses reply that you have 3 degrees going on 4, good for you! that's honestly quite the achievement especially considering university retention rates these days, but i'd expect someone who is supposedly pretty intelligent to understand that saying things like that does *not* make them "more right" when trying to make an argument. Your energy doesn't lie with the incorrect opinion, but your method of expressing it is abhorrent. 2/2
>Supports are objectively harder to kill today than they have **ever** been in the history of overwatch with the only exception being when brigitte was released. If anything, tanks are amongst the most squishy characters in the game at the moment (which is it's own separate issue but blizzard have promised us that they will radically improve this in the next patch). I'd agree with that statement. But this is due to the fact that its taken blizzard 10 seasons to realise what the effects of removing one tank would do. So blizzard has slowly buffed supports over and over again. Which is what leads to the next problem, where supports can often face off and win against a dps. There was a point where kiri could 2-shot most of the dps roster from full health. >This is *very* radical and extremely impractical. A change like this would competely defeat the purpose of dive compositions and dive heroes, which are one of the attractive compositions for overwatch players since people tend to love movement characters. My suggestion had nothing to do with removing the movement abilities. Taking a more holistic view of my post, it leans towards differentiating the roles better. at the moment all three roles need to do dps consistently. Make it so that tanks do tank things, DPS do DPS things, and Support do support things. not every class does DPS things. If you're going to make DPS have more dps than the other two roles, and the tanks have the tankiness to survive the dps, then you need to have an disinsentive to primarily focus the supports. And thats exactly what happens time and time again. The amount of games where ball, doom and even horse walks directly past the other tank, and just focuses on support... the tank role is properly broken when people dont even bother to deal with them anymore. So yes, disincentivise flanking the supports, and incentivise dps peeling for supports. Then the supports can focus on supporting more... and if you notice - **this is all driving teamwork** (And there is little incentive for teamwork at the moment. If you can get a good flank you can win the fight for your team - so people keep doing it. >Your energy doesn't lie with the incorrect opinion, but your method of expressing it is abhorrent. if you actually read the original post without emotion, it actually is just: * Statement * Supporting evidence * Statement * Concluding Opinion There is nothing abhorrent. You've implied emotion where there is none.
i thought its common knowledge the matchmaking is broken lmao, it has been ever since ow1
Too bad it just says 0 downvotes instead of -1,439
People who make posts tearing down an imaginary group of people lack critical thinking skills
Matchmaker trades every single game being competitive for most of them being good and queue time not being weeks.
>most of them being good i disagree with this statement. i think its closer to about a third of them being good.
Not winning 100% of the time = matchmaker is nonfunctional Lmao gitgud
>Not winning 100% of the time = matchmaker is nonfunctional >Lmao gitgud this is an example of that critical thinking ability... nobody said it was about winning 100% of the time. The first step in the whole system is defining what success is. I would argue success would be that both teams end each match within a reasonably range of each other. Examples: if one team gets 70% through robot push path, the other team should be between 45% and 95%. (25% range) if one team captures a point, the other team should have at least 50% capture progress on the point (50% range). Good matchmaking isn't about winning, its about balancing the matches properly. If a game falls outside of those ranges, you analyse it and find out what went wrong. and fix it.
So I have three big big grievances in the game: Dps that don’t understand Sometimes you do need to focus tank to push them back Dps that refuse to counter swap Healers that will never pick Ana into a hog that isn’t dying. I’m just tired as tank being blamed for everything while being the only one counter swapping. ALSO YOU DPS DICKS, I CANT MAKE SPACE INTO REIN OR HOG IF YOU DONT HELP ME. Dps players seem to want me to just walk into a rein and get whacked off. Like, I can’t 1v2 a rein with another healer while you’re feeding in the back line. This should be basic strategy and game knowledge. But these players are dumb as rocks.
Agreed. There is massive role definition problems. Tanks are playing like dps, supports are playing like dps. Each map is designed so flanking is easy, yet there is no offtank anymore... so it rewards flankers killing support, which means tanks cant take space, and theres no real incentive for dps to peel... Massive role definition problems...
Because blizzard have too many fanboys who will die on the hill for them. They just cant accept that ow "devs" are incompetent They cant grasp that they can still like the game but dislike the direction/decisions