I was learning about overwatch competitive today...a 5v5 objective based game.
As you compete, your rating will increase or decrease with each win or loss based on a number of factors,** including your own performance** and the skill of the other players in the match.
notice how progress isnt soley based on win/loss and actually has something to do with how well you play the game.
Shadòw3 votesa system like that is totall bullshit as it makes players play even more selfish
you either win as a team or lose as a team
S H A Y C 01 voteshow is it total bullshit? it factors in win/loss also. you may win/lose as a team, but you rank as an individual..sooo, win/loss on its own makes no sense
Shadòw1 votesso when a game seems to be lost people just start playing selfish to at least get decent stats instead of playing with the team to try and turn the game.
It won't work.
S H A Y C 01 votesIf by stats you mean capture points and kills...how would that hinder your chances of winning since the objective is capture points and even if hes not in the hill if he kills everyone in it, you can get the hill points easy.
and on league....i have never lost with a 21-0 kill hungry team mate.
Shadòw1 votesno but things like sacrifing yourself for a teammate would be no-goes.
S H A Y C 01 votesIts pretty rare as it is now...not sure how much that would change
Quepha1 votes[{quoted}](name=S H A Y C 0,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=7lMvwAbJ,comment-id=000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2016-07-01T18:05:04.732+0000)
Its pretty rare as it is now...not sure how much that would change
Do you even know what tanks are?
S H A Y C 01 votesyes...they soak damage, but that is not sacrificial its a function.
do you know what "english" is?
Quepha1 votes[{quoted}](name=S H A Y C 0,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=7lMvwAbJ,comment-id=00000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2016-07-01T18:32:12.457+0000)
yes...they soak damage, but that is not sacrificial its a function.
do you know what "english" is?
Soaking damage is literally sacrificing yourself for the good of the team.
S H A Y C 01 votesno, its taking damage in place of someone else or shielding. You retain your life when tanking...
Example:
"I can tank the turret"
If you CAN tank the turret, that means you believe you have enough health and resistance to survive the turret damage. You are serving a function. not sacrificing.
If you cant tank the turret...you dont say can do you?
Even then so...if Tanking is, for sake of argument, what you say it is...it is a means that is used to move your team to victory yes?
if thats so, it should be one of the metrics "damage taken" that are calculated for your performance as a tank correct? and if this is truly a positive thing..how would padding this stat hurt your chances of victory?
Quepha1 votes[{quoted}](name=S H A Y C 0,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=7lMvwAbJ,comment-id=0000000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2016-07-01T18:40:01.062+0000)
no, its taking damage in place of someone else or shielding. You retain your life when tanking...
Example:
"I can tank the turret"
If you CAN tank the turret, that means you believe you have enough health and resistance to survive the turret damage. You are serving a function. not sacrificing.
If you cant tank the turret...you dont say can do you?
Even then so...if Tanking is, for sake of argument, what you say it is...it is a means that is used to move your team to victory yes?
if thats so, it should be one of the metrics "damage taken" that are calculated for your performance as a tank correct? and if this is truly a positive thing..how would padding this stat hurt your chances of victory?
Did you seriously just ask why taking damage that you wouldn't need to take would hurt your chances of victory?
S H A Y C 01 votesThis argument is based on this scenario being desired behavior. if you cant follow the whole conversation, dont just jump in when you hear something goofy out of context and imply that im an idiot.
Quepha1 votes[{quoted}](name=S H A Y C 0,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=7lMvwAbJ,comment-id=000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2016-07-01T18:48:53.061+0000)
This argument is based on this scenario being desired behavior. if you cant follow the whole conversation, dont just jump in when you hear something goofy out of context and imply that im an idiot.
The point is that anything in the game that is statistically useful towards victory is still not useful 100% of the time. Whether that is dealing damage, soaking damage, getting kills, getting deaths, even capturing objectives (other than the final objective that wins you the round) then your statistically derived equation that benefits from that statistic will benefit the player 100% of the time even if in reality that activity only benefits towards victory 51% of the time.
The idea that players should be rewarded by some math equation instead of the victory screen is inherently flawed. The more you depend on this math equation, the worse your competitive environment has become, and that is even when you ignore the absolute certainty that the equation will not be perfect.
S H A Y C 01 votesstatistic will benefit the player 100% of the time even if in reality that activity only benefits towards victory 51% of the time.
they would still only have a 51% win rate. And as always..if they climb to fast the system does this lovely clamping thing to fix that. I dont see anything wrong with having a great game reducing even slightly my losses and increasing my gains.
The more you depend on this math equation, the worse your competitive environment has become
I will pretend with you that you are correct for a moment. How can the performance of 5 people decide how good ONE of them is? There is still a great deal of RNG involved here..especially with promotionals being a factor..if you are on the crap end of the RNG stick you can have a 60% win rate and never move up a single division because you are the most unlucky human being in the world. And as you said "The more you depend on this math equation"
Well which would you prefer..RNG, or a system that is logically broken down to quantifiable components?
Quepha1 votes[{quoted}](name=S H A Y C 0,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=7lMvwAbJ,comment-id=00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2016-07-01T19:35:52.769+0000)
they would still only have a 51% win rate.
No they wouldn't, that could very easily cause you to climb with a winrate that is below 50% because you are playing the game and doing things that are bad (because that is the point of the system: climb even when you aren't winning games).
Consider an action that is statistically beneficial, that is, people who do it win 70% of their games, but players only perform this action 30% of the time. You reward players for this action by increasing their MMR gains and reducing their MMR losses when this action is performed, so they start performing this action 100% of the time.
But it turns out that action is the equivalent of buying a Mejai's, something done to snowball a lead into a secured victory and is incredibly detrimental when you do not have a lead that you can leverage into a stacking Mejai's. So the games in which they get an early lead (around 30% of the time) they do very well at 70% winrate(like the item performed before), in the games where they don't get that lead (the remaining 70% of the time) they do very poorly with a winrate of only 30%. Their average is now FAR less than 50%, certainly less than when the system did not exist. All these players are performing an action that causes them to lose more games than they win, but are still maintaining a climb because the system rewards failure.
I will pretend with you that you are correct for a moment. How can the performance of 5 people decide how good ONE of them is?
Because you play more than one game.
Well which would you prefer..RNG, or a system that is logically broken down to quantifiable components?
RNG because in the long run you are the only constant and eventually get steered towards where you belong, while the quantifiable components will actually steer things away from where they belong in the long run.
Shadòw1 votesit's not the only thing it would change.
I can already see people not following to engages because "the call was stupid and i don't want to ruin my score"
Or AFK farming because "You need good farm to get a good Grade"
Just get over it. You win as a team and lose as a team. When you are better than average you will climb even with a 55% Winrate.
S H A Y C 01 votesI can already see people not following to engages because "the call was stupid
normal...if the call is stupid i wouldnt go either
Or AFK farming
pretty normal for ADC's and 
Crystal Meth Q stacking
You win as a team and lose as a team
and yet we are individually ranked....its illogical and disjointed at best.
Shadòw1 votessome people would not go for calls that aren't stupid but risky for example.
You simply can't deny that people would play even more selfish. Even if that is a common thing a system like that would only encourage it.
The positive thing of such a System would be that players get into the League they deserve faster, but it would negativly affect the gameplay and thats a fact that cannot be denied. Players will end in the Division they deserve sooner or later anyway, there is no need to fasten this progress at the cost of Gameplay.
S H A Y C 01 votessome people would not go for calls that aren't stupid but risky for example.
I have heard more than myself say these words "thats a risky baron call" Does the reason matter for listening to your instincts when a call seems a bit dangerous?
Even if that is a common thing a system like that would only encourage it.
Boosting is a common thing..dynamic Q only encourages it. So in your own words we would be inside riots own paradigm.
You are assuming that the metrics will only be a few things that you think can be abused..what if the metrics were a carefully thought out balanced group of things that you can do in the game that move your team towards victory or defeat?
Shadòw1 votesI'm also con-DynQ for various reasons.. easier boosting included for that matter..
But just take a look at this post
The Anivia in the game of the guy who posted this almost threw a game because she wanted an S. Just imagine how Ranked games would look like when these Grades would also affect your LP gain.
And you still want to deny that it would not affect the Gameplay?
S H A Y C 01 votesthats because champion mastery is half assed...it doesnt even factor in damage to turrets.
if this anivia had 15 kills, 480 cs, and zero turret damage...she shouldnt get an S grade.
To answer your question. No if we use the current mastery sytem, and YES if we actually grade performance properly.
Shadòw1 votesThe Problem is that there is no way to accurately grade performances just by stats.
Let's be honest here.. how should they grade things like Supports dying for their team.. Or People completely turning around a game by making an awesome play.
Or.. the most important thing.. how should good decision making be rewarded? Like an awesome Baron call from one of the teammates that won the game. Stats wise it won't give him anything at all. Grading performance simply cannot be done with just pure stats. There would literally have to be a spectator every game rating the performance of each player to get an halfway exact Grade.
And there we come to the next point... performance is always subjective. Just imaging the amount of toxicity that would spread around the boards from players that think they got a too bad Grade for their Performance. I already see enough of these "Why no S?" threads every day, i guarantee half of the boards will be full with these if Riot ever decides to go with a system like this.
S H A Y C 01 voteshow should they grade things like Supports dying for their team
good question...typically if a support dies "for" their team, its FOR something right? well we can grade a supports death by what is gained directly during or after..if the support dies but 3 enimies go down..thats positive points..if the support dies and no objectives/kills/anything is gained its probably negative points.
People completely turning around a game by making an awesome play.
if a team is losing, then an event happens and suddenly that team gains advantage...that can be quantified.
Like an awesome Baron call from one of the teammates that won the game.
getting baron should give points...im not sure what the question is here.
"Why no S?"
this has an easy solution, remove the vague "were watching you" sytem, with an explanation on what metrics are used. no they dont have to ask the question.
Furthermore - a better summary at the end of the match including something like "youre CS was lower than average for X role and X champion" "You had low objective participation" or any explanation on the reasoning for getting whatever grade you got...no more bitching. And for those padding their stats with kills..they would get a nice red message saying "you have extremely low objective participation" "your kills were often away from your team, consider helping them to improve your performance rating"
I mean there is a solution to every problem..i dont have all the answers, but im sure a team of friggin engineers can work this out.
Shadòw1 votesgood question...typically if a support dies "for" their team, its FOR something right? well we can grade a supports death by what is gained directly during or after..if the support dies but 3 enimies go down..thats positive points..if the support dies and no objectives/kills/anything is gained its probably negative points.
Maybe an Support just wants to safe an ally that is on a killing spree and worth much more Gold.. that would be a thing hard to grade.
if a team is losing, then an event happens and suddenly that team gains advantage...that can be quantified.
Would be hard to program.. just like many other things in this system if you want an as accurate as possible system what would be needed if you want to make LP gains depending on it.
getting baron should give points...im not sure what the question is here.
The problem here is that the player who made the call gains nothing more than his other teammates. If 1 Player pays close attention to the map and for example sees that the enemy Jungler and Adc are bot and makes his team aware of it and spam pings baron he will get nothing added to his Grade on that. The system could detect that the team has slain Baron, but not who did the call that maybe could have decided the game.
And that is only an example. Decision making is one of the most important things in the Game, but it is impossible to grade it. For example, if some jungler leads the Team and makes good calls that carry his team to victory, but only has decent stats, he won't get graded good even if he was a very important member of the team. A Game isn't decided by stats only, good calls and decision making is an very impotrant thing too. But how should the system track the player that made these calls in the first place.
this has an easy solution, remove the vague "were watching you" sytem, with an explanation on what metrics are used. no they dont have to ask the question.
Furthermore - a better summary at the end of the match including something like "youre CS was lower than average for X role and X champion" "You had low objective participation" or any explanation on the reasoning for getting whatever grade you got...no more bitching. And for those padding their stats with kills..they would get a nice red message saying "you have extremely low objective participation" "your kills were often away from your team, consider helping them to improve your performance rating"
I mean there is a solution to every problem..i dont have all the answers, but im sure a team of friggin engineers can work this out.
Riot is not giving out the exact stats for the Grades for a reason... that players won't tryhard too hard at these stats.
I have played so many Normals where i carried hard but didn't get an S because i totally neglected my CS score, while some other guy got one even if he was just decent but keeping up his stats. So, to get an S, i would have to focus more on CS instead of Snowballing and Kills, which would mean i would have to change my playstyle to get a better Grade even if i would say i would have performed worse that way.
I know the Grading System is not flawless, but making one where you can make LP gain depend on is simply impossible. It would have heavy impact of the game play, no matter how hard Riot tries to change the system.
Quepha1 votes[{quoted}](name=S H A Y C 0,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=7lMvwAbJ,comment-id=000000000000000000000000000100000000000000000000,timestamp=2016-07-01T19:04:55.798+0000)
thats because champion mastery is half assed...it doesnt even factor in damage to turrets.
You don't know that.
S H A Y C 01 votesthats true...and riot may not even know either, but its a fair assumption as everything else in the game is half assed.
Quepha1 votes[{quoted}](name=S H A Y C 0,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=7lMvwAbJ,comment-id=00000000,timestamp=2016-07-01T17:14:54.065+0000)
how is it total bullshit?
The only thing that matters is winning. Encouraging players to pad their k/d/a's, damage, objective time, and other stats is an inherently flawed system.
SlashStriker1 votesso i scored S rank with my champion but still lose 20 points cause i lost the match
All cool i guess...
S H A Y C 01 votesthats how it is now...but if they started at least counting your performance perhaps getting S rank would make you lose only 10 pts... Thats what i am lobbying for.