Competitive punishes you way too hard for losing

Competitive Discussion
1 2 3 19 Next
Highly Rated
I was rank 46. I won three games in a row, one where I single handedly carried as Reaper and got four gold medals.

I lost one game after that and got demoted to rank 45. So in Rank 46 I went 3-1 and got demoted to rank 45.

There is something fundamentally wrong here and you should not get screwed so hard for losing one game.
Highly Rated
Agreed. No rewards for winning. Big penalties for losing. Freaking bizarre.
Highly Rated
I'm wondering if as more and more players get into the ranked system and finish their placement matches, this will happen more often.

There's so many players doing competitive and some are finishing ahead of others.

For example, I got in ahead of you... and came out of placement matches at rank 50. You, however, are a better player than I am, but you started later than I did. The system will recognize this and give you the proper rank 50 when you place and eventually push me back down to "where I belong" as more and more players finish their placement matches.

Seems to be the only explanation to rank millions of players based on 1-100.
Highly Rated
Yeah! This is crazy. Progression is impossible. What were they thinking? Same thing happened to me. Won 2 games, barely got anything, I lost a game and then lost an entire level and it was a game in overtime where I got an MVP card, lol what?
You went down one rating out of 100? That hardly seems like much.
Highly Rated
At this point I'm convinced they should implement a placeholder "win a match, win a rank, lose a match, lose a rank" system, a la Hearthstone.
Highly Rated
06/29/2016 07:48 PMPosted by Senkoy
You went down one rating out of 100? That hardly seems like much.


Essentially with a 75% win rate, he's not progressing from rank 45. That seems rather bad to me, but I suspect he won on KotH maps and lost on a payload map. They need to fix that.

As far as the win one, win rank, lose one, lose rank bit... they had that system and ditched it for this one. After seeing both in action, I think that was a mistake. The other system from beta was a better experience. People will get frustrated and quit with the current system.
Highly Rated
Yeah, it's pretty nuts. Won a game after playing Reinhardt like a beast. Golds in practically everything but healing. 50-something percent kill participation. Got a tiny bump in my rating.

Next game, lost a decently close match. Dropped from 44.5 to 43.5. Pretty damn drastic.

Both the win and the loss were not on KotH maps.
Were they KOTH matches you won? Apparently they are bugged and you only get 1/10 of the skill rank points for winning them. Same thing happened to me today. 2 wins on KOTH, an inch of bar. 2 losses on payload, huge level decreases
Highly Rated
Absolutely this. I went 9-1 in placements, placed 58. Played one game, dropped to 57. What the !@#$ is that? It takes 3 games to go up, and 1 game to go down? I think the issue is that you are punished for playing Tank/Support. It measures your, "skill" by the stats you put up. Obviously, they should be weighed differently, but I don't think they are. The guys on my team that played DPS, even placed higher than me with the same %^-*ing amount of win/loss. Whoever designed this system doesn't know wtf they are doing.
In just 1 win i got like 40% of rank. Before that i got 10% (that tiny bump). After those winings, lost a game, lost more than half a rank. If you need to win 2-3 games to cover 1 loss, it will be dissapointing. With ppl this days, its like 1% chance to get at least 3 good players in your team.
Don't sweat it brah by the end of the season everyone will be averaging forty-somethingorother except the top 1% who will average mid 50s.
06/29/2016 07:51 PMPosted by DSC00035
At this point I'm convinced they should implement a placeholder "win a match, win a rank, lose a match, lose a rank" system, a la Hearthstone.


That's how the old system seemed to be, and people were complaining. They didn't like the "if you have a 51% win rate, eventually you will reach the highest tier".
Highly Rated
06/29/2016 08:28 PMPosted by NigNagNagoo
06/29/2016 07:51 PMPosted by DSC00035
At this point I'm convinced they should implement a placeholder "win a match, win a rank, lose a match, lose a rank" system, a la Hearthstone.


That's how the old system seemed to be, and people were complaining. They didn't like the "if you have a 51% win rate, eventually you will reach the highest tier".


See that doesn't make sense though. If you keep increasing your MMR and playing against better players and still you maintain a 51+% winrate that means you should be in the top tier. That pretty much describes a system that works. Eventually unless your a god you'll be playing against players better than you and a 51% win rate won't be achievable at that point you'd level out in the area where you should be.
If a good pre-made team is going 8-1.

A decent solo player is going 3-1.

How are you going to consistently rank up? You're not going to and you're not supposed to.

Good teams will be at the top and everyone else will be ranking up and down.
HEI GAISE MEI NAME IS BLIZZURD HOW CAN'T I HELP YOU TODAY?? WE CURRANTLI FEEL THAT THE CUMPETITIVE MOOD WORKS AS INTENDUD LEL
Highly Rated
32 games, 19 wins. rank is lower then when i started. makes perfect sense /s
They really need to do something about this. I wonder if the team that is the "underdog" team gains more and losses less? If thats the case, than it shouldn't be in effect if the other team is 1 rank lower on average since that can still produce very close games.

If it isn't than they really need to fix whatever the issue is...
King of the Hill maps give only 5-10% rating.

So if you are losing more payloads and winning more king of the hills then your rating should lower by a lot.
The major issue I see is it just doesn't seem to place players where they should be.

The fact I am rank 45 makes sense if you looked at wins and losses. They are about 50/50. If the defeats were against what the system thought were low skilled players but the victorys were against average skilled players, it makes sense the defeats count for more. Thus, rank 45.

The problems though, are obvious when you start to look deeper. Firstly, peoples ranks are all over the place. I got a 37 in my team. Considering nobody is even ranked at 1-10 at the moment, 37 is a really low rank to be at. He should be like, bottom 20% of players if the system was accurate. But want to bet that he actually is that bad?

Meanwhile a guy who was 47 was god awful. If people aren't at the right skill ranks in the beginning, how can winning or losing against them mean anything? Sure, I lose against a "worse team" and go down. It might make sense... if the team is actually worse. But here's the second problem.

As people are aware, losing games doesn't mean you are bad. There are 5 other players on the team. A single player can't carry to a win very often so you can be good but still lose. The system doesn't seem to notice this very much. It seems like "Victory" or "Defeat" is more deciding factor so far. Considering how easy it is to get carried or screwed over by teammates, then it could take a solo player hundreds of games for the system to figure out where you actually ought to be.

It seems like people at the wrong rank, that you'd expect to be outliers, are more the norm. It's not just a few players that aren't where they should be, it seems to be the majority.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum