Why the hate for performance based SR?

Competitive Discussion
To be fair, you all asked for this when you cried in the first few seasons for a performance SR system. Now you're crying that you don't want one. Ugh, millennials.
09/16/2017 05:20 PMPosted by Goggles
09/16/2017 12:09 PMPosted by Alias
...

I can't even count how many times I've had 4 golds as Zarya or Roadhog or silver damage as Winston and I hardly even play tank.

Think of it this way... a Rein that has 50,000 damage blocked isn't necessarily doing what he needs to and is probably just letting his shield get melted on cooldown but doesn't have it ready when he needs it. A good Rein has it available when it's necessary (blocking enemy DPS ults or enemy Rein shatter). The Rein with tons of damage blocked might get more SR when he happens to win, but the Rein that blocks when it's needed will win more often.

Imagine this scenario... Rein A just lets hit shield get melted and doesn't block at key moments. Rein B uses his shield smart and blocks enemy shatters and DPS ults. Rein A might get 25 SR for a win, whereas Rein B might get 22, but Rein B will win more games. Here's an example across 4 games:

Rein A - 2500 SR: +25 SR, -20 SR, +25 SR, -20 SR = 2510
Rein B - 2500 SR: +22 SR, +22 SR, -22 SR, +22SR = 2544

Do you see how in the long run this will make the smarter Rein climb, even though Rein A gets more SR for wins when they happen to occur?

Similar to my DPS example. Someone might farm tanks for damage stats and get more SR when they happen to win, but getting key picks will win more actual games and winning something is always better than losing anything. The DPS that accomplish BOTH key plays and high damage output are the ones that climb high.


Good Winstons getting elims and maybe bronze damage (silver if the other team refuses to switch up heroes or tactics and you have great support) isn't unusual, but if this is a regular occurrence for you, then I would reckon that you're playing with rather inept teammates. I encountered the same thing playing Winston when I was at Gold. A good Winston at that level is literally game breaking on most maps. Reins should never be getting golds in anything other than elims post nano nerf. And the Rein that uses his shield properly will always get less SSR than the lean mean charging machine that gets in there and swings while the supports and hitscan DPS get picked. I don't think tank may be the right class for you if this is how you view it.


How is it then that good reins climb? MoonMoon, cloneman, cocco, kaiser, fissure, Janus, etc. They put up the numbers AND make the clutch plays.
09/16/2017 11:04 PMPosted by Zan
09/16/2017 02:05 PMPosted by Alias


Even in the short run they climb. I took a 2300 account to 3700 in half a day and my main is high 3700. How do you explain that? Or is it possible that I "belong" 3900? Or do I "belong" 3400?


In no other competitive game can you move through 4, count it, 4 full brackets in one day. This MASSIVE volatility is a key part of why Overwatch is so toxic because everyone is pre-tilted out of their minds because they either think a loss will destroy them or they are clenching so hard for that win (even worse when streaks were a major part of your SR). Even a low skilled player like myself can move 300-400 SR (up or down) in one solid game session, that is INSANE.

Then they start seizing on any perceived advantage, even if the "performance-based" component only contributed 5% of your statistical SR gains and losses that is enough for people to play selfishly.

Blizzard think that speed of movement (to shuffle people to their "correct" placement) is more important than stability but it is not. It's better for that misplaced GM to spend 30 games getting to his correct spot than it is for the whole system to be massively volatile for 99% of the playerbase.

People would be less toxic and the system less messed up if it was far more biased to stability than speed so, in people's minds, each game doesn't matter as much and you can refocus your attention on the long term.

If they got rid of seasons + performance based SR + streaks altogether and it took you a week of solid playing to shift a bracket then people wouldn't be as tense in each individual match. Sure rank frustration would still exist, people would whine about being in silver for 4 months but that is better than every match being considered the end of the world.


It isn't volatility because I'm not going back down. The game senses where I belong and rockets me there. Upward momentum is the phrase you're looking for.

How can you say the game is faulty when within 8 hours I'm within 100 SR of my silver border account and stay there? Sounds like it's working pretty damn efficiently.
09/16/2017 02:08 PMPosted by Alias
09/16/2017 12:13 PMPosted by Hauven
If performance based SR could be more accurate/fair for supports and tanks then it would be a nice idea to have more emphasis on performance based SR gain/loss than a team win/loss. You would get to where you belong faster as a result, and those who wish to de-rank deliberately and abuse the system would do so much faster too. There would be fewer stomp matches and hopefully better matchmaking overall. Right now most of the emphasis is on a team win or loss, and it isn't really working.


How do you explain people getting multiple accounts to the same level? Sounds like people are just upset an algorithm says they're below average.


An algorithm giving similar results with similar imputs does not mean it is fulfilling the function that it was intended for (sorting players).
The basic reason: This is a game that is supposed to be highly team-work based and instead punishes you for playing to your team.

From what we know of the SR system, it uses averages to compare you against other players using this particular hero on this particular map. This isn't supposed to be a game where anybody can carry a whole team. You're supposed to work together and synergize, but the SR system punishes people in many key ways for doing that. You get higher stats and do better if you stick to one hero the whole game instead of changing things up mid-match to counter the enemy team. You get better performance and higher stats from playing 1 or 2 characters really well and refusing to flex to anything else.

I play the game the way I want to and say SR be damned. The way the SR system works now, I know the algorithm thinks I should be higher because when I win, I gain close to 25 SR and when I lose, it's close to 15 SR. But I'm a tank support main. I can tank the hell out of some stuff but if my team doesn't work together, pick heroes to effectively play against the enemy team, and take advantage of the benefits I provide, I'm not going to win, period. Silver is like hell for that. I'm lucky if anybody other than me will tank or heal. Most game comps look like 4 dps/1 tank/1 healer and it doesn't work much of the time. If the system was truly performance based, I would not lose points for playing well and still losing, but I do.

I don't think I should be a high rank or anything. I'm a new player. I don't belong in plat or diamond muchless anything higher. It'd just be cool if this game could reward the things it says are supposed to be the most important, like teamwork and flexibility.
If you like to play zen be ready for genjis and tracers to harass you. The good news is they cant aim for anything in silver (generally speaking). Convince one of your teammates to go sym or winston something that requires no aim and just stay close to them while you discord key the genji or tracer.
09/18/2017 05:40 AMPosted by Alias
09/16/2017 12:13 PMPosted by Hauven
If performance based SR could be more accurate/fair for supports and tanks then it would be a nice idea to have more emphasis on performance based SR gain/loss than a team win/loss. You would get to where you belong faster as a result, and those who wish to de-rank deliberately and abuse the system would do so much faster too. There would be fewer stomp matches and hopefully better matchmaking overall. Right now most of the emphasis is on a team win or loss, and it isn't really working.


How is it less fair for supports? People are still clinging to a post taken out of context from months ago that talked about the adjustment in how "on fire" is calculated for supports. ALL supports are on fire less than DPS and SR gain is based on performance relative to other supports so it's a level playing field. Healing and offensive/defensive assists are easily measured just like damage and eliminations.

Obviously there will be clutch plays that can't be measured, just like DPS, but again that nets you a win instead of a loss. In the long run, it's easy to see which healers are "doing more" with an algorithm. Sounds like more of people looking for something to blame.


One example, Mercy. The player playing Mercy does a fantastic job at healing, very few people die, very few opportunities to res. I've personally found that the more people I res the less SR I'll likely lose or the more SR I'll likely win. The only way to workaround that is to do some unnecessary res's or plenty of tempo res's. But on the other hand Mercy is changing soon so that won't matter :).
09/18/2017 06:07 AMPosted by Xade
The basic reason: This is a game that is supposed to be highly team-work based and instead punishes you for playing to your team.

From what we know of the SR system, it uses averages to compare you against other players using this particular hero on this particular map. This isn't supposed to be a game where anybody can carry a whole team. You're supposed to work together and synergize, but the SR system punishes people in many key ways for doing that. You get higher stats and do better if you stick to one hero the whole game instead of changing things up mid-match to counter the enemy team. You get better performance and higher stats from playing 1 or 2 characters really well and refusing to flex to anything else.

I play the game the way I want to and say SR be damned. The way the SR system works now, I know the algorithm thinks I should be higher because when I win, I gain close to 25 SR and when I lose, it's close to 15 SR. But I'm a tank support main. I can tank the hell out of some stuff but if my team doesn't work together, pick heroes to effectively play against the enemy team, and take advantage of the benefits I provide, I'm not going to win, period. Silver is like hell for that. I'm lucky if anybody other than me will tank or heal. Most game comps look like 4 dps/1 tank/1 healer and it doesn't work much of the time. If the system was truly performance based, I would not lose points for playing well and still losing, but I do.

I don't think I should be a high rank or anything. I'm a new player. I don't belong in plat or diamond muchless anything higher. It'd just be cool if this game could reward the things it says are supposed to be the most important, like teamwork and flexibility.


If you consistently got 25 for wins and 15 for losses you wouldn't be silver.

I think you saw it happen once or twice and took and outlier and normal practice. Not all matches are equal. Sometimes the matchmaker settles and gives you a game you have a 40% chance of winning or a 60% chance of winning. If you lose the game you only had a 40% chance of winning to begin with, that's when you see the -15 SR.

Keep track over the next 50 games and you'll see what I mean. You'll either see that I'm right or you'll get to gold because consistently getting +25/-15 means you'll climb just by playing.
You can't have a performance based reward for a team game. It just doesn't work
09/16/2017 08:14 AMPosted by Alias
I'm not sure if we even know exactly what metrics are measured when giving SR but for DPS let's assume it's at least damage and elims.

[/quote]

Mercy has proven that the system does not always look at relevant stats. That is why the hate.
The performance based system doesn't account for team play or game sense. Wich are the center of a winning game. Noor does it account for *poor* teamplay like picking unsuited heroes, overextending and general noobyness.

I'm in the cesspit of low gold and have been playing since first season. The good games are few and far betweenI can tell you. People will defend solo outside enemy spawns (with predictable results); Fail to pick the only healer after 30 seconds of concentrated deliberation; bang their shieldless tanks again again at a choke, pick flankers, but not flank the list goes on.

Experienced players are few and far between - I used to see alot of silver portraits and even golds in season 1-3, but now it's averaging around bronze 2 stars.

I always imagine that Blizzard are boosting new players so they can get that fuzzy warm feeling inside - they don't belong in gold or even silver no matter how many elmims they score every game. Get rid of performance based SR and put new people in Bronze.

The games will not get any less chaotic if Blizz keeps seeding the ranks with boosted and clueless noobs and casuals.
Consider this:

The metrics used to determine the POTG are the same metrics used to determine performance in a match.

Think about that the next time you see a dead-Torb POTG.
09/16/2017 08:14 AMPosted by Alias
I'm not sure if we even know exactly what metrics are measured when giving SR but for DPS let's assume it's at least damage and elims.

If [fill in the blank DPS hero] farms tanks for tons of damage but isn't actually finishing anyone, he won't be winning fights and thus not winning games. So he might get 25 for a win instead of 20, but 20 for a win is better than -20 for a loss. So in the long run he won't climb.

Good players (the ones who climb) will have both high damage and eliminations. A bad DPS who isn't actually finishing people won't be winning fights and thus losing games. I just fail to envision a scenario in which bad players climb and good players fall. It just seems like more of people trying to blame the system for being in lower ranks.

Sure, a single play like killing both supports then dying (doing 400 damage) might look worse on paper than the guy who did 2,000 damage to tanks but nothing actually died but in the long run the guy not finishing kills just won't win games.


Quite simple: YOUR stats alone don't really tell the whole story, so perf. based adjustments would be inappropriate.

Example: A few days earlier a roadhog called out our DPS for not doing enough damage & kills on a cart push defense, as he had gold damage & elims. My answer as a off-tank: We're actually the ones at fault for not providing the safe space for DPS.

We lost, but once RH swapped off we held off on defense far more effectively. Had he not swapped, DPS would've had pathetic numbers but they weren't the ones to blame.
09/18/2017 11:32 AMPosted by Mindaika
Consider this:

The metrics used to determine the POTG are the same metrics used to determine performance in a match.

Think about that the next time you see a dead-Torb POTG.


Damn. Simple and to the point. Well done.
09/18/2017 07:57 AMPosted by Alias


If you consistently got 25 for wins and 15 for losses you wouldn't be silver.

I think you saw it happen once or twice and took and outlier and normal practice. Not all matches are equal. Sometimes the matchmaker settles and gives you a game you have a 40% chance of winning or a 60% chance of winning. If you lose the game you only had a 40% chance of winning to begin with, that's when you see the -15 SR.

Keep track over the next 50 games and you'll see what I mean. You'll either see that I'm right or you'll get to gold because consistently getting +25/-15 means you'll climb just by playing.


I have kept track of all of the games I've played this season. I lost 7 of my placement matches and got put 10 points higher than I finished last season. Sweet! And then as I played more comp, I discovered that something happened between last season and this season because I was silver last season too and my teams usually spoke a little via mic, would somewhat flex, and we at least had 2 healers or 2 tanks and sometimes both. This season, the comms are a ghost town and people just insta-lock whatever they want. I get better synergy and communication in quick play a lot of the time.

I've played 37 games this season and lost 26 of them. 10 of them were placements but even post placements, I'm 8-19 win loss. If you average this out assuming I gained 25 for a win and lost 15 for a loss, I'd have gained 200 SR from the 8 wins and lost 285 SR from the 19 losses, it should put me at -85 SR from where I started. It's closer to 130 (I went DPS a couple games when nobody else would tank or support and lost 25-30 on those, and flexed to Winston a couple times despite not being good with him), but it comes pretty close to averaging out.

So no, I'm not climbing just by playing. Your team has to win for that. I could probably swap mains to something a little more able to carry with hard DPS stats (this is what my SO does) but that's not why I started playing OW and I'm not going to do that now. I play tanks and supports because I like tanks and supports. I bought the game because it advertised that this was not Call of Duty; there's a big place for tanks and supports, supposedly. It just doesn't work out that way a lot of the time.
Performance based SR.
What we know from Scott's post:
    Match maker will always try to match you to games that it thinks you have 50% chance of winning

    They compare performance apple to apple, against players who play the same heroes.

    It is based on hidden MMR and your SR gains correlate to your hidden MMR

    Performance is based on statistics


Reasons why it's hated:

1. If the system determines what "50% chance of winning is" instead of just "putting 12 players with similar SR" with each other. Then from programming perspective, each player would HAVE TO be assigned a "rating factor" to achieve 50% on each team during match making. This means overtime, the system WILL actually "force" you to have 50% win rate as your "rating factor" changes.

2. Since you are at 50% win rate due to the match maker. The only way for you to climb is to "perform" better. This means you are not judged based on "winning games", but a set of arbitary "performance standards" setup by blizzard's SR system.

3. Since you are judged by "performance" and therefore "statistics". The system will never be able to tell "context" when performance indicators tells the system otherwise. You argued that good dps players will do more damage and do more elims and win games. But what about tanks and healers? They sure as hell can't win no matter how much damage they block or heal. So the whole concept of "performance metric" only benefit DPS really. So there is class favouritism, you can tell by how many people are DPS mains at top 500.

4. Too much margin of error as indicator of skill. While this SR system indicates higher SR = higher skill level. Players from gold/plat/diamond can sometimes be indistinguishable. And they ARE matched into the same games, as a "competitive mode", matching people 3 tiers apart together is ridiculous just by the looks of it. It just shows how lenient it is with SR rating vs actual skill.

5. People farming stats with off-meta heroes to gain SR rather than trying to win. Sombra only, mei only, torb only, sym only, doomfist only GM players. They exist and we all know they are not really GM.

6. Performance take up too much ratio of SR gain or loss. People can gain/lose anywhere from 10-30 SR based on performance rather than get rewarded/punished more by wins/losses. Where as every single other game reward/punishes you solely on winning/losing.

Theres plenty more reasons and I can go on but these will do for now.
to me, good performance is measured by not just the what, but the when.

what i mean is that you can have a junkrat spamming and getting lots of damage maybe even lots of kills, and currently the game weighs those as more important as a zen popping transcendence during a push to win a point, and even the game or a zarya melting a dva before she can self destruct, or even a sym with her teleporter in a spot where it allows the team to come back and retake and defend a point

essentially it takes the WRONG kinds of performance into account, making it garbage because it incentivizes the wrong things that may or may not have any impact on a match
What they say: We rank players based on their performance.

What they do: We rank players based on Lucio's shot accuracy.
09/16/2017 12:09 PMPosted by Alias
Imagine this scenario... Rein A just lets hit shield get melted and doesn't block at key moments. Rein B uses his shield smart and blocks enemy shatters and DPS ults. Rein A might get 25 SR for a win, whereas Rein B might get 22, but Rein B will win more games. Here's an example across 4 games:

Rein A - 2500 SR: +25 SR, -20 SR, +25 SR, -20 SR = 2510
Rein B - 2500 SR: +22 SR, +22 SR, -22 SR, +22SR = 2544

Do you see how in the long run this will make the smarter Rein climb, even though Rein A gets more SR for wins when they happen to occur?

Similar to my DPS example. Someone might farm tanks for damage stats and get more SR when they happen to win, but getting key picks will win more actual games and winning something is always better than losing anything. The DPS that accomplish BOTH key plays and high damage output are the ones that climb high.


Your correct. The issue is that many players play with the thought of earning more SR for winning than winning itself. If players focused more on winning then the game would be in a much healthier place. Lots of players are out there trying to exploit the system. To be honest its not hard to exploit either. Things like: stat farming, one-tricks and off meta hero use are very easy to do. All these exploits are easy to do and ultimately hurt the team aspect of the game.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum