|
Please read this before voting.
Don't u guys think there should some way to separate complete newcomers to competitive FPS from those coming from Quake, TF, CS, that are competitive players since +/- the year 2000 ?
I really think that the entry lvl 25 will create a noob slaughterhouse during the first month or even later, lot's of rage, many noobs feeling totally underwhelmed.
To reach lvl 25 is around 15 hours by solo queue, maybe 12 hours in party. That is a lot of game time for casual players or people like me that really can't play more than 2 hours a day except on weekends if I wake up early (Married & running my own small office)
A lot of old school FPS PC Multiplayer players don't have the time to lvl up so fast (Many of them are around 25 - 35 years old).
I just feel extremely worried about players between 16 to 22 years old that grew playing FPS on consoles or just some single player stuff on PC and MOBA getting to play against grouped guys that will try to get to lvl 25 as fast as possible...
Why I say this ?
I played the open Beta, and the stress test. It was fun and I didn't felt overwhelmed, everything seems kind of balanced, can't say anything about it yet, is too soon.. I've played CS Beta 5.2 and won many tournaments at regional level in the north of brazil, not so popular but we were good. Loved Half life DM, Quake and Half Life TF1 for the fun.
On day 10 (5 days after open beta launched) I played on the Chinese Battle.net (New account) from lvl 1 and it was just ridiculous.. Kill streak through the roof and the oposing team couldn't even move the payload to the first point, I was using D.va camping medic kits and killing off whoever I could boost to, I was everywhere trying to not get into too much crossfire and of course newcomers from lol or with no FPS competitive background just can't aim very well. I can't imagine how the guys were feeling not being able to leave their base in peace.
I don't feel comfortable with this decision... Mainly because the noobs will be forced to suffer until all the competitive guys reach lvl 25. That's a bummer for anyone during the first days of playtime. What do you guys think ?
Poll: How should Competitive mode Start ?(Vote): Should start from lvl 1. Separating QuickPlay from Competitive right away. You can't go down anyway.
(Vote): Level 25 is fine.
(Vote): Agreeing to a Knowledge level and some placement matches (Dota 2 - SC2 Style)
(Vote): It should be lower to get in faster.
|
Bearded Elder29903 Posts
I'm married and have a little kid, so I know how you suffer if it comes to spending free time on gaming ;-)
Anyway I still think that reaching lvl25 to be able to play competetive is a good way to handle from Blizzard. You still need to learn, to get used to different maps/champions etc. Letting everyone play ranked since level 1 would make it imbalanced and from what I've experienced so far and many people reported, matchmaking seems pretty balanced in long term.
|
Having a level requirement is the standard. I've got zero problem with it personally. No one wants people jumping into competitive at level 1 and messing up their game which is why games put a level requirement in.
|
I got to level 28 or so just in the course of the Open Beta. And I spent a fair amount of time waiting to see if a friend had a spot on a team for me or trying out heroes in the practice range to learn their skills. Given how bad some of the teams I was matched with solo queuing during the open beta, I'd honestly be rather terrified to solo queue ranked with just a level requirement of 25 or just placement matches right off the bat. Having some placement matches and a level requirement is still probably the way to go. 5-10 placements should be enough. 3 isn't as I've gotten 2 terrible teams in a row and then a mediocre solo queuing already but short of "ELO Hell" levels of bad luck 5-10 placements should balance out and give a good starting point.
|
I have played CS for years, played CS:GO 2 years ago, got "DMG" rank.
I tried playing CS:GO again a few weeks ago and apparently ranks got reset or something and I had to get "level 3" to even play competitive (this takes about 10 hours?).
Then I finally was able to play competitively and in my first 5 games the teams were idiotic. Knifebattles, kicks, idiots, teamkills on purpose, somehow the placement matches were totally screwed.
I placed into "Silver 3". It takes about 5 wins to get into Silver 4, Silver 5 etc etc.... I'm about 14-0 now in maps.... (1 map takes 50-80 minutes)
I haven't lost a single map since placement matches, averaging between 30-45 kills per map with a 3.5 KD. I've been called cheater 8 times, where even in 1 match I got kicked for hacking by my own team.
I'm now a "Gold NOVA 1" and have to probably play 25 games more, before I come even close to a decent game.
The only reason I installed CS:GO again, was to play with my real life mate, who is very high ranked atm. However I won't be able to for the coming months, because I need to rank up playing against noobs....
The point I'm trying to make is this :
I completely agree with Blizzard, that there should be a minimum before competitive play.
I completely with you that the barrier should be attainable for us working folks.
I think the level 25 cap is fine, as long as ranking up doesn't take so long as it does with CS.
Smurfing is a big issue with games like this and should not be taken lightly.
It is far less annoying to see a very good player once in a while or in the beginning than seeing very good players ALL the time, because people keep smurfing. Smurfing was pretty rampant in games like SC2, which (I can only imagine) is very destructive to newbs.
|
Great inputs, thanks.
I have to admit that initially a lvl 25 cap bothered me, although is acceptable. Maybe after playing the stress test and the open beta I'll get there faster than before.
Anyway I believe that there should be some placement matches and/or the option to chose a skill lvl anyhow to separate the packs a little... I'm eager to see how the competitive mode will develop in the game.
|
Canada13389 Posts
They are redoing competitive mode from the ground up right now, who knows if they are still married to level 25 or not 
|
I don't think it will take that long for someone who plays ~2 hours a day to hit 25. Two weeks at most? The most hard core players will already be in competitive within 2 days of release, so casual players won't have that long a time period where they are forced to play against hard core players. I read that quick play also attempts to match by MMR once enough games have been played to develop a reliable MMR for a player.
|
I hope they'll maintain the level 25 minimum for competitive play. There's a lot fewer hackers in CSGO now that they've introduced a minimum level that you need to be in order to play competitively. It was a bit of a grind at first which is enough to send the cheaters onto other games, since they get banned once and they're not up for the grind so they leave.
Anyway if you play any amount of time you're most likely going to hit level 25 before competitive play is even available.
|
Level 25 seems fine to me. I'm not exactly looking forward to the quick play grind to 25 and I really hope competitive mode is out very soon after launch. I can only take so much quick play until I want to die.
|
I definitely wouldn't set the minimum level for competitive play before 25. There's simply too much learn to be a competent player within that the time frame. Realistically, how many heroes do you think that a complete newb will be able to competently play within that time frame? How well will they know the maps? I'm a very astute player and fast learner. Being at level 23 at the end of open beta, I sure as hell didn't feel competent enough to go into ranked play. Yeah, it sucks for the experienced players to have to grind upwards, but tough shit. It's a small price to pay for being in the closed beta.
|
On May 13 2016 02:36 xDaunt wrote:
I definitely wouldn't set the minimum level for competitive play before 25. There's simply too much learn to be a competent player within that the time frame. Realistically, how many heroes do you think that a complete newb will be able to competently play within that time frame? How well will they know the maps? I'm a very astute player and fast learner. Being at level 23 at the end of open beta, I sure as hell didn't feel competent enough to go into ranked play. Yeah, it sucks for the experienced players to have to grind upwards, but tough shit. It's a small price to pay for being in the closed beta.
I don't necessarily agree with that general reasoning. Although I'm fine with a level 25 requirement, bad people should be allowed to play in competitive mode. They'll just be bad. It's like silvers at CSGO, they don't bother the rest of us.
|
They will be allowed, they just need to play quick match for a bit first.
|
On May 13 2016 03:13 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2016 02:36 xDaunt wrote:
I definitely wouldn't set the minimum level for competitive play before 25. There's simply too much learn to be a competent player within that the time frame. Realistically, how many heroes do you think that a complete newb will be able to competently play within that time frame? How well will they know the maps? I'm a very astute player and fast learner. Being at level 23 at the end of open beta, I sure as hell didn't feel competent enough to go into ranked play. Yeah, it sucks for the experienced players to have to grind upwards, but tough shit. It's a small price to pay for being in the closed beta. I don't necessarily agree with that general reasoning. Although I'm fine with a level 25 requirement, bad people should be allowed to play in competitive mode. They'll just be bad. It's like silvers at CSGO, they don't bother the rest of us.
Yeah, but you want to be careful about flooding the competitive queue with bad players in a game like this. It screws up matchmaking. Heroes of the Storm has had a ton of problems with its matchmaking. I'd rather ensure a certain level of competence.
|
On May 13 2016 03:46 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2016 03:13 Djzapz wrote:On May 13 2016 02:36 xDaunt wrote:
I definitely wouldn't set the minimum level for competitive play before 25. There's simply too much learn to be a competent player within that the time frame. Realistically, how many heroes do you think that a complete newb will be able to competently play within that time frame? How well will they know the maps? I'm a very astute player and fast learner. Being at level 23 at the end of open beta, I sure as hell didn't feel competent enough to go into ranked play. Yeah, it sucks for the experienced players to have to grind upwards, but tough shit. It's a small price to pay for being in the closed beta. I don't necessarily agree with that general reasoning. Although I'm fine with a level 25 requirement, bad people should be allowed to play in competitive mode. They'll just be bad. It's like silvers at CSGO, they don't bother the rest of us. Yeah, but you want to be careful about flooding the competitive queue with bad players in a game like this. It screws up matchmaking. Heroes of the Storm has had a ton of problems with its matchmaking. I'd rather ensure a certain level of competence.
If I may ask, in what way does flooding the competitive queue with bad player screws up matchmaking? They still get quickly separated from the good players and then they play their cancer games with their cancer friends without bothering us.
|
I think a requirement is a good idea, and better players playing with noobs is always gonna happen at least somewhat. But when a player owns the game, there are a couple things to lessen the pain
1) the game will be over quickly, and
2) the player that dominated will get many votes at the end, which I believe results in that player getting more xp? and thus leveling up faster, so things will get sorted out more quickly.
That said, I felt like I played quite a bit during the open beta, and I only got to level 17. I think level 15 or 20 would be a better place open up ranked play.
|
I got to somewhere in the 35-38 range, ended up playing with people wayyyy higher level as well. Getting to 25 doesn't take very long at all and it'll be even easier without any learning curve. I don't have to learn any maps, don't have to learn counters and stuff. Pretty sure getting to 25 now is going to be a joke if you're any good. But they're changing competitive so it might not matter anyway.
|
Game will have hackers day 1, at least this will help with bans. Its just once you have to do it. The only reason i can see complaining is if you were planning on hacking.
|
I don't see any reason to change the requirements for competitive league. They are changing the competitive system to balance it and make it better. I'll play ranked to get better at the game just like every other game. It doesn't matter if I suck or if my team sucks, I'm playing for myself. Sure the win matters, but it's not the sole reason why I play. Eventually things will balance out and people will get put in the right places. I don't mind if I have to carry a few games to out of where I'm placed.
|
Suffer to get lvl 25? I don't think so. I have a child and im working monday to saturday, and no real hardcore experience playing FPS, and was so fun to play the beta that I didn't noticed when i get to lvl 25. Yes, sometimes my team was raped for a pair of insanely good teams, but many times i was the abuser.At the end, leveling was a smooth experience; learning to play better and better, and when i reached 25 i feel basic understanding of the game and a relative confidence with a small pool of champions. Was a barrier to play the game? NOPE. Was just fun as hell, especially when i could play with friendss. The games are short and action packed (i remember the boring and hard experience leveling accounts in rpg and mobas, and this was completely different).
|
On May 13 2016 17:15 tokinho wrote:
Game will have hackers day 1, at least this will help with bans. Its just once you have to do it. The only reason i can see complaining is if you were planning on hacking.
Yep, that's probably the only reason...
No it's not.
2 reasons:
1) I just didn't wanted to wait 2 weeks to get into competitive (I can't go so hard on the game as I did on the beta, it wasn't healthy) but I get it, lvl 25 is good for the vast majority.
2) But I still feel that the best option is to chose a skill level (even after lvl 25) in order to split up the packs a little bit to not make it extremely hard on those who never played a FPS multiplayer on PC or versus PC gamers, or did u miss the "balance feedback posts" on blizzard forum every 30 seconds about balance issues ?
Reaching lvl 25 will not make your aim or fps awareness better, not if you are a complete newcomer to competitive FPS in PC or to what OW is. There is a lot of players that are into OW because it's blizzard IP, because is damn pretty, because there is a story behind it.
Those guys were MAD because they were being raped and many are not buying or getting into it because they were absolutely pwnd and had horrible experiences. Get in their shoes... They matter. And no, not all of them will see your guides (that are good) in TL, or whatever place you post it. Not all of them and everyone matters.
I'm just talking about giving starting mmr to people and then they will go down if they chose wrong and there is no harm in that (only to your ego).
Why not? I'm not proposing anything new or something that broke games.
Poll: Should players be splitted at lvl 25 ?No. (11) 79% Yes, let people chose a knowledge lvl like in Dota 2 and SC 2 (3) 21% 14 total votes Your vote: Should players be splitted at lvl 25 ? (Vote): Yes, let people chose a knowledge lvl like in Dota 2 and SC 2
(Vote): No.
|
1) I just didn't wanted to wait 2 weeks to get into competitive (I can't go so hard on the game as I did on the beta, it wasn't healthy) but I get it, lvl 25 is good for the vast majority.
I cant get it. You need around 12-15 hours of game to reach lvl 25, if you go hardcore, you can achieve that in a weekend, if you dont have time, why so anxious to get into competitive? If you want to be a hardcore overwatch gamer, then you will play at least 3 to 5 hours a day, but if you dont have so much time (as me and the vast majority of people with +25 yo), you need to chill and relax, have a good time and try your best when you can, why are you so worried about grinding some games? compared to other games, its really fast and easy to get into competitive.
2) But I still feel that the best option is to chose a skill level (even after lvl 25) in order to split up the packs a little bit to not make it extremely hard on those who never played a FPS multiplayer on PC or versus PC gamers,
I suffer in Quake, UT, CS and many more "old school FPS games", but i think that OW, (and sadly all new Blizzard games), are noob friendly. You can get achievements, find our revenge soon after u get raped, and play some characters that dont required honed shooting skills. If you want to go beyond that, then you need to develop a strong mentality and be prepared to sweat blood and crush your fingers before you get REALLY good at the game, because the real challenge are the players not the game.
|
On May 12 2016 12:07 DrakanSilva wrote:
I just feel extremely worried about players between 16 to 22 years old that grew playing FPS on consoles or just some single player stuff on PC and MOBA getting to play against grouped guys that will try to get to lvl 25 as fast as possible...
This will only be an issue for the first couple of days. Plus, it might do some bad players good to experience what good play feels like. Also, will the PC player pool be mixed that of the MOBAs?
|
This thread is discussing the symptoms and not the root problem. Matchmaking based on rank like in Hearthstone is simply bullshit because it does not match based on skill but only on a loosely related parameter. There simply should be good old Elo based matchmaking as in almost every other competetive game. Then this would not be an issue to even talk about.
Although they said they would look at the ranked system again. I dont know what the latest is on this topic, but I really hope they get a real matchmaking system for ranked. Would be such a joke if unranked would use Elo matchmaking and therefore had far superior matchmaking compared to ranked.
|
Didn't mind the beta ranked. With enough pop it won't matter that there is an additional restriction in form of your rank. Even if it prioritizes over your MMR. Issue was that it was just a farming game, because you got boni for consecutive wins. And you only lost half the points if the game got a draw.
So even really bad players could get into heroic if enough of them spam games.
Another problem were disconnects in group. But yeah the ranking system in general was fine, its a nice fluff. But god the Sudden Death crap has to go or atleast be softened. So I hope they concentrate on the right thing. Which is not how ranks are displayed lol.
|
Matchmaking in Overwatch appears to be based on some kind of hidden MMR like in SC2. I didn't play beta enough to get a very high rank but I was consistently matched with players who were higher level than I was.
|
On May 16 2016 09:04 FeyFey wrote:
Didn't mind the beta ranked. With enough pop it won't matter that there is an additional restriction in form of your rank. Even if it prioritizes over your MMR. Issue was that it was just a farming game, because you got boni for consecutive wins. And you only lost half the points if the game got a draw.
So even really bad players could get into heroic if enough of them spam games.
Another problem were disconnects in group. But yeah the ranking system in general was fine, its a nice fluff. But god the Sudden Death crap has to go or atleast be softened. So I hope they concentrate on the right thing. Which is not how ranks are displayed lol.
I think they mentioned that one rank before heroic you will lose the same points as you win (+20 or -20) so you will have to win more than losing, before that is +20 and -10, and you can't drop out of the rank (which I think is silly).
Levels are other thing, you can be lvl 100 and still never be in heroic, that's XP based.
I still like it how SC2 ranks worked, I'm not sure if they changed that.
They limite the playerbase to %. If I recall Master is 1% and grand master is 0.1% of the server population. Or I'm completely wrong ? So instead of being wins vs loss points it's a relative win vs loss ratio compared to other players in the same server which I think is nice.
Still waiting for release and what will be the decision for competitive play. Good thing is that Blizz will change it if it's needed.
|
On May 16 2016 14:02 DrakanSilva wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2016 09:04 FeyFey wrote:
Didn't mind the beta ranked. With enough pop it won't matter that there is an additional restriction in form of your rank. Even if it prioritizes over your MMR. Issue was that it was just a farming game, because you got boni for consecutive wins. And you only lost half the points if the game got a draw.
So even really bad players could get into heroic if enough of them spam games.
Another problem were disconnects in group. But yeah the ranking system in general was fine, its a nice fluff. But god the Sudden Death crap has to go or atleast be softened. So I hope they concentrate on the right thing. Which is not how ranks are displayed lol. I think they mentioned that one rank before heroic you will lose the same points as you win (+20 or -20) so you will have to win more than losing, before that is +20 and -10, and you can't drop out of the rank (which I think is silly). Levels are other thing, you can be lvl 100 and still never be in heroic, that's XP based. I still like it how SC2 ranks worked, I'm not sure if they changed that. They limite the playerbase to %. If I recall Master is 1% and grand master is 0.1% of the server population. Or I'm completely wrong ? So instead of being wins vs loss points it's a relative win vs loss ratio compared to other players in the same server which I think is nice. Still waiting for release and what will be the decision for competitive play. Good thing is that Blizz will change it if it's needed.
The ranks in games like sc2 or LoL are rather irrelevant anyway. They are just some trappings obfuscating what actually matters for matchmaking, your MMR/Elo. MMR is hidden from players and rank points are used instead to give players a feeling of advancement even if they are not advancing in skill. Imo its stupid but I am kinda ok with it as long as matchmaking is still skill based and uses MMR/Elo to create the most fair and competetive matches possible.
Now if those nonsense ranks are actually used for matchmaking like in hs and apparenty like it was in OW that is just a travesty. Because it creates more unbalanced matches although an objectively far superior matchmaking could be used.
If MMR/Elo is used for matchmaking the issue you raised in the op does not become an issue at all. Because matches will be made based on the actual skill of the players as it should be, and not something rather arbitrary like "years of fps played before" or whatever. The latter seems complete nonsense to me.
|
Both LoL&Hearthstone use some form of MMR/Elo, the ranks are a charade as you've described. Imo it's going to be the same in OW and I really don't have any issues with that as higher ranked players will actually see the actual rank they belong to(like legendary in HS).
|
On May 18 2016 07:44 Andre wrote:
Both LoL&Hearthstone use some form of MMR/Elo, the ranks are a charade as you've described. Imo it's going to be the same in OW and I really don't have any issues with that as higher ranked players will actually see the actual rank they belong to(like legendary in HS).
Sadly the ranks in hs are not just a charade. At the end of the month I am about a rank 6 player. After the monthly semi-reset (which is poison for good matchmaking in itself) I always wait a little. Then at the lower rank I only get to play against people of the same rank (or 1 rank above when at the border of the rank). No exceptions. With Elo/MMR matchmaking I should play against the rank 6 players I played before the reset that have ranked up by now. This way I can bash new players with legend level net decks and have 80% win rate. Nice fair system they have there. But I take advantage of it to get my daily quests done fast.
A similar system for OW which I consider to be a much more competetive and esports suitable game than hs would be just sad. Btw it should not only be the highest level of play which should have even matches but the lowest as well. With an Elo system it is actually much easíer to get even low level games than for high Elo.
Another problem with the ranked system in HS (and OW beta) is that streaks get rewarded by giving you double the points. Like if you win 5 in a row, then lose 5 in row you will have a higher rank as if you had win / loss in alternation. Therefore ranks are subject to an additional random factor that makes no sense for matchmaking.
In addition to that the variable group sizes in OW ranked queue (players consistently carrying others in their group or consistenly dragging them down, thus distorting their rating or rank) will amplify the matchmaking problems and make things worse than in HS. Although I understand why game developers do not want to give up on that.
|
On May 18 2016 22:28 Redox wrote:
Another problem with the ranked system in HS (and OW beta) is that streaks get rewarded by giving you double the points. Like if you win 5 in a row, then lose 5 in row you will have a higher rank as if you had win / loss in alternation. Therefore ranks are subject to an additional random factor that makes no sense for matchmaking.
I don't play HS so I had no idea this was in place. What's the reason behind it ? Are win streak rewarded in professional sports ? It doesn't make sense.
|
On May 19 2016 17:19 DrakanSilva wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2016 22:28 Redox wrote:
Another problem with the ranked system in HS (and OW beta) is that streaks get rewarded by giving you double the points. Like if you win 5 in a row, then lose 5 in row you will have a higher rank as if you had win / loss in alternation. Therefore ranks are subject to an additional random factor that makes no sense for matchmaking.
I don't play HS so I had no idea this was in place. What's the reason behind it ? Are win streak rewarded in professional sports ? It doesn't make sense.
The purpose of win streaks is to advance stronger players to better ranks more quickly. Essentially a way to help fix the problem caused by throwing better players back into low ranks every month.
edit: It can also give a sense of progression I guess, as a 50/50 player will generally increase in rank due to occasionally getting free stars from win streaks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
