the casuals get toxic because they play with other casuals? i really dont know what you’re trying to say here
Yes, there are, and they come directly from the design of the competitive system.
There is no reason for competitive to exist if you are not being competitive, and being casual is a direct contradiction to being competitive.
A competitive person does w/e he/she can do to win as much as he/she can to score as high as he/she can on the ladder. Why? Because it’s what competitive is designed for.
A casual person doesn’t care about being better, a casual person cares about their own egocentric needs, and that goes 100% against being competitive.
Furthermore, anyone who goes into competitive with a casual attitude is effectively SABOTAGING competitive for all the competitive players, because casual attitude goes directly against competitive rules/spirit.
Another strawman.
No one argues that people don’t have a right to play competitive, but whether they should do it knowing they are going against the rules of the competitive system.
Oh, a personal attack… how adorable…
The only thing you are proving is that you have no valid argument to defend your fallacious point of view 
Well, yes, there are.
For one, ranked is designed differently than unranked. In payload attack/defend games, you need to mirror games because it’s a fundamental design which is used to compare, thus, rank teams.
In unranked, no one is judging anyone, because there is no ranking, so there is no reason to mirror the games. That’s why in Quick Play, you play only an attack or defense.
Oh btw, the QP is the Unranked you so badly want to have 
So?
3 Likes
tell you what, point me to it and ill tell you why the conclusion you came to is wrong.
there is though. rank. its that simple.
no its not. a ranking system is there to rank players. its not there to force people to try as hard as they can, its there to give a visual representation of their skill level.
a casual person is also ranked accordingly.
they literally just playing the game. you are the one tilting, you are the one sabotaging and you are the one causing the game to go down the toilet. over what? someone not caring about a loss? grow up.
point me to the rule that says no casuals.
personal attack? if i were to attack you I would have said that your rank is bad. I brought up my rank, the rank of a casual, and your rank. compared the two and commented on how I can literally play the game with no effort and rank higher than you.
a casual player, ranking higher than you on a smurf. and you think casuals are the problem? youre delusional pal.
thats literally the issue my man. why is it designed differently? why should people play a different game when they dont want to risk sr?
and why is that not applicable to unranked play? losing a defence on a attacker favoured map means literally nothing in qp simply because you dont play the offence. I want to play a game, not a round.
no one judges anyone in ranked either dude.
there is a reason to mirror games though. that reason being people typically want to play a game, not a single round.
different ruleset. thought I made that part pretty clear. dont know why I expected you to read though, thats my bad.
what do you mean so? you stated that no one said something, I said but its the only reason you would care.
you didn’t have to say it, your views speak for themselves.
1 Like
I did, yet you failed to understand the simple concept of rules being dictated by the design.
Having ranks just to have ranks is a pointless concept because those ranks have no value unless there are people who seriously compete for the tittle of being best, and casuals are not it.
No one argues that a ranking system doesn’t rank people.
The argument is that the ranking system has no value, and is useless if people existing in it doesn’t care about being best, and casuals don’t care.
Simple analogy:
It’s like trying to create an army system, but people who enlist don’t want to be soldiers. Such an army would be the worst, and most useless army in the world, ergo it’s pointless to create such a thing. That’s why the army enforces laws which force people to be soldiers, or they are being kicked from the army.
No one argues that casuals are not being ranked.
Here we go again, more emotional attacks.
What casuals do goes directly against what competitive was designed for.
But you did that by comparing yourself you to me and implying that I am worse, therefore implying that what I said is wrong.
Because unranked means no ranking, and lack of ranking removes rules setup for ranking, ergo design changes.
It can be but what for? You are not comparing team performance, so what is the point of mirroring game? If you want to play more, just play more games.
What? XDDDDDD
Ranking system ranks people by judging them using an arbitrary set of rules and criteria.
There are also people who like shorter games because they don’t want to commit to a long game
All in all, if you want more game, just play more games. Mirroring games just to make them longer is a pointless exercise.
I did need to, because you tried to defeat my argument by attacking a false assertion, which no one made. If you don’t know what a Strawman argument is and why you’re doing it is wrong, then I guess you should educate yourself and stop wasting my, or anyone else, time.
1 Like
so, what youre saying is, there is no rule that says no casuals.
those ranks serve the purpose of visualising skill level. the game then places you with people it deems of similar enough skill level. the attitude toward rank is reflected in the rank. its been explained to you in multiple ways dude and you’ve just come back with the same view worded differently.
- the ranking system has no value anyway. I can grab a smurf account for what, £10?
- no one cares about being the best other than people fighting for rank 1, which is quite a ways from plat my guy.
you mean conscription?
I hate to be the one to tell you but video games are not fighting for your country my man. you can use analogies all you like but at least make them of comparable stakes because as it stands you sound like a fool.
alight dude, first you compare a game to military service and then you compare rules you have yet to provide to literal laws? damn man.
but you are arguing that by ranking them the system somehow loses all merit.
ranked ranks skill. a casual players skill is all that matters in the outcome of the match. therefore, their rank is just as valid as yours.
and you were one of the designers right? what, you weren’t? then don’t speak for them.
im not implying such a thing. I am straight up telling you that it is wrong.
tell me how thats a personal attack though, im quite curious.
unranked means ranked ruleset without the risk. you seem to be confusing casual modes with unranked modes.
yes, all casual modes are unranked but not all unranked modes are casual modes.
TDM is technically unranked but we both know thats not what we are talking about.
- a place to actually learn the rules of ranked.
- a way to consistantly be able to practice both sides of a map.
- same map pool.
- literally why not. its more effort to make a new ruleset than use the one already there.
do you want more?
you said
you didnt say the mode was judging. you said no one. no one means people.
and they can have that. i didn’t say we shouldn’t have both.
why would I play more games when I could just play ranked?
was I wrong? you didnt try to correct me…
personal attacks really?
see how dumb it sounds when you claim something is an attack when it just isn’t?
legit though, if we are going to bring up strawman arguments, perhaps you should provide arguments that don’t lead to them.
by definition A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one.
now, i may have participated in such a thing but that is simply because you made statements that failed to address the real argument.
No, I’m saying that the design of the competitive system forces out rules which need to be obeyed for the competitive system to have any value, thus, reason to exist.
We aren’t arguing about how a ranking system works, but about what rules need to be obeyed for a ranking system to have any value, thus purpose, to exist.
What does it even mean? Are you just writing things without actually reading it at least 3 times to check if it makes any logical sense? Seems like you do.
You can also buy a fake police uniform, and pretend to be a police officer.
Does it mean that police is pointless? No, it doesn’t.
Your subjective opinion about what everyone want is a desperate, and worthless argument.
That’s besides the point.
The point is that in both situation we have a system which was designed to fulfil a given purpose, and to do that people need to obey specific rules. If rules are being ignored, and everyone does w/ they want, the system will lose its value and purpose.
No, I don’t. That’s some BS which you made up.
It doesn’t matter who designed what because it’s design itself which dictates rules, not the person who made it.
And you are trying to do that by attacking my position as a player.
You can be in top 500, and it proves nothing in regard to the argument, because we aren’t arguing about ranks, but about the attitude, and mentality which people have.
A given player can be a GM, and have casual attitude/mentality, but he is there because he has psycho-physical skill to take him there. The problem is that when you tell people that it’s fine to be casual, the most of them won’t have skill which can carry them. They, and other people around them, will be victims of a negative compounding effect of bad attitude and lack of skill which will bring them down, and they will drag everyone else around them down.
Basically, casual attitude in a competitive setting may not make difference for few people, but it has big negative effect of most people.
No, it means no ranking, so by default no ranked rules.
They are the same thing XD It doesn’t matter if you play short, or long game, you still play the same maps, with same objectives, with same rules, just without ranking, ergo you are playing unranked game.
All of this can be achieved in QP and by creating your own games.
I was talking about unranked games, and you argued that it’s the same in ranked, which is false because ranked system LITERALLY judges you to rank you.
Because we already have unranked.
I did exactly that, I told you why your argument is fallacious, so don’t play dumb.
It sounds dumb when you’re using it incorrectly.
What? XD How is this my fault that you choose to lie, mislead, and misrepresent my arguments in an attempt to win with me? WTF? You are using a straw man argument not because my arguments lead there, but because posting besides the point and false nonsense is the only way you can respond to my arguments, and pretend to claim that you are right about something, lol
Usually, when two people argue, and one of them uses straw man arguments to respond it means that this person lost the argument, but I guess you fail to understand when you are loosing.
1 Like
Please go through the terms of service, and the overwatch code of conduct and copy paste the bit that says you can’t play ranked casually.
Look dude, you’re entitled to your opinion but that’s literally all it is.
Those rules literally don’t exist outside of your head dude.
- The sentence makes perfect grammatical sense.
- The meaning is that the ranking system is doing its one and only job, ranking a player based on the data it has access to. That rank reprisents a players skill level, regardless of if they are casual or not. If they are losing then their rank will fall and you won’t be placed with them. If they are winning, they will climb and its a non issue. If they are relatively even then they are where they should be and the reason for losing is not because they are a casual.
- Again with the bad analogies. Impersonating a police officer is very much illegal.
- What makes you think that it’s pointless? There are absolutely reasons someone would want to impersonate a police officer.
Power fantasy is the most obvious one. Kink is another. I could name a few other less than legal reasons too if you want?
Likewise my friend.
Its really not.
That purpose changes for every person. There are people that join the US military for education. Some do it for money.
You familiar with the idea of the death of the auther? The intentions are meaningless.
The rules of the military are clearly defined and enforced. The rules of a competetive matchmaker are neither defined or enforced.
You are literally arguing that casuals cause the ranking system to lose all meaningless. I’ll even quote it when I don’t have to put up with mobile formatting.
edit: here you go
The design itself doesn’t do anything. You are the one making these rules up.
No, I compared rank to show how casuals are not ruining the game. The fact that a casual player can smurf higher than you is just proof of that.
How can a casual player be ruining the game when they win more than you, a non casual player?
And my mentality got me to top 500 and yours got you to plat. Mindset means literally nothing.
So skill matters more than mindset? Crazy.
If they don’t have the skill then they are accurately ranked.
You are the only one with a bad attitude my man. You’re the one judging people based on their mindset.
You’re the one blaming other people.
You’re the one complaining about a dying games player base on siad games less populated forum.
What’s the casual player doing? Playing the game.
That negative effect is reflected in the players rank. I really don’t see how you aren’t seeing it.
By default? Interesting. Didn’t realise creating new rules was the default. Kinda weird that you know how the devs worked though.
No its not XD.
It absolutely does matter if you play a long or a short game.
You complain about casuals but don’t want them to have a place to actually practice?
Actually stupid.
Now that is something you could claim as a personal attack.
QP? That’s I teresting because that’s the exact thing I was thinking about when creating the list.
As for custom games. I have already mentioned skrims. Why would I make a skirm when I could just queue for ranked?
no dude. you said, and I quote
‘In unranked, no one is judging anyone, because there is no ranking, so there is no reason to mirror games.’
I argued that no one judges anyone in ranked either. the system is not a person.
you seemed to have skipped over the comment about TDM being unranked. guess that didn’t fit the narrative?
you did no such thing. you literally said
thats literally the entire point I made my guy.
i respond to what you say. you fail to address the real argument and want me to bring it back to the actual topic? no dude.
no sir. I use strawman arguments because you make a point that isnt relevant to the actual topic. I simply respond to the point you make.
im losing but you’ve yet to show me any of the rules you claim exist. lets be nice and call it a draw and not talk about how the rules dont exist. sound good?
its funny how delosinal some players are, This system was in the game 4head, OW removed it because causals like you cried about dropping from dia and master. Purely a good time in ow was easy to climb and easy to drop just how comp is meant to be
ive tried really hard to understand the point you are trying to make here but I just cant make sense of it
Stop being a troll and arguing against things no one said.
No one argues that casual player have no right to play competitive.
The argument is about whether casuals should be playing competitive considering the fact that their behavior goes directly against what competitive is about, thus counting as game sabotage which ruins the competitive experience for actual competitive players.
Except it’s not a subjective opinion, but a fact dictated by how, and what for something is designed
Those rules are dictated by the design.
If someone makes a ball, then by design that ball has a function, and for that function to be carried out a specific set of rules need to be obeyed. Same with designing a system in the game.
Competitive function and purpose is to judge and rank people. That function can’t be carried out properly if people don’t play competitively in the competitive mode.
In fact, playing casually in competitive turns this mode into another “casual QP” mode, thus rendering the function and purpose of competitive mode useless.
Grammatically yes, logically no.
I was talking about people casual behavior (casual attitude) in the competitive, and how it goes against the competitive attitude, and you are making some nonsensical conclusion how attitude is reflected int he ranks which has nothing to do to what I was talking about.
Basically, you fail to understand what was said, and you are responding with some off-topic nonsense.
The only bad thing here is you being bad at understanding analogies in relation to your own words and notoriously drawing incorrect conclusions.
You asserted that the ranking system has no value because you can impersonate a good player by buying a smurf account. By that logic, other systems also should have no value if you can impersonate someone who is part of the given system.
A police system doesn’t lose its value because there are people who impersonate police officers, ergo ranking system doesn’t lose its value because you can impersonate a high ranked player.
We aren’t talking about the purpose of individuals who enter the system but the purpose of the system.
The rules of competitive are defined by the design.
The fact that Blizzard doesn’t want to enforce those rules, rendering their own design worthless, is the reason we argue that casuals shouldn’t play in competitive, so Blizzard starts removing casual trolls from the competitive.
We already succeeded with such push against Multiboxers in WoW, where my (and few other people) relentless arguments crushed all the WoW fanboy apologists, and forced Blizzard to admit that Mutliboxing ruined both in-game economy and player experience.
Yes, but for the different reason you are trying to sell as mine.
I’m arguing that competitive (ranking system) loses value, and purpose because of noncompetitive behavior of casual players who participate in competitive system.
You are asserting that it loses value by the shire fact that casuals are being ranked.
Two different assertions, with two different sets of implications.
When something is created with purpose then by default it has purpose, function, and baked in rules which need to be obeyed for the function to work properly, and the purpose to be carried out properly.
And that proves nothing because you are cherry-picking.
You are cherry-picking one specific example where a casual player has good enough mechanical skill to carry his casual attitude, but you are ignoring the fact that for one casual with good skills, there are tens or hundreds of casuals who don’t have good skills.
Most casuals tank games not only with the casual “i don’t care” attitude, but also with bad skills which are the outcome of their casual attitude.
So? How is one cherry-picked example proving anything? It doesn’t, so stop wasting my time with nonsensical conclusions.
No, it means that some people regardless of their attitude will be high in the ranking, and that’s not an evidence that being casual in competitive is fine, because most casual players are overall net-negative toward the whole competitive experience.
My argument is that it’s not fine to convince people that it’s fine to be casual in competitive, NOT whether they deserve given rank while they lack skill.
You fail to draw a conclusion from a simple sentence
Double standard much? Hypocrite much?
I can’t discuss the issue of casuals ruining the competitive experience, but you can defend them as you please? 
Casual players don’t just play the game, they play competitive in a way which is counterproductive, and damaging to the overall goal of the competitive system.
Omfg XD
We aren’t talking about the fact that someone attitude can be reflected in his rank.
We are talking about the fact that casual attitude has overall negative impact on the other players participating in the competitive games.
You seriously fail to read and form logical conclusions derived from the text which is being read by you.
There are no new rules for unranked. Unranked has basic game rules minus the rules which are derived from the ranking system.
I mean serious, are you too stupid to understand logic as simple as: sandwich without ham, doesn’t have ham?
How it matters? What do you exactly train in long (mirrored) games which you can’t train in QP even tho QP consists of both attack and defense games which is what ranked is, and on top of that best of 3 games are literally the same as in ranked?
OMEGALUL 
The argument is about the lack of a ranking system in unranked which judges players to form ranks.
Wtf people and their personal judgement have anything to do with this argument? Nothing, you’re literally talking some delusional nonsense.
Dunno, the point is that contrary to your false statement that we don’t have unranked we do have unranked, and in more than one way.
Oh yes I did, that’s the thing I actually explain things, where you just throw around vague implications and pretend to be right about something.
And no, not literally, I said much more than just that one thing, and in fact, you missquoting me, by gluing together two posts from two different parts fo conversation.
I made my argument about casuals and competetive, and you choose to argue it, but when you failed to do so, you now want to switch to some “real argument” as excuse to why you suck at arguing on topic 
You do realize that strawman argument IS a beside the point comment?
So if you are using strawman arguments it mean that YOU are the one whos making beside the point comments, and arguing against the topic of the argument.
Woah, dude, ur seriously clueless.
wtf?
If you are loosing, then you are loosing, and other person is winning.
There is no draw you silly cupcake ahahaha
1 Like
You said casuals arent allowed.
Copy and paste where on the rules that it says you can’t play ranked casually.
I’ll wait.
Casual players make this game survive. You want to ring fence them from a mode because they aren’t as try hard as you.
Sadly, this doesn’t do anything you claim. It doesn’t impact how ranked works in anyway other than there are more players for you to play with and against. You should be welcoming as many players as possible in to every mode.
Where I said that? Can you post thread/link specific post?
If I did, I probably misspoke because I did say before that they shouldn’t be allowed, which is not the same as aren’t allowed.
No one argued that what I say/claim will change how ranked works. You need to take your head out of your butt, and stop making BS counterarguments.
To any casual mode, sure. To competitive, no. It’s like trying to invite w/e people to the Olympics. It’s dump.
Well that’s just worse from you.
You want to dictate who can and can’t play based on your blinkered view on how the game should be played.
If the recent experimental card has taught people anything, it is that this game is brilliant when everyones having a laugh.
I know I’m an example of the ranking system working well. I play causally, I sit bounce between 2200-2600 depending on role, form and so on.
I know I can play in high diamond if I try hard, put it the time and grind in, I was there. But, for me, it wasn’t fun to be sweating over a little number, and I no longer have that time to practice. So I just play chill and have settled at my rank.
The game is a casual game. Competitive is that in name only. It is just the same as quick play, with some ranking points on the line. If you want to sweat over it and see how high you can get, more power to you, I’ll see you on your way past me.
I don’t know how long you’ve been playing. But to become this jaded, I’ll assume awhile. You’ll have reached your peak already unless you put in the extra grind. If you haven’t done that in say 10 seasons… It probably isn’t worth worrying about your rank. Just enjoy the games.
Since you failed to provide any evidence about me allegedly saying that casual players “aren’t allowed” to play competitive it would mean that you willingly lied to smear me. Interesting.
Anyway…
No I don’t, and I never said that I do, so again you are full of lies.
I said many times that game design dictates who plays what i.e. competitive mode is designed for people who want to properly compete, NOT for people who want to casually play the game, and overall don’t care if they win, or whether they are even good at the game.
False conclusion based on biased/skewed point of view.
Your mistake is to assume that being on X place in the ranking is the place where you belong when you don’t have any external objective way to measure that you really belong there.
It’s like trying to argue that the rock in your hand weights 1 kg simply because you feel like it does weight 1 kg. You can’t know that until you measure its weight in an objective way. Only after you measure its weight properly you can claim how much that rock weights.
Furthermore, rank is OW is heavily dependent on performance of other 5 players in the team, and it skewed ranking placement by a lot. On top of that sometimes a difference of 500 makes absolutely no difference in the skill level of 2 people, or even worse, the one which is ranked higher is the worse one.
Considering all those facts the claim that you know that ranking is working because you are in X-Y bracket is an unsubstantiated nonsense.
At the begging of your post you were complaining that I am the one who wants to arbitrary decide who does what, and here you are making arbitrary decisions that OW is a casual game, and that the competitive is competitive by name just so you can fit your opinion into your subjective belief.
Seriously, can’t you be more painfully hypocritical…
First of all, it’s a fact, that OW is not casual, nor anything else. It’s simply a game, which has modes for both casual, and competitive players, where competitive mode is used to make Online, and LAN competitions.
Secondly, competitive has a problem to be properly competitive because it’s infested with casuals who ruin the competitive experience.
You clearly lack anything valid to say if your opening argument is a lie, and your closing argument is this crappy beside the point emotional “attack”, lol 
An objective way to measure if I belong there…
If I wasn’t good enough, I’d be losing more as I’d be costing matches.
If I was too good I’d be carrying games and climbing.
So I think it’s safe to assume, I’m where I should be.
Once my second account is leveled, I guarantee you it’ll be about the same rank if I play RQ. Instead it’s OQ only as I wanted to see if it was different to prove a friend wrong.
“Infested”. Now that’s not the wisest of wording. What you are implying there is that you don’t think most people should be playing ranked. Well, boo hoo on that one. People are free to play as they wish. As long as they are trying to win, and not throwing. Who actually cares.
If you want to get out of silver, you might want to chill out and not worry so much about whether your team are try harding or not. Just do the best you can and what will be, will be. If you truly are better than your rank, you’ll carry enough games to move up (how quickly depends how much better than the others you are)
Considering the fact that most of your rank is your 5 other teammate’s average performance you can easily land rank lower or rank higher than your current rank and stay there for the entire season.
Even if, it’s one niche example which means it’s a worthless as evidence.
Aren’t you quick to make false statement about me and put words in my month
No, I’m saying that competitive is full of people who don’t care about competitive and because of that competitive experience is being ruined.
That’s factually incorrect. There are rules which prohibit players from doing w/e they want
Well, they do throw games by being casual, and not trying to play the game properly.
Some even blatantly admit that they don’t care about rules, or whether they win or lose.
That’s the whole reason why argument against casuals in comp exists ya silly muffin
Ahh, finishing with emotional argument, how classy of you.
Shame is a useless argument, but then you have nothing else to say 
As I said. If they are trying to win, they are free to do as they wish.
Their are rules that protect you from people not trying to win. But they aren’t people I will talk about, as they don’t deserve the time.
In terms of the match result, you are sort of right. You team playing well definitely helps.
But the amount of SR you gain in victory, or lose in defeat is totally on what you do.
If you, in silver, play 10 games a go 5-5. If you are playing like you should be in gold or plat… You’ll have gained SR after those 10 games.
If you are losing more in defeat than you gain in victory… you’re too high.
It’s a simple but effective system.
I’ll save the brutal truths about your account level, rank and general attitude for someone else. I don’t really care how you play or what rank you are in. But the game is pretty simple.
More effort + more mechanics and you’ll climb quite quickly as people have proven time and time again.
And I told you that the problem is that most of them doesn’t care.
If that wasn’t the case then no one would oppose casuals in comp in the first place.
Cool, but Blizzard doesn’t want to properly enforce those rules, and the whole point of the argument against casuals in comp is to push Blizzard to take a proper position against people who sabotage competetive.
Nope, the amount of the SR you can get from a given game is calculated from the average difference between the average SR of team A, and team B.
Whether you get that SR depends on whether you win or lose, and that depends most of the time on how well your 5 other teammates going to play.
The system is fundamentally screwed because it’s 6v6 game and system was originally designed for 1v1 matches.
Truth? The only truth here is that w/e you have to say it’s your subjective opinion which no one cares for
Cool story, but how it relates to the fact that what you are saying doesn’t actually work in (especially) solo 6v6 game where your rank is mostly depends on your 5 other random teammates? 
I mean sure, in premade team maybe, but in solo, nah.
What. Your SR gain when you win, has nothing to do with what the enemy does. That’s why you can get 60-70 SR for a win if you hard carry.
That doesn’t mean the enemy lose that much, they’ll probably just lose 25-26sr each.
If you keep playing well, you’ll win more, and gain more. Nothing more complicated than that.