💡 Leaver? Then Freeze a Player ?

Competitive Discussion
41

So your team is winning, the enemy team gets a disconnect / leaver and for that you want to remove a person from the winning team so you make it fair for the losing team? How is that fair for the winning team?:stuck_out_tongue: In this case you only make it fair for the 5 people in the team that was losing and giving them a chance to win. You aren’t making it fair for the team that was already winning.

1 Like
42

If you stated that Team A was winning before the disconnect happened, and after the disconnect Team A has 5 players like Team B (the losing team), then what has changed in the equation ? Team A is still winning , and Team B is still losing.

All that was done was even out the number of players contributing to either sides.

43

Well there are a quite a few scenarios and reasons for this isn’t unfair. It depends a lot of map , time remaining, ultimate charge,team composition, what time the disconnect occurs etc.

44

You need to be specific to prove a point. By just being vague you yourself are not clear about the scenarios, and hence uncertain.

The internal workings of whose picked for “freezing” wasn’t spoken about yet. The MM doesn’t have to take out the highest contributing player and freeze him no… Perhaps the lowest contributor to the team so far can become a candidate for a freeze. But we never got into discussing whom to freeze.

Perhaps that’s the next thing that could use some brain storming… The internal working algorithm for the MM. Maybe it’s too complicated to be solved in here… Maybe not :slight_smile:

45

It would be too much to write to explain everything :stuck_out_tongue: I’ll stick to my opinion and say freezing another person is not ok . It can cause huge disadvantages , and even if he/she gets the SR at the end how would you feel if you were benched yet your team lost a game that would’ve been a win before the disconnect happened ?

1 Like
46

When you say freezing someone is not okay, you gotta prove why it’s not okay. Otherwise your not adding anything constructive for us to work with here…

47

Hmm, a freezing system would require a “fairness” mentality of the players, which many players don’t have :confused:

Most aim to win and will use anything to secure that, even if it’s unfair for the other team.

I asked my team once whether it’s ok to stay passive so it’s a fair 5v5 match…
I got bashed and accused of throwing…

Regarding fairness: Freezing players would seem unfair to the affected team. However, for the leaver’s team, it would seem a lot fairer. Objectively seen, a fair match would occur where not team is outnumbered.

Since a “fair” freezing system has been discussed, all we have to do is to find out a picking system that seems fair. The most important part: The system must be built so the frozen player doesn’t feel to complain.

About that,
If MM picks the top 5 players, one problem still could occur.

As a model of demonstration, let’s say the following:

Team A has players with SRs of 10,8,5,3,1
Team B has players with SRs of 10,8,5,3,1, too.

Both teams have a Sum of 27 SR

Now imagine that the 10SR player of Team A leaves.
Based on the Top 5 system, the worst player with 1SR in Team B will be picked.

In the end, Team A has a sum of 17 SR and team B has a sum of 26 SR
If matchmaking would judge it, then it would say that it’s not a fair match

We could try another pick system: How about a “Same Sum” System.

Let’s say the 6 SR player of team A leaves. They now have a sum of 21 SR.
The “Same Sum” system would then look: “Which player of team B has to be frozen so both teams have a similar SR sum?”

Based on that, it will pick the 6 SR player, letting both teams have a sum of 21SR.

Such a system would pick a player to make the game fair on a statistical basis. However, letting MM decide who to freeze might seem to be random from the player’s perspective.

That could be one point of criticism.

:dragon:

48

Even now when the MM makes initial games the SR of the teams it put together are not always the same. You have majority of the games were one team is slightly higher in SR compared to the other. Accordingly they become the favored and under dog teams, and gain / lose SR based on it.

The under dogs stand to gain more SR on a win and lose less SR on a loss.
The favored team stands to gain less SR on a win and lose more SR on a loss.

The problem of trying to balance purely on SR being, that you could leave a team handicapped if they don’t have players fullfilling certain roles. Like a team without it’s main tank or main heal or main dps. I was thinking the MM picks whom to freeze purely based on how everyone’s been performing in the current game. The lowest contributing player based on statistics is auto picked for a freeze. This has nothing to do with the lowest SR player.

Now how the MM concludes what makes a lower contributing player is a whole other discussion, if we think that’s possibly the best way heading forward.

49

I cant believe this is still being discussed without even mentioning the 2 massive problems such a silly idea would cause(hence why something similar has never been implemented(.

  1. If this ever becomes a thing it may actually increase the number of leavers. As of now leaving affects your team but not the enemy, now you can affect the enemy by screwing over a guy who either needs to stay frozen and not play or has to leave. It increases the griefing capabilities and thus the leaver’s power.

  2. The game will become 5 vs 5. Cool, how do you play this? 1 healer? 1 tank? What would be the optimal combination? Overwatch is very team and pick based so removing one guy from both teams can cause a huge issues with the picks which in turn will lead into random wins and overall a gameplay which will be less pleasurable than the common known 6vs6.

Freezing is AWFUL and I hope you understand it’ll never become a reality.

2 Likes
50

No it doesn’t. It diminishes the leaver power because he’ll keep getting punished for him leaving and eventually a ban from the season. The leaver is unable to destroy the game for his team and make it stampede for the other team. The leaver can’t abuse it simply because the MM system will try identify the weakest link in the chain to freeze out. The weakest link remember, not the strongest one.

You form whatever comp is viable at that point, to ensure your team can satisfy it’s goals. The game can be played at a 5 v 5 mode as well, you can have 2 tank , 1 dps, 2 supports, or 1 support and 2 dps with 2 tanks. You can even play it at 3 v 3, with something like 1 tank, 1 dps, 1 support. If it were to go down to 2 v 2 then 1 dps , 1 support. and finally 1 v 1 well then it’s just 1 v 1 :stuck_out_tongue:

And remember all the frozen players that left, the game after their wait time, could stand to gain / lose certain SR based on how the game ended up. So the only person that really lost something from the whole thing was that leaver. So if anything that would discourage leavers from doing it.

51

I think freezing a player is a very bad idea and would make many people mad.

Instead, Blizzard should add an option to vote for a Timeout (like in CS:GO) to give the person an even longer period of time to reconnect (for the cases in which leavers have a disconnect and are able to fix the problem).

Maybe Blizzard should also reinforce the punishments (mainly the Timeouts) to make it even more unattractive to leave instead of punishing everyone in the leavers team like it is now.

With harsh punishments to prevent leavers, it would be possible to just don’t count the game and let everyone leave without any SR penalty after the reconnection time runs out. That way no one, except the leaver, gets punished.

2 Likes
52

The problem with making punishments harsher for leavers would be they are unable to tell when someone gets an accidental disconnect from a bad Internet connection vs someone doing it on purpose. Because of this they keep the leaver punishment liberal to cater to both camps.

55

Sure it would also affect unlucky people, but with the extended reconnection time, you get with the voted game pause, those with simple problems have more time to find a fix and rejoin the match. Furthermore, if you know that you have bad internet you just shouldn’t play ranked.

My suggestion still would fix the inevitable SR loss of everyone in the leaver’s team due to the permanent and, almost always, unwinnable 6v5 Situation. Maybe the punishments don’t need to be made harsher in general, but increasing the first Timeout to make even occasional leaving unattractive and warning people beforehand should help.

56

The SR loss, is already being adjusted when you have a loser on the team.
Infact the winning team gets a lot lesser SR with such a win, and the losing team loses a lot less aswell.

The current issue, being when you have a leaver, the games pretty much one sided. In most cases people just tend to leave after the timeout period, and the game comes to an end pretty fast.

With this above solution, you could extend such games with leavers, and ensure it goes all the way to the end. That way, we get to see leavers making a lesser impact on each of our comp games.

57

Infact the winning team gets a lot lesser SR with such a win, and the losing team loses a lot less aswell.