Here’s how to make healer more fun, increase healer dmg by 100% in ss.
This is best news for today, Thank you Blizz!
Just enable it so DPS teams can meet each other, that would be hilarious. Burst fight, to see who kills each other first, no healers.
Yes, let’s make it exactly like skirmish! Rated skirmish is what everybody wants, right? Don’t forget to give glad mounts for 1800 rating btw, that part is also super important.
I want to vote this post into the stratosphere.
I’d rather see 2v3 matches after a leaver leaves than have a situation where its luck-of-the-draw whether the other 5 players are rewarded/punished.
1 Like
Except it isn’t really based on luck though? It’s based on the rounds you’ve played. That’s a key fundamental of rating systems as a whole, to judge what has been played. To give out rating gains and losses based on rounds not even played, now THAT is what would be messed up in a solo queue.
In a 1v1 it makes sense. In a team game if everybody on a team forfeits, sure, that’d still make sense, since one side forfeited. But for the system to assume your team lost & won based on 1 player abandoning before the rounds were played, now that is what’s messed up.
It’d go against the purpose of a rating system, purely to stroke people’s egos.
But you didn’t get to choose who was in your party.
If you were teamed with the loser for the first 3 matches, and then he leaves, you do not get the chance at the easy wins you would have had in the next 3 matches.
That is entirely luck-of-the-draw
1 Like
Isn’t that the purpose of a solo queue?
Isn’t that something you all should’ve been prepared for since day one?
No. We signed up to play 6 matches of rotating teams. If someone is a liability, we each share equal exposure to them. Ending the SS early causes unequal exposure to that liability.
If you were given the liability in your team for the first few rounds, I win those rounds easily. Not because I played better than you, I was just lucky in the draw. If that SS goes the full 6 matches, you win the next few rounds because I’m exposed to the liability, balancing out.
But if the liability quits before you get the chance to balance it out, I essentially get to loot free rating from you. That’s actually far less fair than nobody getting points, like we currently have.
1 Like
Except it isn’t free, since the rounds were played. That key point tends to slip some people’s minds for some reason.
That’s really not what people were asking for though, that’s what Blizzard came up with on their own. What people were asking for was a copypaste solo ¿qué? just like any other game, but that led to endless debates on the pros and cons and eventually Blizzard came up with the shuffle format.
So yeah, you can say you’ve “signed up” for this, but what people were asking for was a system where luck would very much play a part.
Now, to get past that part, as explained already, a rating system’s purpose is to judge what has been played. That’s why the current way it’s designed, is counterproductive towards the purpose of the rating itself, and it’s also the reason why people feel it’s wasting their time. Yet you call that “more fair” than what Blizzard got planned.
As for what’s “fair” or not, even if somebody would leave, you’d still only be judged by rounds you’ve played. You were unable to carry the deadweight, while someone else maybe can in a future shuffle, so the rating system will do its thing and make you lose rating while the player that can carry the deadweight will get rating.
It’s still staying 100% true to the purpose of the rating system that way.
But when you bypass that and stroke people’s egos, that’s when people would gain and lose rating based on rounds they haven’t even played. That’s yet again counterproductive towards the purpose of the rating system.
No.
Players signed up for the exact opposite. Rotating the teams is supposed to distribute luck out of the equation.
Btw, I’m not arguing for healers to get auto-payed for 3-3.
I think it would be more fair to zone the leaver out and the teams in the final rounds fighting with a 2v3 liability.
Personally? I’d rather the rounds continue, but the team with a 3rd has to vote out 1 player so it becomes 2v2 through majority vote each round. The 3rd would still gain/lose rating, and it’d create more inflation events, but abandoning is supposed to be more rare than it actually is so this is just a “what if”-scenario that isn’t supposed to be common.
And yes, it’d mean the 3rd would gain/lose rating from rounds the person didn’t play, but as long as it placates people then the impact on falsified ratings would be less than minimal, unlike gaining/losing rating from rounds not played for everyone when someone abandons.
That isn’t a terrible idea.
True, the incoming leaver-bans will cut-out the mmr abusers who are probably responsible for 90% of this currently. We’ll only have the true ragequitters to contend with then.
Can’t believe this is still prevalent now even after the bans announcement…
Although, if the rounds continues then there’d also be people who abandons after the first one, so the design in such a hypothetical would have to be adapted so it functions no matter how many people abandons. Lots of “what ifs” to consider if the rounds don’t end when someone abandons.
Yeah, it’d probably be a few seasons before they could get the code for that solution implemented too.
If a player loses you 3 rounds, because he’s super bad, he would’ve had 0-6, but instead he has 0-3 and left, then you lost 3, while if he played whole 6 you’d have 3-3.
If you were LUCKY to not have him in your team, and your enemy having him in their team, then you’d have 3-0 instead of 3-3.
What decided your score?
Randomly being assigned the leaver.
Random = luck.
That’s why to counteract this, the leaver should “lose” every following rounds.
So if he plays 3 games with you, then he tilts and leaves, it should count as if he lost following 3 rounds. Which is the closest thing to reality.
This is exactly the reason.
It is free when rounds were played where somebody had to play with leaver, and somebody didn’t. The leaver in most scenario leaves, because he’s performing badly (winning-wise). Meaning whoever ended up with him first is at disvantage and whoever didn’t play with him yet, has now advantage and free rating since they didn’t play with that disadvantage, yet they scored wins thanks to that advantage.
I don’t personally care if it’s autoloss for leaver’s group every following round, or if it’s 2v3 as an empty spot. But I disagree with rating being distributed after leaver leaves without caring about following matches, that’d balance things out.
One possible counterargument to your idea: Leaver may be target of choice while he plays and result in easy kill during the match, with him gone, it may be actually easier to 2v3 than 3v3 before he left, so it may result in advantage for enemy team.
- I hate this.
- What if healer leaves?
I think leaver should simply autoloss every following round.
It’s no different to players actually being on the computer, but not pressing any keys, simply “pseudo-afking” in the match.
Leaver was likely disadvantage before he left, he should be disadvantage after as well.
I think cleanest thing is simply make it so his following matches count as autolosses.
Except you’re presuming it’d end up like that. Of course, those kinds of matchups can occur, but you can’t say for certain that every single time it’d be like that.
Basing ratings on assumptions is really not what it’s about. Might as well remove the rating in that case. (I mean from the game mode entirely, I don’t mean the way it works rn.)
Which is a “what if”, as mentioned here:
You’re also assuming it’d be the deadweight that abandons btw.
But to be perfectly clear, the design closest to staying true to the purpose of a rating system, is to just give out rating gains & losses based on rounds played when someone abandons.
I disagree with this.
After we the MMR abusers are removed, you’re left with ragequitters.
If our team loses the rounds because I am bad. I don’t take responsibility for it, I blame you, and I’m angry enough in that moment to scorch earth. So I leave, to deprive you the chance to make up those points.
You can’t put much faith in a ratings system that allows this kind of outcome.
1 Like
It’s vast majority of matches I played. Like 99% or more.
Proposed change is decent for like 0.5% people at best in that circumstance. What I propose is better for 99%.
I had zero games when somebody performed well and left.
I had more games when somebody performed extremely badly and left. More than what I’ve had as games when nobody left.
I don’t want be punished for being paired with bad player first. Just randomly.
If so, then they may as well toss into trashcan the idea of having rounds. Why then.
The point of rounds is to balance it. If you left sooner, it’s disbalanced. And yes, the leaver is likeliest the one who would’be losing. The leaver basically decided to lose it by leaving.
Yes, it has great potential to grieve people. Way better than what it used to be until next reset.