3 ms·
Overwatch has a competitive ladder which ranks players on a ELO-based rating system. The percentiles were published, by the game developers, at one point and ar
by nemothekid 7y ago
Overwatch has a competitive ladder which ranks players on a ELO-based rating system. The percentiles were published, by the game developers, at one point and are assumed to be stable.
I play(ed) a lot of Overwatch, enough to get into the top 1% (Grandmaster). The rank he derides on, 90-95%, is Diamond, which is quite famously "ELO Hell", because that is where a lot of naturally talented players end up before deciding that blaming their teammates was the issue instead of reviewing their own gameplay. What irks me is, the top 4% of that game, Masters, I would actually consider "good". Sure there is a gap between the top 4%, top 1% and top .1%, but the mistakes you see between those groups are less about "missing fundamental gameplay mechanics" and more flawless execution, awareness and inference. (For anyone that plays the game I would consider 4250 the top .1%, which is almost entirely pros and very talented streamers).
In other words, while I agree the top 10% of the community isn't all that good, the top 5% of that very game is respectable. My beef is less with the ranking and more with his "definition" of good.
Many of the top 1% of Overwatch do regular scrims in semi-pro leagues. Comparing this to basketball, does this mean the bar for "good" is the NCAA, d-league and NBA?
- ryandrake 7y agoThere seems to be something fundamentally wrong (with the game or with the measurement or with something else) when the top 10% is considered “not good” and the top 5% is “respectable”. I can’t really think of anything where this is true. Games, job performance, educational testing, income & wealth... Top 10% is kind of by definition great!
- nemothekid 7y agoThe game's distribution is a normal distribution - and I think the problem may be with perception. What is the definition of "good"? Personally, I wouldn't claim to be very good at the game despite my past ranking - there are a number of players who would wipe the floor with me where it feels like I'm giving my all and they are barely even trying. At the same time I could probably do the same thing if I dropped down on the ranking. If you watch streams, you commonly hear top players complaining about having to play with "braindead masters players" who are the top 5%. All of this shapes the perception of what good means.
- Madmallard 7y agoGood is largely subjective to your own level of competence. A diamond player is good to a platinum player is good to a gold player is good to a silver player etc...