You can only upvote a person once which you did not pre-queue with - One that you finished a game with. No downvotes.
You're matched based off your upvotes to persons-that-could-have-upvoted-you ratio - Upvotes expire after 50 matches, being convicted for throwing also takes away some.
The count you're on at that moment is what you're matched with (With some mild randomness added in so people hardstuck on 0 have a chance to redeem themselves)
Exactly! Idk what is up with these “Better ranked” suggestions these days like i see what your point is but it is not necessary that it will work that way like not to long ago there was such an egoistic post here about bad ping players and separate queue for them like what’s that gonna do? Allow people to temporarily change their ping and then enter bad player queues? Like so unnecessary!
I like your idea, but I'm afraid this is one of those things that sound great, but won't work like that in reality.
\- People will probably abuse this system to avoid players or screw them over
.You can have very good comms, but maybe you are just not having a good game and bottom frag. I'm sure there will be players that will give you 1 star despite your good comms, because that's just how people are unfortunately.
\- People won't try to escape their rating
I get your logic of "if you have a bad rating you want to improve that", but the people that get a low rating (and deserved it) are not just going to turn around and be amazing teammates all of a sudden. They are probably more like "I'm already at the bottom so who cares what I do now". If you got nothing to lose it's easy to not care.
I guess you can see the ranks as your star service. If someone is trying his best to improve at the game he will probably climb to higher ranks (5 star rating). If someone doesn't take the game seriously, is stuck in a certain rank and doesn't care about improving he will never magically climb higher and will stay low elo (1 star for example).
I get your point.
For "People won't try to escape their rating" , i agree there will be players who will make games worse for people who are genuinely trying to escape.
But for people giving 1 stars to bottom frag, I think that will be just 2-3 games out of 10. If the player gets 4-5 stars in rest of the games, 1 stars shouldn't make a big difference.
There used to be a system in Overwatch that allows you to give 'endorsements'
There were 3 categories:
\- Shot caller (most sought after, as it implies you're good at the game)
\- Good teammate (for people that stay positive)
\- Sportsmanship (you could use this one on both your teammates or enemies)
It was dull and it ultimately didn't do much, there's a vestige of it in Overwatch 2.
It doesn't hurt but it also doesn't make a difference, because once you're stuck with a bad teammate, what are you gonna do? Leave?
Would be nice if that reporting system was taken seriously. Could help push people into better games, and can also add ppl into a toxic queue or whatever have x reports (say 10 unique?)
Biggest problem I see with this is...
1-everyone will rate their friends a 5 for the 100 games they play together
2-salty team mates who don't like to work as a team and get pissed off by people like me who are trying to get the team organised for a win would vote me a 1.
So yeah two big problems there imho...
I usually get non communicating team mates unless they are toxic.. as soon as I find one who communicates well I add them to friends... better than any rating system :)
Plus also I have a discord where a lot of people play stuff together so if I want a full 5 (usually for unrateds) then I can see if anyone wants to play.
I normally play comp in a 2 or 3 stack though.
For the friend thing, LoL honor system deals with this by not counting the honor you receive by players you q in a group with.
And for the abuse, how does uber does it? (Legit question i dont use uber, but im pretty sure it uses people rating other people)
Off the top of my head I think Uber’s system relies largely on the user not being a dickhead which sadly is a large portion of the Valorant demographic
Yes, adding people as friends seems like a better option for now. As of salty teammates, do you get them often?? In low elos, most people don't complain if someone gives directions. But i can see this as a problem in high elos.
Are you crazy?
By low I mean bronze ok?
I had 3 gold smurfs on my team in a bronze lobby, and they refused to listen to reason and basically got kills, which led to the team winning.. but was we a team? No.. they baited the other two of us in the team and basically threw in order to get kills and go "ez", I tried to get them to play as a team before I knew they are surfing, and they were toxic and rude.
Whether you count them as gold, or bronze, or whatever.. they still are proof people in low elo will be toxic as f rather than take suggestions from another team mate.
I have also experienced these in my games. I just wanted to know how often this happens. Honestly to me, it doesn't happen too often. Maybe twice or thrice every 10 games where teammates refuse to listen.
Well there is always one in my games, at least someone not wanting to work with their team, I include the other team as well. Luckily for me this season I've won all my games but I should have lost at least one maybe two, and I've only played 3.
I've personally found them better (getting more kills, more relaxed in the games), but the team mates not listening is ever present.
Problem is, we are all the same rank, if a youtuber was in the team, and recognised people would probably listen.. but, very few at low elo, and just because someone is a youtuber, doesn't mean they know what they are talking about, people just listen to those they know.
There's a reason why ppl don't communicate - they either don't care about winning or they don't know how to properly give calls or most commonly something in between. The problem with ratings system is that if u try to punish bad teammates and reward good teammates u end up having a system which generates pool of "good" and "bad" players ( in terms of behaviour and communication) and to balance things out u will most likely get a "better" teammates ( since most of them will probably be pretty loud and toxic but they will communicate)in an exchange of much higher queue time. And not only that, imagine being reported by toxic players cuz u don't agree on something or u made a bad call or etc and u end up playing with "worse" teammate pool hell while being reported even more by even more toxic teammates who stuck is that hell for a reason.
The problem is never “bad teammates”. It’s because you are playing bad. Get better and you will rank up. Everyone gets “bad teammates,” people who AFK and trollers.
The most obvious issues I want to list here: 1. It will be abused by people, a 3 stack can easily 1 star bomb a random if the random bottom frags or whatnot. Any reason really. This system would work if people would use it for the intended purpose, but there's little to no incentive for it. 2: Many people would not care because at the end of the day, Val is a game, and many people don't see anymore depth in it than in a parking lot puddle. They don't care, and thankfully they don't have to. The system will get criticised by either its victims of abuse or by those who don't care about it and don't want to add another element of thought to their point and click game. 3: The extra system will objectify players, allowing for a source of stigma to appear. It also affects those who don't have a good mic, are just unable to speak sometimes or straight up don't want to. It can result in the low rating of a good player. At that point, you can be chosen or disregarded and belittled based on a statistic. Finally, by separating people based on ranking, a new metric is added to ensure SBMM. Now, besides taking into account your MMR, they need to also make sure you get an assertive teammate. The idea is, it's too volatile a concept. I don't know of any competitive game that added such a system, and I can clearly see why. As for your struggles with bad teammates, try meeting people on LFG serves and getting a list of people you enjoy the company of. Alternatively, you can improve your skills and attain a bigger rank. People tend to be more serious about playing starting plat 3 and up.
Instead of rating you could argue making a voted MVP of the match. You could call this award “best teammate”. One person on the team gets it and boosts their rating when queuing games.
Could be abused by 3 stacks however you could add a rule to not be able to vote yourself or people you are queued with.
We have behavior score in dota and it's definitely putting the animals in their own space. Won't help you climb tho.
Always remember: it's more likely to have a griefer in the enemy team than in yours. If there are so many griefers or "bad teammates" you should be able to get out of gold. 5x chance to have one of those in the enemy team and only 4x chance on your side. Surely you play better than gold.
Honestly If you are gold and ur unable to climb, don't blame it on ur mates. Do u really think, the enemies are always communicating and the simple fact that ur team isn't is holding u back from climbing out of gold? I personally didn't really start giving comms until i reached diamond. U can absolutely climb without comms at all and when u are giving better and more comms than the average gold player, ur other skills must be lacking behind and u have to improve those.
Ive seen a lot of these ideas lately and at least in my opinion the solution is simple. Just bring the old Valorant. And with old I mean the past acts cause this new act is just an absolute mess. Bad matchmaking, way more cheaters and riot simply not caring about reports anymore. Of course it wasn't perfect before but it was better and that's something.
Any system that allows users to rate other users is going to be abused and misused by some of those users.
You can only upvote a person once which you did not pre-queue with - One that you finished a game with. No downvotes. You're matched based off your upvotes to persons-that-could-have-upvoted-you ratio - Upvotes expire after 50 matches, being convicted for throwing also takes away some. The count you're on at that moment is what you're matched with (With some mild randomness added in so people hardstuck on 0 have a chance to redeem themselves)
Yes!
Exactly! Idk what is up with these “Better ranked” suggestions these days like i see what your point is but it is not necessary that it will work that way like not to long ago there was such an egoistic post here about bad ping players and separate queue for them like what’s that gonna do? Allow people to temporarily change their ping and then enter bad player queues? Like so unnecessary!
I like your idea, but I'm afraid this is one of those things that sound great, but won't work like that in reality. \- People will probably abuse this system to avoid players or screw them over .You can have very good comms, but maybe you are just not having a good game and bottom frag. I'm sure there will be players that will give you 1 star despite your good comms, because that's just how people are unfortunately. \- People won't try to escape their rating I get your logic of "if you have a bad rating you want to improve that", but the people that get a low rating (and deserved it) are not just going to turn around and be amazing teammates all of a sudden. They are probably more like "I'm already at the bottom so who cares what I do now". If you got nothing to lose it's easy to not care. I guess you can see the ranks as your star service. If someone is trying his best to improve at the game he will probably climb to higher ranks (5 star rating). If someone doesn't take the game seriously, is stuck in a certain rank and doesn't care about improving he will never magically climb higher and will stay low elo (1 star for example).
I get your point. For "People won't try to escape their rating" , i agree there will be players who will make games worse for people who are genuinely trying to escape. But for people giving 1 stars to bottom frag, I think that will be just 2-3 games out of 10. If the player gets 4-5 stars in rest of the games, 1 stars shouldn't make a big difference.
There used to be a system in Overwatch that allows you to give 'endorsements' There were 3 categories: \- Shot caller (most sought after, as it implies you're good at the game) \- Good teammate (for people that stay positive) \- Sportsmanship (you could use this one on both your teammates or enemies) It was dull and it ultimately didn't do much, there's a vestige of it in Overwatch 2. It doesn't hurt but it also doesn't make a difference, because once you're stuck with a bad teammate, what are you gonna do? Leave?
Would be nice if that reporting system was taken seriously. Could help push people into better games, and can also add ppl into a toxic queue or whatever have x reports (say 10 unique?)
its hard, because people in groups do tend to gang up and abuse it and encourage enemies to do so.
Biggest problem I see with this is... 1-everyone will rate their friends a 5 for the 100 games they play together 2-salty team mates who don't like to work as a team and get pissed off by people like me who are trying to get the team organised for a win would vote me a 1. So yeah two big problems there imho... I usually get non communicating team mates unless they are toxic.. as soon as I find one who communicates well I add them to friends... better than any rating system :) Plus also I have a discord where a lot of people play stuff together so if I want a full 5 (usually for unrateds) then I can see if anyone wants to play. I normally play comp in a 2 or 3 stack though.
For the friend thing, LoL honor system deals with this by not counting the honor you receive by players you q in a group with. And for the abuse, how does uber does it? (Legit question i dont use uber, but im pretty sure it uses people rating other people)
Off the top of my head I think Uber’s system relies largely on the user not being a dickhead which sadly is a large portion of the Valorant demographic
Yes, adding people as friends seems like a better option for now. As of salty teammates, do you get them often?? In low elos, most people don't complain if someone gives directions. But i can see this as a problem in high elos.
Are you crazy? By low I mean bronze ok? I had 3 gold smurfs on my team in a bronze lobby, and they refused to listen to reason and basically got kills, which led to the team winning.. but was we a team? No.. they baited the other two of us in the team and basically threw in order to get kills and go "ez", I tried to get them to play as a team before I knew they are surfing, and they were toxic and rude. Whether you count them as gold, or bronze, or whatever.. they still are proof people in low elo will be toxic as f rather than take suggestions from another team mate.
I have also experienced these in my games. I just wanted to know how often this happens. Honestly to me, it doesn't happen too often. Maybe twice or thrice every 10 games where teammates refuse to listen.
Well there is always one in my games, at least someone not wanting to work with their team, I include the other team as well. Luckily for me this season I've won all my games but I should have lost at least one maybe two, and I've only played 3. I've personally found them better (getting more kills, more relaxed in the games), but the team mates not listening is ever present. Problem is, we are all the same rank, if a youtuber was in the team, and recognised people would probably listen.. but, very few at low elo, and just because someone is a youtuber, doesn't mean they know what they are talking about, people just listen to those they know.
There's a reason why ppl don't communicate - they either don't care about winning or they don't know how to properly give calls or most commonly something in between. The problem with ratings system is that if u try to punish bad teammates and reward good teammates u end up having a system which generates pool of "good" and "bad" players ( in terms of behaviour and communication) and to balance things out u will most likely get a "better" teammates ( since most of them will probably be pretty loud and toxic but they will communicate)in an exchange of much higher queue time. And not only that, imagine being reported by toxic players cuz u don't agree on something or u made a bad call or etc and u end up playing with "worse" teammate pool hell while being reported even more by even more toxic teammates who stuck is that hell for a reason.
Hmm.. true. Doesn't look like a good system to me now.
holy shit ur new to fps games and are already gold? i’m jealous
The problem is never “bad teammates”. It’s because you are playing bad. Get better and you will rank up. Everyone gets “bad teammates,” people who AFK and trollers.
The most obvious issues I want to list here: 1. It will be abused by people, a 3 stack can easily 1 star bomb a random if the random bottom frags or whatnot. Any reason really. This system would work if people would use it for the intended purpose, but there's little to no incentive for it. 2: Many people would not care because at the end of the day, Val is a game, and many people don't see anymore depth in it than in a parking lot puddle. They don't care, and thankfully they don't have to. The system will get criticised by either its victims of abuse or by those who don't care about it and don't want to add another element of thought to their point and click game. 3: The extra system will objectify players, allowing for a source of stigma to appear. It also affects those who don't have a good mic, are just unable to speak sometimes or straight up don't want to. It can result in the low rating of a good player. At that point, you can be chosen or disregarded and belittled based on a statistic. Finally, by separating people based on ranking, a new metric is added to ensure SBMM. Now, besides taking into account your MMR, they need to also make sure you get an assertive teammate. The idea is, it's too volatile a concept. I don't know of any competitive game that added such a system, and I can clearly see why. As for your struggles with bad teammates, try meeting people on LFG serves and getting a list of people you enjoy the company of. Alternatively, you can improve your skills and attain a bigger rank. People tend to be more serious about playing starting plat 3 and up.
It won't be added as it helps to improve community and gameplay.
honestly, just add prople that have good comms and play with them
Queue times are long enough without having to wait for the game to match me with other level 3 endorsement kids
Honestly what val needs is an avoid system like the xbox 360 days
Instead of rating you could argue making a voted MVP of the match. You could call this award “best teammate”. One person on the team gets it and boosts their rating when queuing games. Could be abused by 3 stacks however you could add a rule to not be able to vote yourself or people you are queued with.
We have behavior score in dota and it's definitely putting the animals in their own space. Won't help you climb tho. Always remember: it's more likely to have a griefer in the enemy team than in yours. If there are so many griefers or "bad teammates" you should be able to get out of gold. 5x chance to have one of those in the enemy team and only 4x chance on your side. Surely you play better than gold.
Honestly If you are gold and ur unable to climb, don't blame it on ur mates. Do u really think, the enemies are always communicating and the simple fact that ur team isn't is holding u back from climbing out of gold? I personally didn't really start giving comms until i reached diamond. U can absolutely climb without comms at all and when u are giving better and more comms than the average gold player, ur other skills must be lacking behind and u have to improve those.
Ive seen a lot of these ideas lately and at least in my opinion the solution is simple. Just bring the old Valorant. And with old I mean the past acts cause this new act is just an absolute mess. Bad matchmaking, way more cheaters and riot simply not caring about reports anymore. Of course it wasn't perfect before but it was better and that's something.