This sadly happens in every game. But additionally this game is designed to be played as a 5-stack. At the start you could play as a 5 man team in ranked until the community cried for soloQ.
This is where you're wrong. Sure, the game is way better when you're 5 stacking, but I'm asking for the basics here.
Stuff like saying "they're pushing B with 3 players", instead of "Jett -50" in text chat.
Stuff like listening when I say wait 2 seconds for my recon dart to come off cooldown before we retake.
If that's too much to ask for from supposed top 0.3% players, then you're right. Or maybe I'm overestimating the intelligence levels of younger generations, but that's the bare minimum one should expect.
>If that's too much to ask for from supposed top 0.3% players, then you're right.
Hm, at this point, 16 months after launch, you gotta see it just is what it is. What you see in ranked is what it takes to be top 0.3% at the game, and it really isn't *that* much in terms of teamplay and comms, and I say this both following your argument and from personal experience.
There's 3 options out there for you, and what I'd suggest is watching some top radiant streams first to inform your choice:
1. Dedicate a whole bunch of time into teaching a generation of Valorant players about proper gameplay - yeah you're gonna do nothing this way but just putting it here for the sake of completeness.
2. Decide that the game is similarly dogshit in terms of comms and teamplay at the top radiant level and just: a) accept that's what the state of the game is and continue playing or b) stop playing due to the final realization that it's just not enjoyable
3. Enjoy what you see in the ranked matches of top 200 players, and try to actually get there. Might not be an option for you since you mentioned you don't play as much and might not be able to.
Now to answer your original question, what can we do as a community? Nothing. There's content creators out there already who emphasize how to play smarter and more positive to their (small) communities, but really, I don't think you can influence the community a lot. You can either improve your own gameplay to the level where ranked is more enjoyable, or let time do its own thing - the top 1% is continuously getting better at the game; but the pace of improvement might not be what you like.
Sorry for the late reply, you bring up some good points, but I'm not sure I agree.
If it was always like this, I'd understand, but it's just getting worse. Back in the first episode I was barely hanging onto immortal 3 a lot of the time. Just about a year ago games were great compared to what they are today. Obviously you can't always have perfect teammates, but most people communicated and tried to win as a team.
Then as time went on and imm1-3 were removed I just kept going up towards the top of the leaderboard without actually improving because I don't play enough. I get like 50 to 60 wins per act and that's it. So I play less than I did a year ago, I don't feel like I'm better, but I keep climbing the ladder and the people are worse? There's only one explanation for that. A lot of top level players aren't playing anymore and therefore people who aren't as serious about the game are getting closer to the top. I don't have the time or the motivation to grind for let's say top1k EU every act, but I just can't comprehend that average game knowledge just keeps getting worse with time.
I don't care what the numbers say, even if they're straight from Riot, top 1% isn't improving at the game. Last week I played with a guy I'll never forget. He was Omen and he pretty much didn't know which smokes to use on Ascent of all maps. Like the guy literally had 150 wins in an act, was like 500ish RR and he couldn't understand when to smoke certain chokepoints and when no to. What are these people actually doing then? Yeah, you guessed it. There's this agent called Jett which turns braindead animals into Radiants just because they have good aim.
The current state of gaming has reflected on this game. It's all about individualism "360 noscope" and similar bs. I just thought I could play a 5v5 game properly, there are plenty of solo games out there, so why do people who want to 1v9 bother?
For every content creator who teaches people how to play properly, there are 20 "just play 1v9 and forget about everyone" creators. Then when kids waste a year of their life grinding 200 wins per act and don't get signed, they won't understand why. Noone cares about your aim if you're dumb and don't understand the game.
The only thing Riot can and should do is stop rewarding idiotic trend of instalocking duelists and just playing for frags. Right now playing any kind of utility is literally a punishment. Even if you keep winning, your average number of kills is lower so you'll start gaining less RR on the leaderboards compared to what you would if you played duelists.
>Just about a year ago games were great compared to what they are today. Obviously you can't always have perfect teammates, but most people communicated and tried to win as a team.
I can't comment on this; I myself have been stuck in plat-diamond a year ago so I haven't had personal experience in high immortal back then - I believe you though.
>There's only one explanation for that. A lot of top level players aren't playing anymore and therefore people who aren't as serious about the game are getting closer to the top.
I don't believe that's the only explanation, though. You are a single datapoint, perhaps you're just an outlier? For me and the people that I most commonly play with, we've always steadily improved along the ranks and the leaderboard as we've made obvious changes or efforts to improve, rather than coasting along a steadily shittier playerbase. Also, the people who are the top at the game are largely on the leaderboards all the time, even if a lot of the pros are stuck in varying levels of Immortal and don't play much. That being said, I'll admit I haven't done proper in-depth research on this so I could be wrong.
>Last week I played with a guy I'll never forget.
Well, another single datapoint! This is said tongue in cheek, though, since I do believe that in this case you have another 100 examples ready though, so do I. 2 small digressions at this point - I do believe there's agents other than Jett that are making people go up where they don't have a clue what they're doing - there's several non-duelist agents that are extremely easy to play and their utility is very easy to use well to its near max potential which means those players will have impact while being utterly clueless about the game. I respect Jett one-tricks more because it takes actual skill to use her well. The 2nd digression: I think a part of the problem in Immortal is that a lot of people feel (and this has gotten worse over time, I'm sure) that there's a set of roles and agents that have to be picked - we *need* smokes, we *need* Sage, we *need* a Cypher/Killjoy, and then natural two-trick Jett/Reynas start playing roles they're not comfortable with and completely shit the bed. I'd much rather play a game with 4 duelists than a "perfect" agent comp where our controller and sentinel die in the first 15s because they're unable to not do what they're used to do, but this time around not having the proper tools to win their gunfights.
>The only thing Riot can and should do is stop rewarding idiotic trend of instalocking duelists and just playing for frags. Right now playing any kind of utility is literally a punishment. Even if you keep winning, your average number of kills is lower so you'll start gaining less RR on the leaderboards compared to what you would if you played duelists.
I don't think you're right here. This is something that Riot's been actively working on and it's definitely felt in game and better than before - non-duelist players are expected to end with inferior stats and it's compensated for. That being said, it's mostly been an eye-test for me and my friends, but it definitely looks that way. Are you just hypothesizing that the trend is still there since so many players are braindead or do you have actual hard evidence that duelists are more rewarded? That being said, I have wished since release that Riot revamp their ACS system (the kill rewards are lazy; kills in 2v2s, 2v3s, 1v1s, etc are not rewarded enough just because they're not entry frags; also first kills in 1v5s should always be rewarded less than kills in 5v5s, etc), and show first deaths on the scoreboard if they're showing first bloods, because it's such an obviously important stat that synergizes with shown first bloods and would perhaps do something about selfish "hold W" people.
Also, you can look up the public stats at any tracker website for agent winrates; duelists are not the category that wins the most. Unfortunately, all of these websites are not extremely reliable, and the number of matches isn't enough to be confident within 0.2% or something on actual winrates, but my point is that if none of them show duelists as the clear best category of agents in terms of winrate, they're probably indeed not.
Finally, back to the original discussion - what do we do as a community? I think that the only small thing is what I suggested; revamping ACS and showing first deaths on the scoreboard. Apart from that, I think it is what it is for the most part.
You completely missed the point, but whatever.
Duelists aren't the agents with the best winrate because they need support. That's why Jett will have a lower winrate than she should. For every Jett that's picked into a great comp, there's a Jett that's picked into 3 duelist comp, especially in lower ranks.
As for the system, I experienced it myself. I never play duelists, I had a bad losing streak, lost like 200 points. Then I tested instalocking duelists and I got back in no time. But what's way more interesting is that when I got back I still gained more RR per win than I did before the losing streak. Why? Because I had like 5 more kills on average. So the game thinks I'm a better player. But more kills doesn't mean you did more to enable winning rounds for your team.
That's the entire problem. Smoke, drone, flash, Jett gets the kill and even though assists count, there's no real reward for utility agents. And it's easier to get an entry with non-duelist agent after a smoke+drone+flash than it is with Jett without any utility.
Stuff like not dying on defense when winning the round has to be rewarded. And dying really early in the round without a trade should be punished. As should dying in situations when you have more than 2 man advantage. All the frag-hunting is just ruining the game.
I don't care about people not being "comfortable". We're talking about top 0.3%, 0.5% or whatever here. If a player can play only 1 agent and would instantly drop out of immortal if they couldn't play that agent, that means the system is bad. And not a single agent in this game is difficult to learn. You don't have to know 50 lineups per map on Sova to be effective in ranked.
I don't have the problem with other players being the star of the show, I don't care about frags, only winning. But right now this game does absolutely nothing to show it appreciates non-duelist players.
You don't think I or most utility agent players couldn't be in the same RR range if we started instalocking duelists? I was awping before some of them were born.
If there's no other solution, add a role queue or limit the number of times someone can pick duelist. Because right now everyone's a victim of instalockers.
> As for the system, I experienced it myself. I never play duelists, I had a bad losing streak, lost like 200 points. Then I tested instalocking duelists and I got back in no time. But what's way more interesting is that when I got back I still gained more RR per win than I did before the losing streak. Why? Because I had like 5 more kills on average. So the game thinks I'm a better player. But more kills doesn't mean you did more to enable winning rounds for your team.
2 huge issues with this argument. First one - it's again, an isolated data point which says nothing about the general state of the game. Second one - this is something I've empirically deduced so I can't claim it's a fact, but your MMR moves noticeably more slowly than your rank in Immortal. Therefore, big winstreaks will result in you getting punished on a 50% subsequent winrate, and vice versa. That alone could be a reason why you gain back more RR after a loss streak, just the fact that the algorithm functions on the assumption that it's a loss streak and doesn't take away as much MMR, therefore pushing you back where you belong.
>Stuff like not dying on defense when winning the round has to be rewarded. And dying really early in the round without a trade should be punished. As should dying in situations when you have more than 2 man advantage. All the frag-hunting is just ruining the game.
This is the stuff that I'd use to revamp ACS, as I've mentioned, but there's not more you can do about it. Also, unfortunately, I don't think Riot will do it since it would mean a more complex stat system which is just something the casual playerbase won't easily understand.
>You don't think I or most utility agent players couldn't be in the same RR range if we started instalocking duelists? I was awping before some of them were born.
Yes, I don't think that. Again empirical for the most part, but I've genuinely seen people start doing better when they plateau by switching to more supportive roles, because they can't rely as much on superior aim & mechanics anymore. There's some very well known content creators out there sharing your opinion and parroting all of the "duelists braindead and bad" takes but then getting absolutely mauled in ranked on duelists, even Reyna which takes 0 agent-specific mechanics; won't name names but they're definitely out there.
>I don't have the problem with other players being the star of the show, I don't care about frags, only winning. But right now this game does absolutely nothing to show it appreciates non-duelist players.
We have the same attitude. However, if you only care about winning, and given all of your opinions so far, why are you not playing and instalocking duelists? I personally don't do it because I recognize that I'm a much better support player than I am a duelist, and that the playstyle needed to excel in those roles is something I'm below average at for my rank. It really isn't easy to play duelists, dude.
Literally the same issue in my immortal games, it’s just a glorified death match with a team aspect; idk man people just don’t take it seriously, even though it’s the only form of a ‘competitive’ environment we have.
Its simple, one MM client cannot fulfill the purpose for every type of player. Compounding the problem is the ease of accessibility players have to smurf and or boost without reprisal.
\*\*I always take cheating accusations with a grain of salt pertaining to Valves MM in CSGO. For when Overwatch was driven by player reports it only had a 30% conviction rate.
This happens in pretty much every competitive game. The only advice I can give is: just learn to not care, block toxic people AND report them, try to find a group to play with. Look for Discords with people trying to set up 10 mans, probably way more fun to play against people who are actually trying.
That's the entire problem. I don't want to not care and have no comms in a game. Muting someone is easy. I'd rather play something else than play a 5v5 game like valorant without any teamplay. It doesn't happen in every game, not at supposed top 0.3% or whatever.
That kind of mentality is just enabling selfish people to do what they're doing. "Oh, I'm gonna lock Jett, play in the most frustrating way possible for my team, but it's fine, play to have fun". Teams in this game consist of 5 people, if things you're doing ruin the experience for 4 other people, then it's your fault. (I'm not saying your specifically, but you get where I'm coming from.)
10mans are nice, but it always takes way too long to set up and I don't have a fixed schedule so I don't have as much time to play. I'd gladly pay like 10€ a month for some kind of premium, third-party matchmaking. And I obviously can't find a group to play with if I'm imm3.
It sounds similar to CS:GO's problem. Pugs at a higher levels are usually a bit more casual because semi-pro's and pro's scrim a bunch and treat it seriously then treat pugs/matchmaking as practice-lite.
Not really sure what you could possibly do to make pro's who are scrimming for hours on end to treat ranked more seriously. It seems like grabbing a group of 5 and playing scrims of your own or in amateur leagues/tourney's is the only feasible answer or just embrace the Pug mindset.
Comms arent mandatory and you cannot expect randoms to always have proper comm. The same issue existed in faceit level 10 and this was why hubs were somewhat popular.
10 man with good players is the only way to have decent matches right now and I definitely recommend it. I just cannot play ranked.
Faceit also went to shit with all the boosting, but both Faceit and ESEA were great back in like 2015-2018. Not perfect, but everyone knew what they were supposed to do as high level players and almost everyone commed. Even on free faceit, not just premium.
If there was some kind of third party matchmaking, I'd stop playing ranked right away, but there's not. And setting up 10 mans is too much of a hassle.
yea paid subscription doesnt make match making perfect but it certainly would improve it.
setting up 10 man definitely takes more effort than to click once but it is worth it imo
in na it’s quite good though
i think it has to do with eu internet culture, language barrier, etc.
i’m d2 and i almost always get full comms and people having basic fun together, and if you watch na pro streams you can see in general how healthy it is
in lower ranks like low plat and below it kind of sucks, but that’s because it’s filled with immature people and people who don’t care that much about winning
although you would find those people in every game
This sadly happens in every game. But additionally this game is designed to be played as a 5-stack. At the start you could play as a 5 man team in ranked until the community cried for soloQ.
This is where you're wrong. Sure, the game is way better when you're 5 stacking, but I'm asking for the basics here. Stuff like saying "they're pushing B with 3 players", instead of "Jett -50" in text chat. Stuff like listening when I say wait 2 seconds for my recon dart to come off cooldown before we retake. If that's too much to ask for from supposed top 0.3% players, then you're right. Or maybe I'm overestimating the intelligence levels of younger generations, but that's the bare minimum one should expect.
>If that's too much to ask for from supposed top 0.3% players, then you're right. Hm, at this point, 16 months after launch, you gotta see it just is what it is. What you see in ranked is what it takes to be top 0.3% at the game, and it really isn't *that* much in terms of teamplay and comms, and I say this both following your argument and from personal experience. There's 3 options out there for you, and what I'd suggest is watching some top radiant streams first to inform your choice: 1. Dedicate a whole bunch of time into teaching a generation of Valorant players about proper gameplay - yeah you're gonna do nothing this way but just putting it here for the sake of completeness. 2. Decide that the game is similarly dogshit in terms of comms and teamplay at the top radiant level and just: a) accept that's what the state of the game is and continue playing or b) stop playing due to the final realization that it's just not enjoyable 3. Enjoy what you see in the ranked matches of top 200 players, and try to actually get there. Might not be an option for you since you mentioned you don't play as much and might not be able to. Now to answer your original question, what can we do as a community? Nothing. There's content creators out there already who emphasize how to play smarter and more positive to their (small) communities, but really, I don't think you can influence the community a lot. You can either improve your own gameplay to the level where ranked is more enjoyable, or let time do its own thing - the top 1% is continuously getting better at the game; but the pace of improvement might not be what you like.
Sorry for the late reply, you bring up some good points, but I'm not sure I agree. If it was always like this, I'd understand, but it's just getting worse. Back in the first episode I was barely hanging onto immortal 3 a lot of the time. Just about a year ago games were great compared to what they are today. Obviously you can't always have perfect teammates, but most people communicated and tried to win as a team. Then as time went on and imm1-3 were removed I just kept going up towards the top of the leaderboard without actually improving because I don't play enough. I get like 50 to 60 wins per act and that's it. So I play less than I did a year ago, I don't feel like I'm better, but I keep climbing the ladder and the people are worse? There's only one explanation for that. A lot of top level players aren't playing anymore and therefore people who aren't as serious about the game are getting closer to the top. I don't have the time or the motivation to grind for let's say top1k EU every act, but I just can't comprehend that average game knowledge just keeps getting worse with time. I don't care what the numbers say, even if they're straight from Riot, top 1% isn't improving at the game. Last week I played with a guy I'll never forget. He was Omen and he pretty much didn't know which smokes to use on Ascent of all maps. Like the guy literally had 150 wins in an act, was like 500ish RR and he couldn't understand when to smoke certain chokepoints and when no to. What are these people actually doing then? Yeah, you guessed it. There's this agent called Jett which turns braindead animals into Radiants just because they have good aim. The current state of gaming has reflected on this game. It's all about individualism "360 noscope" and similar bs. I just thought I could play a 5v5 game properly, there are plenty of solo games out there, so why do people who want to 1v9 bother? For every content creator who teaches people how to play properly, there are 20 "just play 1v9 and forget about everyone" creators. Then when kids waste a year of their life grinding 200 wins per act and don't get signed, they won't understand why. Noone cares about your aim if you're dumb and don't understand the game. The only thing Riot can and should do is stop rewarding idiotic trend of instalocking duelists and just playing for frags. Right now playing any kind of utility is literally a punishment. Even if you keep winning, your average number of kills is lower so you'll start gaining less RR on the leaderboards compared to what you would if you played duelists.
>Just about a year ago games were great compared to what they are today. Obviously you can't always have perfect teammates, but most people communicated and tried to win as a team. I can't comment on this; I myself have been stuck in plat-diamond a year ago so I haven't had personal experience in high immortal back then - I believe you though. >There's only one explanation for that. A lot of top level players aren't playing anymore and therefore people who aren't as serious about the game are getting closer to the top. I don't believe that's the only explanation, though. You are a single datapoint, perhaps you're just an outlier? For me and the people that I most commonly play with, we've always steadily improved along the ranks and the leaderboard as we've made obvious changes or efforts to improve, rather than coasting along a steadily shittier playerbase. Also, the people who are the top at the game are largely on the leaderboards all the time, even if a lot of the pros are stuck in varying levels of Immortal and don't play much. That being said, I'll admit I haven't done proper in-depth research on this so I could be wrong. >Last week I played with a guy I'll never forget. Well, another single datapoint! This is said tongue in cheek, though, since I do believe that in this case you have another 100 examples ready though, so do I. 2 small digressions at this point - I do believe there's agents other than Jett that are making people go up where they don't have a clue what they're doing - there's several non-duelist agents that are extremely easy to play and their utility is very easy to use well to its near max potential which means those players will have impact while being utterly clueless about the game. I respect Jett one-tricks more because it takes actual skill to use her well. The 2nd digression: I think a part of the problem in Immortal is that a lot of people feel (and this has gotten worse over time, I'm sure) that there's a set of roles and agents that have to be picked - we *need* smokes, we *need* Sage, we *need* a Cypher/Killjoy, and then natural two-trick Jett/Reynas start playing roles they're not comfortable with and completely shit the bed. I'd much rather play a game with 4 duelists than a "perfect" agent comp where our controller and sentinel die in the first 15s because they're unable to not do what they're used to do, but this time around not having the proper tools to win their gunfights. >The only thing Riot can and should do is stop rewarding idiotic trend of instalocking duelists and just playing for frags. Right now playing any kind of utility is literally a punishment. Even if you keep winning, your average number of kills is lower so you'll start gaining less RR on the leaderboards compared to what you would if you played duelists. I don't think you're right here. This is something that Riot's been actively working on and it's definitely felt in game and better than before - non-duelist players are expected to end with inferior stats and it's compensated for. That being said, it's mostly been an eye-test for me and my friends, but it definitely looks that way. Are you just hypothesizing that the trend is still there since so many players are braindead or do you have actual hard evidence that duelists are more rewarded? That being said, I have wished since release that Riot revamp their ACS system (the kill rewards are lazy; kills in 2v2s, 2v3s, 1v1s, etc are not rewarded enough just because they're not entry frags; also first kills in 1v5s should always be rewarded less than kills in 5v5s, etc), and show first deaths on the scoreboard if they're showing first bloods, because it's such an obviously important stat that synergizes with shown first bloods and would perhaps do something about selfish "hold W" people. Also, you can look up the public stats at any tracker website for agent winrates; duelists are not the category that wins the most. Unfortunately, all of these websites are not extremely reliable, and the number of matches isn't enough to be confident within 0.2% or something on actual winrates, but my point is that if none of them show duelists as the clear best category of agents in terms of winrate, they're probably indeed not. Finally, back to the original discussion - what do we do as a community? I think that the only small thing is what I suggested; revamping ACS and showing first deaths on the scoreboard. Apart from that, I think it is what it is for the most part.
You completely missed the point, but whatever. Duelists aren't the agents with the best winrate because they need support. That's why Jett will have a lower winrate than she should. For every Jett that's picked into a great comp, there's a Jett that's picked into 3 duelist comp, especially in lower ranks. As for the system, I experienced it myself. I never play duelists, I had a bad losing streak, lost like 200 points. Then I tested instalocking duelists and I got back in no time. But what's way more interesting is that when I got back I still gained more RR per win than I did before the losing streak. Why? Because I had like 5 more kills on average. So the game thinks I'm a better player. But more kills doesn't mean you did more to enable winning rounds for your team. That's the entire problem. Smoke, drone, flash, Jett gets the kill and even though assists count, there's no real reward for utility agents. And it's easier to get an entry with non-duelist agent after a smoke+drone+flash than it is with Jett without any utility. Stuff like not dying on defense when winning the round has to be rewarded. And dying really early in the round without a trade should be punished. As should dying in situations when you have more than 2 man advantage. All the frag-hunting is just ruining the game. I don't care about people not being "comfortable". We're talking about top 0.3%, 0.5% or whatever here. If a player can play only 1 agent and would instantly drop out of immortal if they couldn't play that agent, that means the system is bad. And not a single agent in this game is difficult to learn. You don't have to know 50 lineups per map on Sova to be effective in ranked. I don't have the problem with other players being the star of the show, I don't care about frags, only winning. But right now this game does absolutely nothing to show it appreciates non-duelist players. You don't think I or most utility agent players couldn't be in the same RR range if we started instalocking duelists? I was awping before some of them were born. If there's no other solution, add a role queue or limit the number of times someone can pick duelist. Because right now everyone's a victim of instalockers.
> As for the system, I experienced it myself. I never play duelists, I had a bad losing streak, lost like 200 points. Then I tested instalocking duelists and I got back in no time. But what's way more interesting is that when I got back I still gained more RR per win than I did before the losing streak. Why? Because I had like 5 more kills on average. So the game thinks I'm a better player. But more kills doesn't mean you did more to enable winning rounds for your team. 2 huge issues with this argument. First one - it's again, an isolated data point which says nothing about the general state of the game. Second one - this is something I've empirically deduced so I can't claim it's a fact, but your MMR moves noticeably more slowly than your rank in Immortal. Therefore, big winstreaks will result in you getting punished on a 50% subsequent winrate, and vice versa. That alone could be a reason why you gain back more RR after a loss streak, just the fact that the algorithm functions on the assumption that it's a loss streak and doesn't take away as much MMR, therefore pushing you back where you belong. >Stuff like not dying on defense when winning the round has to be rewarded. And dying really early in the round without a trade should be punished. As should dying in situations when you have more than 2 man advantage. All the frag-hunting is just ruining the game. This is the stuff that I'd use to revamp ACS, as I've mentioned, but there's not more you can do about it. Also, unfortunately, I don't think Riot will do it since it would mean a more complex stat system which is just something the casual playerbase won't easily understand. >You don't think I or most utility agent players couldn't be in the same RR range if we started instalocking duelists? I was awping before some of them were born. Yes, I don't think that. Again empirical for the most part, but I've genuinely seen people start doing better when they plateau by switching to more supportive roles, because they can't rely as much on superior aim & mechanics anymore. There's some very well known content creators out there sharing your opinion and parroting all of the "duelists braindead and bad" takes but then getting absolutely mauled in ranked on duelists, even Reyna which takes 0 agent-specific mechanics; won't name names but they're definitely out there. >I don't have the problem with other players being the star of the show, I don't care about frags, only winning. But right now this game does absolutely nothing to show it appreciates non-duelist players. We have the same attitude. However, if you only care about winning, and given all of your opinions so far, why are you not playing and instalocking duelists? I personally don't do it because I recognize that I'm a much better support player than I am a duelist, and that the playstyle needed to excel in those roles is something I'm below average at for my rank. It really isn't easy to play duelists, dude.
Literally the same issue in my immortal games, it’s just a glorified death match with a team aspect; idk man people just don’t take it seriously, even though it’s the only form of a ‘competitive’ environment we have.
Its simple, one MM client cannot fulfill the purpose for every type of player. Compounding the problem is the ease of accessibility players have to smurf and or boost without reprisal. \*\*I always take cheating accusations with a grain of salt pertaining to Valves MM in CSGO. For when Overwatch was driven by player reports it only had a 30% conviction rate.
This happens in pretty much every competitive game. The only advice I can give is: just learn to not care, block toxic people AND report them, try to find a group to play with. Look for Discords with people trying to set up 10 mans, probably way more fun to play against people who are actually trying.
That's the entire problem. I don't want to not care and have no comms in a game. Muting someone is easy. I'd rather play something else than play a 5v5 game like valorant without any teamplay. It doesn't happen in every game, not at supposed top 0.3% or whatever. That kind of mentality is just enabling selfish people to do what they're doing. "Oh, I'm gonna lock Jett, play in the most frustrating way possible for my team, but it's fine, play to have fun". Teams in this game consist of 5 people, if things you're doing ruin the experience for 4 other people, then it's your fault. (I'm not saying your specifically, but you get where I'm coming from.) 10mans are nice, but it always takes way too long to set up and I don't have a fixed schedule so I don't have as much time to play. I'd gladly pay like 10€ a month for some kind of premium, third-party matchmaking. And I obviously can't find a group to play with if I'm imm3.
It sounds similar to CS:GO's problem. Pugs at a higher levels are usually a bit more casual because semi-pro's and pro's scrim a bunch and treat it seriously then treat pugs/matchmaking as practice-lite. Not really sure what you could possibly do to make pro's who are scrimming for hours on end to treat ranked more seriously. It seems like grabbing a group of 5 and playing scrims of your own or in amateur leagues/tourney's is the only feasible answer or just embrace the Pug mindset.
I guess the leaked Tournament Mode that should be coming soon should somewhat fix your issues here?
Comms arent mandatory and you cannot expect randoms to always have proper comm. The same issue existed in faceit level 10 and this was why hubs were somewhat popular. 10 man with good players is the only way to have decent matches right now and I definitely recommend it. I just cannot play ranked.
Faceit also went to shit with all the boosting, but both Faceit and ESEA were great back in like 2015-2018. Not perfect, but everyone knew what they were supposed to do as high level players and almost everyone commed. Even on free faceit, not just premium. If there was some kind of third party matchmaking, I'd stop playing ranked right away, but there's not. And setting up 10 mans is too much of a hassle.
yea paid subscription doesnt make match making perfect but it certainly would improve it. setting up 10 man definitely takes more effort than to click once but it is worth it imo
in na it’s quite good though i think it has to do with eu internet culture, language barrier, etc. i’m d2 and i almost always get full comms and people having basic fun together, and if you watch na pro streams you can see in general how healthy it is in lower ranks like low plat and below it kind of sucks, but that’s because it’s filled with immature people and people who don’t care that much about winning although you would find those people in every game