Cert.in.Death
Member
Preface:
It doesn't take a genius to recognize that OW is in a bit of a slump. The sustained levels of player toxicity (which originate from a number of issues) has all but rendered the game a burden to endure and nigh impossible to enjoy, particularly when stakes are at their highest. Dedicated players and those who want to see the game reach its highest potential have been brainstorming ideas on how to improve the experience not only for themselves but the community at large.
I play and watch OW on a regular basis, largely relegated to high-diamond rank (as a flex player) while a recurring viewer to OW's biggest streamers. From my own experience (playing and observing) along with the complaints I've seen levied against the current model, I've come up with what I think holds the most promise to addressing player toxicity without requiring the development team to completely undress and rebuild the competitive model. Please, do chime in and pick apart my proposal - the hope is simply to make the game the most that it can be by improving the overall experience across all modes.
Fixing Competitive
At its very core, OW competitive is about team play; individual prowess means very little without employing a complimentary lineup and strategy. One must achieve personal excellence not only with their specific character but also within their team's offensive or defensive methodologies. Yet the previous SR model and the matchmaking system as a whole reinforced attitudes and habits that were inconsistent with the core philosophy: team play.
This shouldn't be revelatory in any way. Coordination and teamwork have long been staples of MP games, particularly FPS. But OW's design limits character capabilities intentionally to create a dependence on other players, something that distinguishes itself from other games in its genre. In other extremely popular, competitive FPS games it is possible to "carry" your team to victory without the need for high-level strategy or sacrifice. In OW, this is something that only a handful of characters - and only in specific circumstances - are even capable of doing. Players share a dependence on one another for overall success, an identifying characteristic of the game's design. Excellence with a character or excellence as a team is not as easily converted into statistical data and, thusly, properly rewarded.
After lengthy contemplation (and assessing calls from other like-minded fans and efforts by the OW team), I propose a change that I believe will be the easiest to implement while doing the most to address toxicity issues that plague the game and its community. It's at this point that - and I cannot emphasize this enough - I hope you do not cringe in backlash when I say that the developer to which Blizzard should look for inspiration is Bungie.
Proposal 1: Limit Competitive Mode to 3-Player Squads
I've assessed a number of proposals about fixing competitive that range from revamping the algorithms to better measure a player's contributions to team success and going so far as to implement a role queue where players express their preference for a certain character or play style (in order to reduce the headbutting when a certain lineup isn't working). But each proposal I've seen doesn't compliment one of the game's greatest strengths: role-switching. If a certain lineup isn't working out or if a player isn't pulling their weight within their role, it is perceived as an affront to suggest to somebody switch to a different character. Within the current game's structure, you sometimes have to make these proposals to five complete strangers, some who may or may not be communicating with the rest of the team by personal choice or inherent frustration. The system, in a way, exacerbates toxicity because most every player believes they are fully capable of satisfying the goal that their role requires of them. The challenge then becomes how to convince players to forfeit their character preference and then direct them how to play with each other without becoming the target of the team's ire?
Every proposal I've reviewed cannot address this fundamental issue and - quite frankly - I don't believe any solution necessarily can. But I think Bungie (more specifically, Destiny) provides the best possible framework for Blizzard to draw from in order to reduce the obstacles to provide better team cohesion and coordination. Destiny drew a lot of flak for refusing to provide a matchmaking system for endgame activities (namely limiting Trials and Raids to player-arranged groups). But their argument - which, in my eyes, still has questionable premises in a PvE context - has proven comparably salient overall. By providing a matchmaking system, it reinforces solo-queue attitudes that create innate barriers to team coordination; any singular player's failing spoils the entire experience for the group. The issues is virtually identical in OW. Nevertheless, implementing a player requirement can (and certainly will) limit the competitive mode's immediate accessibility. But doing so is, IMO, in the game's and community's best interest.
Putting the onus on players to assemble a squad that has a predetermined inclination toward cohesion is the best possible outcome to address toxicity. By limiting the game's accessibility to 3-player units, players police themselves; nobody wants to be stuck with someone who won't communicate, who won't switch, or isn't willing to assist his/her teammates. It also helps prevent overlap in character preferences among team members (in order to prevent teams with several high-SR members who all rose through the ranks playing Symmetra, Mercy, or Torbjorn). Symmetra mains won't want group up with other Symmetra mains, and so and so forth with respect to other characters (Mercy, Torbjorn, Widows, etc.). I also have confidence that the community will find ways of facilitating players who don't have a group of friends with LFG or LFT services, much in the same way that Destiny managed to find success. I can only speculate if that is something Blizzard themselves would like to provide, but it is an effective and overall beneficial system to improve community interactions, I've found.
I tossed around the idea of limiting competitive to 2-player squads so that you always wind up with a 2-2-2 split, but believe a 3-3 split is better to address toxicity. It is easier to negotiate a switch in team lineups when there's only one other squad present and it is simpler to implement a reliable rating system to rank the other squad's commitment to team play, in my eyes. But I do think there is a place here for a spirited-debate, if you feel so inclined (particularly with respect to allowing for some flexibility if you're in Masters or GM).
Proposal 2: Implementing Official Clan Systems (and providing a separate queue)
This proposal is meant to compliment what I set forth in Proposal 1. Generally speaking, I think Destiny has the right idea about improving its community by allowing other players to recommend and promote one another, even if its implementation isn't exactly spot-on. OW can do something similar to not only enhance the positivity in their community but would allow for better professional procurement for the OWL. Allow me to provide specifics.
In adopting Proposal 1, the developers would preclude the possibility of 6-stacking, or assembling entire teams to compete with other teams, which is something that I feel needs to be preserved. From personal experience, it's usually not a good time to have to go up against a 6-stack when you have a duo or three stack with solo-queue players (or any mix thereof). Ultimately, however, the aim of OW is necessitate that a team assemble with a singular competitive objective. That's why I recommend splitting competitive into two different queues: Open Queue (with a squad minimum of 3 players) and Clan Queue (full team required).
The focus of each queue is innate: while maintaining the objective of promoting team play, Open Queue serves as the means to improve individual rank with SR rewards. Clan Queue would be an in-game system that allows for players to join and receive participation rewards based on their overall season performance in competitive. Specifics of clan size and the nature of rewards I would leave to the OW team, but I imagine something along the lines of additional cosmetic items, currency, or a set number of lootboxes. But clan competitive could be deemed the ultra-competitive arm of OW and reserve the greatest rewards for the greatest contribution to establishing OW as a long-term service. Implementing such a feature would also allow for the current OWL Teams a testing ground to procure and develop talent, something from which I think they would all greatly benefit. Clans could recruit (and restrict members) based on individual SR or however they desire.
There is also room for experimentation, where Blizzard could allow for open tournaments with player-organized clans (following in the footsteps and pattern set by the OWL). Only those with the strongest reputation or contribution from seasons past could join (this is more just a spitball idea, but do share your thoughts).
Ramifications
Naturally I'm of the opinion that the suggestions above would be the cleanest way of improving the overall player experience. What I would anticipate - or at least cede that there's a significant possibility of - is that QP could suffer as a consequence. The hesitance to jump into competitive may become increasingly daunting because players may be miles behind the learning curve. Consequently, some will want to jump into QP or arcade to practice or test their skills and understand the general flow of the game. Driving solo-queue players from competitive may potentially litter QP with trolls and/or persons who don't want to adhere to community guidelines. But such has been the stakes of QP ever since competitive came into existence, so I do not know if that is an issue that can with full assurance be remedied. The very notion of QP is that it is low-stakes and I acknowledge the frustration of players who join its queue only to discover that nobody is taking it seriously. But I believe that the above changes will drive the popularity and enjoyment of competitive so as to rid the expectation of commitment from all sides in a QP queue.
Something I would look to grasp more fully - and what I view as the singular most risky element of what I'm suggesting - is how existing (or would-be) players would readily accept such changes. So please, do you think that the proposals above with the aim of promoting community benefit the player experience? Or do you think it would make the game less accessible? Are there other, more beneficial changes IYO? Or should Blizzard and OW just continue on the path that they're on?
Please, I welcome your critiques and alternative recommendations. And hopefully this contributes to the larger conversation on what needs to change to improve the general player experience in OW.
It doesn't take a genius to recognize that OW is in a bit of a slump. The sustained levels of player toxicity (which originate from a number of issues) has all but rendered the game a burden to endure and nigh impossible to enjoy, particularly when stakes are at their highest. Dedicated players and those who want to see the game reach its highest potential have been brainstorming ideas on how to improve the experience not only for themselves but the community at large.
I play and watch OW on a regular basis, largely relegated to high-diamond rank (as a flex player) while a recurring viewer to OW's biggest streamers. From my own experience (playing and observing) along with the complaints I've seen levied against the current model, I've come up with what I think holds the most promise to addressing player toxicity without requiring the development team to completely undress and rebuild the competitive model. Please, do chime in and pick apart my proposal - the hope is simply to make the game the most that it can be by improving the overall experience across all modes.
Fixing Competitive
At its very core, OW competitive is about team play; individual prowess means very little without employing a complimentary lineup and strategy. One must achieve personal excellence not only with their specific character but also within their team's offensive or defensive methodologies. Yet the previous SR model and the matchmaking system as a whole reinforced attitudes and habits that were inconsistent with the core philosophy: team play.
This shouldn't be revelatory in any way. Coordination and teamwork have long been staples of MP games, particularly FPS. But OW's design limits character capabilities intentionally to create a dependence on other players, something that distinguishes itself from other games in its genre. In other extremely popular, competitive FPS games it is possible to "carry" your team to victory without the need for high-level strategy or sacrifice. In OW, this is something that only a handful of characters - and only in specific circumstances - are even capable of doing. Players share a dependence on one another for overall success, an identifying characteristic of the game's design. Excellence with a character or excellence as a team is not as easily converted into statistical data and, thusly, properly rewarded.
After lengthy contemplation (and assessing calls from other like-minded fans and efforts by the OW team), I propose a change that I believe will be the easiest to implement while doing the most to address toxicity issues that plague the game and its community. It's at this point that - and I cannot emphasize this enough - I hope you do not cringe in backlash when I say that the developer to which Blizzard should look for inspiration is Bungie.
Proposal 1: Limit Competitive Mode to 3-Player Squads
I've assessed a number of proposals about fixing competitive that range from revamping the algorithms to better measure a player's contributions to team success and going so far as to implement a role queue where players express their preference for a certain character or play style (in order to reduce the headbutting when a certain lineup isn't working). But each proposal I've seen doesn't compliment one of the game's greatest strengths: role-switching. If a certain lineup isn't working out or if a player isn't pulling their weight within their role, it is perceived as an affront to suggest to somebody switch to a different character. Within the current game's structure, you sometimes have to make these proposals to five complete strangers, some who may or may not be communicating with the rest of the team by personal choice or inherent frustration. The system, in a way, exacerbates toxicity because most every player believes they are fully capable of satisfying the goal that their role requires of them. The challenge then becomes how to convince players to forfeit their character preference and then direct them how to play with each other without becoming the target of the team's ire?
Every proposal I've reviewed cannot address this fundamental issue and - quite frankly - I don't believe any solution necessarily can. But I think Bungie (more specifically, Destiny) provides the best possible framework for Blizzard to draw from in order to reduce the obstacles to provide better team cohesion and coordination. Destiny drew a lot of flak for refusing to provide a matchmaking system for endgame activities (namely limiting Trials and Raids to player-arranged groups). But their argument - which, in my eyes, still has questionable premises in a PvE context - has proven comparably salient overall. By providing a matchmaking system, it reinforces solo-queue attitudes that create innate barriers to team coordination; any singular player's failing spoils the entire experience for the group. The issues is virtually identical in OW. Nevertheless, implementing a player requirement can (and certainly will) limit the competitive mode's immediate accessibility. But doing so is, IMO, in the game's and community's best interest.
Putting the onus on players to assemble a squad that has a predetermined inclination toward cohesion is the best possible outcome to address toxicity. By limiting the game's accessibility to 3-player units, players police themselves; nobody wants to be stuck with someone who won't communicate, who won't switch, or isn't willing to assist his/her teammates. It also helps prevent overlap in character preferences among team members (in order to prevent teams with several high-SR members who all rose through the ranks playing Symmetra, Mercy, or Torbjorn). Symmetra mains won't want group up with other Symmetra mains, and so and so forth with respect to other characters (Mercy, Torbjorn, Widows, etc.). I also have confidence that the community will find ways of facilitating players who don't have a group of friends with LFG or LFT services, much in the same way that Destiny managed to find success. I can only speculate if that is something Blizzard themselves would like to provide, but it is an effective and overall beneficial system to improve community interactions, I've found.
I tossed around the idea of limiting competitive to 2-player squads so that you always wind up with a 2-2-2 split, but believe a 3-3 split is better to address toxicity. It is easier to negotiate a switch in team lineups when there's only one other squad present and it is simpler to implement a reliable rating system to rank the other squad's commitment to team play, in my eyes. But I do think there is a place here for a spirited-debate, if you feel so inclined (particularly with respect to allowing for some flexibility if you're in Masters or GM).
Proposal 2: Implementing Official Clan Systems (and providing a separate queue)
This proposal is meant to compliment what I set forth in Proposal 1. Generally speaking, I think Destiny has the right idea about improving its community by allowing other players to recommend and promote one another, even if its implementation isn't exactly spot-on. OW can do something similar to not only enhance the positivity in their community but would allow for better professional procurement for the OWL. Allow me to provide specifics.
In adopting Proposal 1, the developers would preclude the possibility of 6-stacking, or assembling entire teams to compete with other teams, which is something that I feel needs to be preserved. From personal experience, it's usually not a good time to have to go up against a 6-stack when you have a duo or three stack with solo-queue players (or any mix thereof). Ultimately, however, the aim of OW is necessitate that a team assemble with a singular competitive objective. That's why I recommend splitting competitive into two different queues: Open Queue (with a squad minimum of 3 players) and Clan Queue (full team required).
The focus of each queue is innate: while maintaining the objective of promoting team play, Open Queue serves as the means to improve individual rank with SR rewards. Clan Queue would be an in-game system that allows for players to join and receive participation rewards based on their overall season performance in competitive. Specifics of clan size and the nature of rewards I would leave to the OW team, but I imagine something along the lines of additional cosmetic items, currency, or a set number of lootboxes. But clan competitive could be deemed the ultra-competitive arm of OW and reserve the greatest rewards for the greatest contribution to establishing OW as a long-term service. Implementing such a feature would also allow for the current OWL Teams a testing ground to procure and develop talent, something from which I think they would all greatly benefit. Clans could recruit (and restrict members) based on individual SR or however they desire.
There is also room for experimentation, where Blizzard could allow for open tournaments with player-organized clans (following in the footsteps and pattern set by the OWL). Only those with the strongest reputation or contribution from seasons past could join (this is more just a spitball idea, but do share your thoughts).
Ramifications
Naturally I'm of the opinion that the suggestions above would be the cleanest way of improving the overall player experience. What I would anticipate - or at least cede that there's a significant possibility of - is that QP could suffer as a consequence. The hesitance to jump into competitive may become increasingly daunting because players may be miles behind the learning curve. Consequently, some will want to jump into QP or arcade to practice or test their skills and understand the general flow of the game. Driving solo-queue players from competitive may potentially litter QP with trolls and/or persons who don't want to adhere to community guidelines. But such has been the stakes of QP ever since competitive came into existence, so I do not know if that is an issue that can with full assurance be remedied. The very notion of QP is that it is low-stakes and I acknowledge the frustration of players who join its queue only to discover that nobody is taking it seriously. But I believe that the above changes will drive the popularity and enjoyment of competitive so as to rid the expectation of commitment from all sides in a QP queue.
Something I would look to grasp more fully - and what I view as the singular most risky element of what I'm suggesting - is how existing (or would-be) players would readily accept such changes. So please, do you think that the proposals above with the aim of promoting community benefit the player experience? Or do you think it would make the game less accessible? Are there other, more beneficial changes IYO? Or should Blizzard and OW just continue on the path that they're on?
Please, I welcome your critiques and alternative recommendations. And hopefully this contributes to the larger conversation on what needs to change to improve the general player experience in OW.
