Targeted bans

[id795078477]

To fix that, please do an easy change in S2: make it so that all the tags are pseudonymized in the lobby screen before the match starts (stuff like Player#1 .. Player #12). Banning "because known OTP" is meta-gaming and has no place in a fair competition.

Maybe add an option for a player to enable/disable this thing (though I don't feel there's any benefit of not enabling it). Oh, and when the match starts, all goes to normal - so that the chat history and "bad behavior" are trackable as usual.

EDIT 1: to address the confusion, this isn't to advocate for literal OTP-ing. Rather to address the unfair reasoning behind banning someone's strong hero picks (and yeah, nobody's getting to the tiers of being recognized if they're literal OTPs - that much should be obvious)

EDIT 2: For the arguments and lessons from OW: https://steamcommunity.com/app/2767030/discussions/0/600768722043444391/?ctp=2#c600768722043454869

[fake]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Sawblade Shieldslave:

i love banning the 2 characters someone plays cuz it keeps those dogwater unflexable players down at the elo they belong :aowmocking:

No it doesn't lol..

This is an easy game to play. If someone can play one character in a class, they can pretty much play them all

[id795078477]

Początkowo opublikowane przez CoronaChan:

Uah no target banning is fine. Its a test of skill. I got target banned yesterday in diamond 2. Had my cloak banned so had to fall bavk on my invis. Still won the game it was just annoying. If you cant handle target bans than you dont
Deserve to be in the top echelon. Also target bans are a sign of strength.

Take the jeff main BigDNikTheThrd in top 500. He gets jeff target banned because he is insane on the pick. That means hulk, wolverine etc arent nexesaarily banned drastically changing potential picks and ♥♥♥♥. Like seriously he is such a menace he draws a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ jeff ban. Thats power i should desire to draw target bans. It means that what is actually op isnt getting banned

Tbh, it's rather unlikely such things are happening in low tiers, but okay, let's roll with that (maybe the MM was putting same people together over and over). Banning because someone is great on a hero is a terrible system and you've just illustrated why. That's the entire premise of my post.

You're entitled to your own opinion, of course - I just hope somehow devs might see this (hey, I know the chance is low, but if I didn't post, the chance would be even lower) - and then maybe even consider. To be frank, I didn't post it to convince anybody else.

Początkowo opublikowane przez Steve:

This guy gets it.

.. he agrees with me so he gets it. Oh yeah, logic 101.

Początkowo opublikowane przez Steve:

Why not just learn more heroes? Very serious question.

Because all you do is using a completely unrelated argument. Let's agree to disagree, alright? I do not agree that artificially forcing players to do something they would rather not do is a good design. I do not agree that targeted bans are competitive. I do not agree that people are forced to work around these things to get a good chance of playing their picks is good for the game (for at least the reason of involuntary smurfing that affects many more people than those 0.00001% of top players).

You think otherwise? I hear you. Cool, you said your piece. Now let's move on.

[Nihil]

Such strange issue people have.

[Alt]

Początkowo opublikowane przez id795078477:

Początkowo opublikowane przez Alt:

Its funny reading this. Because if you look at leadership board. Around 70% of top 0.5% players are mostly one tricking. They have 1 at most 2 heroes with a lot of hours. And every other hero has no more than 1-2 hours of playtime. How can one tricking be a huge detriment, when it is clearly works for majority of players at the ranked top?

I support OP, because i saw how enemy team banned certain hero DPS on second match, because player utterly dominated them with said DPS. And that character was Black Widow to boot.

"Mostly" is the critical difference. They also can play something else, just not as good. And why should there be a mechanism to punish players for just being good at the hero? What's the point? "You're so good at that so we aren't letting you play it" is the dumbest justification I've seen in a long time.

To be clear - if such player mains a meta-hero (or their off-meta hero suddenly became meta) and the ban is issued because - well, it's meta, then = fair move, go play something else, literal OTPs cannot belong to high tiers. But that's a completely different reason. All I want is to completely remove the cheesy route for the lobby to punish someone for their skill.

Początkowo opublikowane przez Steve:

Playing only one hero is literally being a one-trick pony.

Yeah, could we please move on from that? I explained what I mean and advocate for - and that it's not literal "playing only one hero, all the times". I didn't mean such players use "only one" hero. I only used "OTP" to save on typing (which I now regret)

ok. I will say this again. But differently. I dont have full statistic because i cant physically look at all pages of players starting from GM. But if we take first 10 pages of leadership. WE will see that ~70% of players are "mostly" one tricking. Out of those 70%, ~40-50% are one tricking. They have more than 20h on their main hero and less than 1-2 hours on everything else. The other half plays mainly 2-3 heroes. Everything else has less than 1-2 hours of play time. It is clearly working for them. Also, majority of those players are playing only single role. I noticed that most DPS mains play only dps. And support main mostly play support. Only vanguard mains are somewhat flexible. Its funny, but vanguard players have the best hours spread on other roles. They play their "main" vanguard hero/es only in around 50% of games. Other 50% they switch between being dps or healer.

[Steve]

Początkowo opublikowane przez id795078477:

Początkowo opublikowane przez CoronaChan:

Uah no target banning is fine. Its a test of skill. I got target banned yesterday in diamond 2. Had my cloak banned so had to fall bavk on my invis. Still won the game it was just annoying. If you cant handle target bans than you dont
Deserve to be in the top echelon. Also target bans are a sign of strength.

Take the jeff main BigDNikTheThrd in top 500. He gets jeff target banned because he is insane on the pick. That means hulk, wolverine etc arent nexesaarily banned drastically changing potential picks and ♥♥♥♥. Like seriously he is such a menace he draws a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ jeff ban. Thats power i should desire to draw target bans. It means that what is actually op isnt getting banned

Początkowo opublikowane przez Steve:

This guy gets it.

.. he agrees with me so he gets it. Oh yeah, logic 101.

...um, he's saying target banning is fine, and that it's a test of skill, and possibly even an honor to be good enough to get hit with a target ban.

Read, please.

[reevestone]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Steve:

It's not skill in this genre to know only one character, though. I don't understand the thought process here.

Once again, this genre DEMANDS the player know more than one character. This is the primary reason for the pick ban feature -- to handicap a player that constantly picks one character and force them onto another.

THAT IS A KEY PIECE OF STRATEGY FOR A GAME LIKE THIS. I need you to understand that.

Clearly, the question is one of motivation for the ban.

"Hela is busted and I don't want to face her. Ban." - Great
"Wolverine completely deconstructs our comp. Ban." - Great
"WidowmakerXxX69 is an absolutely insanely good Black Widow. I know this from playing with/against him before or from his streams. Ban." - Not Great

Because the reasoning is entirely meta to the game itself. If the player had changed their name to not be recognized, their main character would not be banned.

It doesn't even really matter in this case if our hypothetical Black Widow player can play equally well with, say, Hawkeye or Hela or swap to Support or whatever. Despite how very specific and niche of a problem this is, do we really want the ban system to be able to target individuals rather than characters?

[id795078477]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Alt:

Początkowo opublikowane przez id795078477:

"Mostly" is the critical difference. They also can play something else, just not as good. And why should there be a mechanism to punish players for just being good at the hero? What's the point? "You're so good at that so we aren't letting you play it" is the dumbest justification I've seen in a long time.

To be clear - if such player mains a meta-hero (or their off-meta hero suddenly became meta) and the ban is issued because - well, it's meta, then = fair move, go play something else, literal OTPs cannot belong to high tiers. But that's a completely different reason. All I want is to completely remove the cheesy route for the lobby to punish someone for their skill.


Yeah, could we please move on from that? I explained what I mean and advocate for - and that it's not literal "playing only one hero, all the times". I didn't mean such players use "only one" hero. I only used "OTP" to save on typing (which I now regret)

ok. I will say this again. But differently. I dont have full statistic because i cant physically look at all pages of players starting from GM. But if we take first 10 pages of leadership. WE will see that ~70% of players are "mostly" one tricking. Out of those 70%, ~40-50% are one tricking. They have more than 20h on their main hero and less than 1-2 hours on everything else. The other half plays mainly 2-2 heroes. Everything else has less than 1-2 hours of play time. It is clearly working for them. Also, majority of those players are playing only single role. I noticed that most DPS mains play only dps. And support main mostly play support. Only vanguard mains are somewhat flexible. Its funny, but vanguard players have the best hours spread on other roles. They play their "main" vanguard hero/es only in around 50% of games. Other 50% they switch between being dps or healer.

I still don't get what you're trying to say. The only thing my proposal would do is it will disempower those who try to ban someone's pick because that someone is known for being good at that pick. Hero bans aren't going anywhere (and they're good and healthy for the game). It will just make the system more fair and more competitive, that's the only outcome of it.

[Steve]

Początkowo opublikowane przez id795078477:

Początkowo opublikowane przez Steve:

Why not just learn more heroes? Very serious question.

Because all you do is using a completely unrelated argument. Let's agree to disagree, alright? I do not agree that artificially forcing players to do something they would rather not do is a good design. I do not agree that targeted bans are competitive. I do not agree that people are forced to work around these things to get a good chance of playing their picks is good for the game (for at least the reason of involuntary smurfing that affects many more people than those 0.00001% of top players).

You think otherwise? I hear you. Cool, you said your piece. Now let's move on.

So, no answer? Fair enough, but I question if this is the genre for a player with your concerns.

[CoronaChan]

Początkowo opublikowane przez id795078477:

Początkowo opublikowane przez CoronaChan:

Uah no target banning is fine. Its a test of skill. I got target banned yesterday in diamond 2. Had my cloak banned so had to fall bavk on my invis. Still won the game it was just annoying. If you cant handle target bans than you dont
Deserve to be in the top echelon. Also target bans are a sign of strength.

Take the jeff main BigDNikTheThrd in top 500. He gets jeff target banned because he is insane on the pick. That means hulk, wolverine etc arent nexesaarily banned drastically changing potential picks and ♥♥♥♥. Like seriously he is such a menace he draws a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ jeff ban. Thats power i should desire to draw target bans. It means that what is actually op isnt getting banned

Tbh, it's rather unlikely such things are happening in low tiers, but okay, let's roll with that (maybe the MM was putting same people together over and over). Banning because someone is great on a hero is a terrible system and you've just illustrated why. That's the entire premise of my post.

You're entitled to your own opinion, of course - I just hope somehow devs might see this (hey, I know the chance is low, but if I didn't post, the chance would be even lower) - and then maybe even consider. To be frank, I didn't post it to convince anybody else.

Początkowo opublikowane przez Steve:

This guy gets it.

.. he agrees with me so he gets it. Oh yeah, logic 101.

Początkowo opublikowane przez Steve:

Why not just learn more heroes? Very serious question.

Because all you do is using a completely unrelated argument. Let's agree to disagree, alright? I do not agree that artificially forcing players to do something they would rather not do is a good design. I do not agree that targeted bans are competitive. I do not agree that people are forced to work around these things to get a good chance of playing their picks is good for the game.

You think otherwise? I hear you. Cool, you said your piece. Now let's move on.

Seeing as when the match started they asked if i liked having my main banned it seems likely to be the truth. The rivals tracker.gg can show you everyones picked champions. Their winrates and so on. As such targetting a person isnt hard. Look up a few names and than suggest a pick. Seeing as out of like 200 games 160 are on cloak for me it stands to reason maybe it should be banned when my next highest strat has only 20 games

[id795078477]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Steve:

Początkowo opublikowane przez id795078477:

Because all you do is using a completely unrelated argument. Let's agree to disagree, alright? I do not agree that artificially forcing players to do something they would rather not do is a good design. I do not agree that targeted bans are competitive. I do not agree that people are forced to work around these things to get a good chance of playing their picks is good for the game (for at least the reason of involuntary smurfing that affects many more people than those 0.00001% of top players).

You think otherwise? I hear you. Cool, you said your piece. Now let's move on.

So, no answer? Fair enough, but I question if this is the genre for a player with your concerns.

Please read. There's an answer. I respect your opinion. You're entitled to have it. But I disagree with your argument. I have my opinion. That opinion is different from yours. You didn't "win". I didn't "win" either (that is - so long as we're adult enough to recognize that our opinions could be different and each are equally worth).

[Steve]

Początkowo opublikowane przez reevestone:

Początkowo opublikowane przez Steve:

It's not skill in this genre to know only one character, though. I don't understand the thought process here.

Once again, this genre DEMANDS the player know more than one character. This is the primary reason for the pick ban feature -- to handicap a player that constantly picks one character and force them onto another.

THAT IS A KEY PIECE OF STRATEGY FOR A GAME LIKE THIS. I need you to understand that.

Clearly, the question is one of motivation for the ban.

"Hela is busted and I don't want to face her. Ban." - Great
"Wolverine completely deconstructs our comp. Ban." - Great
"WidowmakerXxX69 is an absolutely insanely good Black Widow. I know this from playing with/against him before or from his streams. Ban." - Not Great

Because the reasoning is entirely meta to the game itself. If the player had changed their name to not be recognized, their main character would not be banned.

It doesn't even really matter in this case if our hypothetical Black Widow player can play equally well with, say, Hawkeye or Hela or swap to Support or whatever. Despite how very specific and niche of a problem this is, do we really want the ban system to be able to target individuals rather than characters?

Yes. I absolutely want that as a player because it's a key component of the strategy portion of this game -- which is, itself, a core facet.

Of COURSE I want to do as much as I can to put the enemy on the backfoot. Of COURSE I want to do as much as I can to make the enemy goods feel uncomfortable and out of their element. That's a large part of the game -- adjusting. No plan survives first contact with the enemy. How do you handle it?

The answer is to learn more than just one or two heroes. To be good with at least one of each role. That has been key to this genre since its inception.

The One-Trick Pony, by any name, has no place here other than maybe PvE.

[Steve]

Początkowo opublikowane przez id795078477:

Początkowo opublikowane przez Steve:

So, no answer? Fair enough, but I question if this is the genre for a player with your concerns.

Please read. There's an answer. I respect your opinion. You're entitled to have it. But I disagree with your argument. I have my opinion. That opinion is different from yours. You didn't "win". I didn't "win" either (that is - so long as we're adult enough to recognize that our opinions could be different and each are equally worth).

Fair enough. Let the record reflect a severe unwillingness to adjust. (And, no, given the way the genre is structured and its heavy emphasis on players adjusting and growing in skill, I can't say your argument has much merit here and sounds quite biased.)

[Alt]

Początkowo opublikowane przez id795078477:

Początkowo opublikowane przez Alt:

ok. I will say this again. But differently. I dont have full statistic because i cant physically look at all pages of players starting from GM. But if we take first 10 pages of leadership. WE will see that ~70% of players are "mostly" one tricking. Out of those 70%, ~40-50% are one tricking. They have more than 20h on their main hero and less than 1-2 hours on everything else. The other half plays mainly 2-2 heroes. Everything else has less than 1-2 hours of play time. It is clearly working for them. Also, majority of those players are playing only single role. I noticed that most DPS mains play only dps. And support main mostly play support. Only vanguard mains are somewhat flexible. Its funny, but vanguard players have the best hours spread on other roles. They play their "main" vanguard hero/es only in around 50% of games. Other 50% they switch between being dps or healer.

I still don't get what you're trying to say. The only thing my proposal would do is it will disempower those who try to ban someone's pick because that someone is known for being good at that pick. Hero bans aren't going anywhere (and they're good and healthy for the game). It will just make the system more fair and more competitive, that's the only outcome of it.

eh, i was not against your proposal. Im all for it. My first post was response to the person who said that one tricking is detrimental and will not take you far. When it fact it is the opposite. Most of the top players either one trick, or play only 2-3 heroes.

[id795078477]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Steve:

Początkowo opublikowane przez id795078477:

Please read. There's an answer. I respect your opinion. You're entitled to have it. But I disagree with your argument. I have my opinion. That opinion is different from yours. You didn't "win". I didn't "win" either (that is - so long as we're adult enough to recognize that our opinions could be different and each are equally worth).

Fair enough. Let the record reflect a severe unwillingness to adjust.

.. yes, if we record it on both sides. NOT as "that OP doesn't agree with my point, therefore he's wrong".

The poster above has a good breakdown:

Początkowo opublikowane przez reevestone:

Clearly, the question is one of motivation for the ban.

"Hela is busted and I don't want to face her. Ban." - Great
"Wolverine completely deconstructs our comp. Ban." - Great
"WidowmakerXxX69 is an absolutely insanely good Black Widow. I know this from playing with/against him before or from his streams. Ban." - Not Great

- but I'm sure that won't be enough for you. And again, that's fine. Even if your opinion is different, you're entitled to have it.

[Steve]

Początkowo opublikowane przez id795078477:

Początkowo opublikowane przez Steve:

Fair enough. Let the record reflect a severe unwillingness to adjust.

.. yes, if we record it on both sides. NOT as "that OP doesn't agree with my point, therefore he's wrong".

The poster above has a good breakdown:

Początkowo opublikowane przez reevestone:

Clearly, the question is one of motivation for the ban.

"Hela is busted and I don't want to face her. Ban." - Great
"Wolverine completely deconstructs our comp. Ban." - Great
"WidowmakerXxX69 is an absolutely insanely good Black Widow. I know this from playing with/against him before or from his streams. Ban." - Not Great

- but I'm sure that won't be enough for you. And again, that's fine. If your opinion is different, yo're entitled to have it.

Yeah, I already addressed them. Do I need to copy that here too, or?

Początkowo opublikowane przez Steve:

Yes. I absolutely want that as a player because it's a key component of the strategy portion of this game -- which is, itself, a core facet.

Of COURSE I want to do as much as I can to put the enemy on the backfoot. Of COURSE I want to do as much as I can to make the enemy goods feel uncomfortable and out of their element. That's a large part of the game -- adjusting. No plan survives first contact with the enemy. How do you handle it?

The answer is to learn more than just one or two heroes. To be good with at least one of each role. That has been key to this genre since its inception.

The One-Trick Pony, by any name, has no place here other than maybe PvE.

There ya go. Ain't I nice? ^_^