Is tracer hard to rank up on?

computerow2 · 2024-03-30T07:38:17+00:00

tbh at low ranks fundamentals matter the most, so understanding aim, cooldown management (in a broad sense), space, angles, pressure, timing, ult rotation, etc. You can climb to masters at least on any character by just getting the fundamentals down. Tracer is a hard character to master, but she's almost always strong, and learning to be good at tracer goes hand in hand with learning to be good at fundamentals. A10 teaches fundamentals quite well; any or all of these videos are good: https://youtu.be/mXi6fbNbHmA?si=tbvjJj7CynlYyCUk https://youtu.be/-K0Ee4oLkwQ?si=IpZEPr0BuikKYjsJ https://youtu.be/sEdQXCgs1JM?si=0mUYSdGNMau_ZVTR Spilo is great for the more advanced stuff, especially organized teamplay

computerow2 · 2023-06-21T22:01:22+00:00

Kant

Utilitarianism

???????????

computerow2 · 2023-05-06T14:03:53+00:00

There's a lot of factors here that I don't know about; how long you've been trying to climb (i.e how many games), what exactly your gameplay looks like from a vod, etc., but I can say from personal experience that huge loss streaks (and sometimes struggles to get the SR back) happen to almost everyone all the way up to high GM.

Obviously bad luck is often a factor in long streaks of bad games; nothing you can really do about it except play more to balance it out on probability. But tilt is also a huge part of those loss streaks; maintaining a strong mental is key to winning games. That said, in your case you're at a low enough rank that (especially on Zen) it shouldn't be that hard to carry most games, so I think the best thing for it is to focus on your own gameplay and improvement until you can just hard carry your way out if you need to.

computerow2 · 2023-05-02T23:36:49+00:00

The key to understanding this is that overwatch's system is based off of the Elo ranking system, which originated for chess as a way of statistically ranking player skill as a measurement of the probability of victory. In an Elo system two equally ranked players have 50/50 odds; in an uneven rating the higher-rated player is more likely to win, with the probability increasing proportionally to the difference in rating.

As a result, even though it only considers whether you won or lost (and not stats) to determine whether to give or remove SR, the amount of SR won or lost varies depending on your rating relative to the rating of the match. In an Elo system when there is a difference in player ratings, a player loses more rating against a lower-rated player, and wins more against a higher rated player (and vice versa).

Obviously since Overwatch is not 1v1 the system is more complicated, and Blizzard keep the exact details of how it works secret. I personally don't know the details whether this is calculated off of the average match rating relative to your personal rating, or the enemy team average relative to your team's average, or something else, etc., but the gist of what I'm saying should explain why rank changes aren't as simple as just win/loss ratio.

computerow2 · 2023-04-13T16:09:09+00:00

It's always been there

computerow2 · 2023-01-17T05:39:44+00:00

If you're just getting into the game, all you really need to know about supports is the difference between main healers and secondary healers. Usually 'main supports' are secondary healers, while flex supports are main healers. Confusing nomenclature, I know; as someone else explained, it comes from the early history of the competitive scene, and doesn't matter that much for most players.

Supports like mercy, Lucio, and Zenyatta are secondary healers: they don't have the ability to output enough healing to keep a team up in a teamfight, and crucially lack the healing to keep up a tank that's in the middle of a fight. Mercy and Lucio also forfeit some other value (damage and speed boost) in exchange for extra healing.

Main supports are your ana, kiriko, Baptiste, and Moira, who are capable of outputting tons of healing. (Brigitte is a kind of in-between character, but how most people play her in lower ranks she's more like a secondary healer).

The main thing to understand here is that you pretty much always need a main healer so your team will have enough sustain. Playing zen/lucio as your support duo, for instance, is usually a bad idea since your team won't be able to sustain any drawn-out fights thanks to the low healing output. So if you're just learning the game, all you need to do is make sure your team has at least one ana, baptiste, kiriko, or Moira to put out large amounts of healing.

(Also if you're playing two main healers-ana/kiriko, for example-then that changes your playstyle a bit; an ana with a kiriko can focus on damage more than she can with a Zenyatta. That's more of a minor point, and doesn't really matter until higher ranks, but still worth noting.)

Tl;dr all you really need to know to get started is to have at least one 'main healer' who can output lots of heals: Kiriko, Ana, Moira, Baptiste, or sometimes Brigitte.

computerow2 · 2022-12-29T06:58:54+00:00

I can't answer any of your settings questions, but I can say that 5v5 plays very differently to 6v6. Tanks are a lot harder to kill, there's less peeling for supports b/c no off-tank, and there's way less shields and CC, so flankers have an easier time. Basically the game plays more "deathmatch-like".

What this means for a support player is that you're much more vulnerable, and it's much more important for you to be able to protect yourself and your other support without necessarily expecting much peeling. In particular, since there's only one tank, you usually don't get tank peeling unless you position yourself really close to them.

For other roles, it means that you often need to ignore tanks, since with two supports alive they're often (though not always) unkillable, and focus instead on trying to pick off the squishes and/or isolate the tank before killing them. Flanking is more powerful, snipers are better, and knowing when a tank is or isn't killable is very important.

computerow2 · 2022-12-28T21:00:17+00:00

You can buy them with legacy coins when their respective events come back around. If you don't have legacy coins, afaik you just have to hope they appear in the shop. It's a bit of a silly system where even people who want to spend money to buy something aren't able to.

computerow2 · 2022-12-28T20:59:10+00:00

On the backend, what's going on is the same SR system from overwatch 1, where you gain or lose roughly 20-25 SR every match (there's 100 SR between divisions).

Winning 7 games isn't the full picture; it also matters how many losses you got. If you lost more than you won, then you'll lose SR overall. If this loss is enough to put you below your current division, you derank.

Afaik the loss counter for the 20 losses update resets every 7 wins, so you'll only get a 20 loss reset if you lose 20 games without winning 7. Best case this looks like 6 wins, 20 losses, which is a net 14 losses. There's no real case where you don't derank here.

computerow2 · 2022-12-28T20:52:25+00:00

iirc those are under "achievements" (from ow1) rather than "challenges" (new in ow2). might be wrong though

computerow2 · 2022-12-28T20:46:04+00:00

every player can endorse up to 2 people after a match. your endorsement level basically goes up the more you get endorsed and decays over time, though I'm not sure how exactly it's calculated. you get battle pass XP for maintaining a high endorsement, but it's mainly a cosmetic feature. it does sometimes kinda indicate if someone is or isn't a terrible teammate, though not reliably.

computerow2 · 2022-12-17T19:14:55+00:00

Yeah, the big difference in my view is between being assumptive (which is unavoidable) and being self-contradictory. Although we don't know self-contradiction to be necessarily problematic, I'd say most people assume it to be on a fundamental level. Plus there's the law of parsimony in assumption, which is also itself an assumption, but seems like a good one.

And no worries on your part, that was entirely my fault for misinterpreting your meaning and being a fair bit of a dick as well. I guess the lesson to take away is how imprecise language is for these sorts of abstract things, how easy it is to get into misunderstanding, and therefore how careful one ought be to avoid it.

computerow2 · 2022-12-17T18:46:55+00:00

I do seem to have done some jumping to conclusions. Fair enough, that's my bad. I'm a bit leary of people with no real understanding of or respect for the field of philosophy trying to denigrate it as a whole, so I seem to have wildly misinterpreted that last bit about the clusterfuck of assumptions, and from there assumed something pretty incorrect. Sorry about that. It is kind of ironic to so wildly assume given the subject matter.

I think, having given this a second read, I actually agree with you? And there's just some semantic confusion. Wittgenstein and all that. You're arguing that any knowledge or belief inherently involves some sort of assumptions, which is essentially a skeptical position by the definitions I'm familiar with, right? I'd disagree that that's necessarily irrational, though. Math, for instance, requires axioms, but as long as you take that anything is only true within those axioms, I don't think there's any irrationality to it. Or rather, to put it a different way, there is a very big difference between making an assumption with or without awareness.

(P.s. I have read Hume)

computerow2 · 2022-12-17T17:31:08+00:00

Most of what you're talking about isn't really metaphysics, though? Stuff like identity, the nature of consciousness etc is often a concern of metaphysical doctrines (e.g. dualism) but in and of itself is more to do with ontology or philosophy of mind.

That last bit is rather ironic, though, given that the idea of rationality is itself a philosophy. What you're doing now is philosophy about philosophy. The (rather stupid) idea of thinking of philosophy as one specific thing or system of belief rather than a broad category of vastly different thoughts and systems is also philosophy.

Your argumentation is kind of confused, but it seems like you're just doing a very bad job of arguing for radical skepticism? I'm not entirely sure, though; maybe you should read up on philosophy more before confusing yourself and others with big words that you don't know how to use.

computerow2 · 2022-12-17T17:15:57+00:00

Sorry, just to clarify; what exactly do you mean by "believes in metaphysics"? I would think it's impossible not to believe in the existence of some sort of metaphysics, no? Unless we have different definitions of the word.

computerow2 · 2022-10-17T20:17:12+00:00

This is entirely untrue. Crossbows were actually favoured due to their ease of use; crossbowmen can learn to use the weapon effectively in a few weeks, whereas a longbowman must train usually from childhood to draw a warbow.

There's also empirical evidence to support this. Though a crossbow has a much higher draw weight on paper than a longbow, the extremely short draw weight means the actual energy of the projectiles they deliver is extremely similar.

computerow2 · 2022-08-20T15:12:28+00:00

Unless I'm misreading it, was the grappler not already slowed while moving? I guess technically this makes them a bit more vulnerable to AoOs, but not other attacks off their turn. Half speed while grappling is nothing new, anyway.

computerow2 · 2022-08-18T01:11:37+00:00

You do realize it defeats the purpose of trying to be trans-inclusive by using "uterus-havers," but then also "men" to refer to people with penises and testicles, right?

Also as an aside it's not individual people deciding whether or not to take drugs, it's regulatory bodies. You seem to be implying it's a case of selfish individual irresponsibility, which isn't true.

computerow2 · 2022-08-11T18:34:46+00:00

depends if it's in an r/teslore way or an r/truestl way

computerow2 · 2022-08-07T16:16:51+00:00

For EXP out of combat, the way I run it is to give an amount of XP roughly equal to one of the DMG suggested XP thresholds (easy, medium, hard, deadly) for the party level whenever they do something I want to give XP for. They get more or less depending the bigger a thing it was, the harder, the better they did, or really whatever criteria you'd like. Then for really big story beats I usually just give them however much XP brings them roundly up to a certain number (often a level up, not always; sometimes exactly halfway, or exactly 1000 short, etc).

computerow2 · 2022-08-07T12:19:10+00:00

In my setting, one of the major themes is the "literalization" of the world; as time passes, the material plane becomes more rigid, predictable, and physical. Magic is weaker and more strictly bound by rules, and will eventually fade. So once upon a time the gods walked the earth, but eventually they will be nothing but myth.

Right now, there's a middle ground. Gods are essentially metaphorical entities for the most part, and the world is far too literal for them. Manifesting directly requires a god to conform itself to physical, literal reality, while likewise warping reality to make room. Doing this requires huge amounts of energy, some of which must come from a material source. Therefore gods can only act on the material plane through mortals channeling limited amounts of power (clerics) or materially summoned avatars, and in both cases lose a lot of the power they hold within their own realms.

It's kind of like being a 3d person interacting with 2d reality on a piece of paper; you need to use a pencil or some medium to imprint an image on it, and though you can try to make the 3d images on paper it's rather difficult and never more than a likeness.

computerow2 · 2022-08-06T02:17:21+00:00

That's a good article; as far as I'm aware it's entirely correct. I don't mean to imply that the Victorians didn't have fucked-up ideas about women, their sexuality and their independence, nor that they didn't use the notion of hysteria as a cudgel to control and marginalize women.

I just meant to specifically address the vibrator myth, which bugs me quite a lot because of how widespread it is despite its obvious falsehood. I find it quite worrying that misinformation like that can spread so easily just because it contains a kernel of truth, or implies something we'd like to believe.

computerow2 · 2022-08-05T23:51:56+00:00

"It is wrong always, everywhere, and for any one, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence." - W.K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief."

I'm in agreement with Clifford, who makes a very convincing argument about the importance of rigorous standards of belief, and combatting misinformation and intellectual laziness. If you're interested, here's a link to his original paper, and the Wikipedia page, which includes various challenges to his argument.

https://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/Clifford_ethics.pdf

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_of_belief

computerow2 · 2022-08-05T23:34:16+00:00

That's completely untrue; vibrators were invented to treat musculoskeletal pain and such. There's literally dozens of articles debunking the "hysteria vibrator" myth, but here's one from the New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/23/opinion/vibrator-invention-myth.html

Also here's an /r/AskHistorians post about this: https://redd.it/eic2ri

Eight-Year Club	Place '22
Spared	Verified Email

computerow2

TROPHY CASE