If geeks love it, we’re on it

Howdy, Stranger!

You found the friendliest gaming & tech geeks around. Say hello!


Sixth AnniversaryIcrontic Ninja500 AwesomesOverwatch2500 CommentsLet's Play CatsTalk with MeLeague of Extraordinary Icrontians Season Five Level 12League of Extraordinary Icrontians Season Four250 LOLs100 HelpfulsMom on Mic!System BuilderThe Team CaptainPokébadgeLeague of Extraordinary Icrontians Season ThreeI Exist!Expo Icrontic 2013NewshoundBacklog Shame BadgeBotkillerBorderlandsClassically TrainedGuild Wars 2League of LegendsMinecrafterName DropperTeam Fortress 2Grizzled League VeteranPhotogenicBronyNew Neighbor

RahnalH102 · the Green Devout, Veteran Monster Hunter, Creature Enthusiast · Icrontian


New Mexico
Last Active
No Roles
January 28, 1993
New Mexico
Graphic Designer, Freelance Artist
  • Re: Overwatch

    Aside from analyzing your stats like I mentioned before, another method I've heard of for trying to improve is to record your matches and then go back and watch them, especially with a friend or two/a coach, to analyze playstyle and stuff that's not so easily shown by stats. And a philosophy that's supposed to be quite helpful is, when it comes to performance during and right after a game, focus on what you are doing/did, rather then analyzing your teammates. Ultimately, you aren't likely to change how your teammates perform unless its in a very controlled and dedicated scenario (as in you're part of a pro team/dedicated ranked team.) So all that energy is better spent looking at what you did well, and what you could have done better. Otherwise you're more likely just putting energy into developing animosity.

    If you perform analysis like this you'll probably improve relatively quickly. If you just continue to play and enjoy the game, you'll also improve, just at a lower rate comparatively.

  • Re: Overwatch

    I understand that the question might be rhetorical and you're just venting, but I wanna take a crack at it for the sake of what I think might be an interesting discussion.

    Disclaimer: I don't actually know how the mechanics of the MMR system work. Just spitballing based on conjecture. So keep that in mind.

    My current understanding is that the system tracks your performance in the game, compares the results against averages for the heroes you played, time taken, etc, and scores from there. More meta concepts like positioning, when to stick together, when to engage and how, etc can't be easily measured by the system. So while one may understand those meta concepts, if his or her performance, even if outstanding in the matches, is still relatively average when compared, then the placement will still be "low".

    Like I said though, this is just me spitballing. I don't touch ranked at all for the same reasons I haven't touched it in any other game except Hearthstone (not that much either. The rewards are just easy to get.) The closest thing I've got for understanding this is an app on my phone called OverSumo which basically does all that I mentioned before, but gives me that data to look at. Websites like OverBuff or OverwatchTracker will provide you with the same kind of data since they are all working off of Blizzard's API. Since it's that kind of data that is tracked by Blizzard, that's why I assume it has to do with how you get ranked. You can study your stats, see where you are strong and where you are weak, and then try to improve yourself since you aren't likely to improve anyone else unless you're dedicated teammates and can work together on that.

    In other fewer words, mechanical skill, game sense, and teamwork are all quite important when figuring out how good you are at a game. One of these is pretty easy to measure and may do the heavy lifting when it comes to climbing that ranked ladder especially early on, but you'll still need to master the other two if you want to climb even higher.

    Anyway, just an outsider's perspective. How do you all think these ranked ladders work in particular?

  • Re: Overwatch

    @Myrmidon said:

    @RahnalH102 said:
    For the sake of discussion, do you think the increase in toxicity you've noticed is a result of the rank and pro scene growing and evolving for the game?

    Someone else is gonna have to take this and run with it. I stopped playing or paying attention to Overwatch right after Ana was released, and only just dipped my toe in again these last two days... I have no idea what's been happening in OW's world.

    Symetra got reworked. Bastion got reworked. Sombra was introduced. Arcade modes were introduced. CTF was introduced. Various buffs causing D.Va to rise highly. Those plus Ana caused a tank meta to form. Both ahve since been nerfed.

    Pro Scene-wise: Blizz announced Overwatch League at Blizzcon. Which is basically an infrastructure for the Overwatch esport scene similar to the structure that physical sports use. Area based and owned teams. Could be a Team Detroit or Team Albuquerque for example. They've only announced all this so far, and are still trying to set things up for it.

    Otherwise the pro-scene has grown naturally. And like League, the metas the pros use are "enforced" at the regular level of play. I think this is probably the main reason the toxicity has seemed to increase since the couple months after launch. Cause that seems to be the main point of conflict people have stirred up most often in my view. People with the meta on their mind think if you play a certain hero then you're a bad and are just throwing the game. Never mind if you're actually good at the hero, trying to synergize with your team in a different way, trying to counter a certain troublemaker on the opposite team, or just trying to have fun. That stigma is on Junkrat, and was on Symetra, Bastion, and Hanzo before they were changed up.

  • Re: Nintendo Switch (formerly codenamed NX) and mobile gaming

    Fire Emblem: Heroes came out today. It's a Fire Emblem take on the recent collect-a-thon RPG mobile games that have popped up relatively recently (Final Fantasy: Brave Exvius probably being the biggest one I know of at least.) If you're a fan of the series then it's much easier to get behind this game (same for the Final Fantasy one mentioned earlier,) as you'll actually know at least some of the characters you collect and train, and they are the hook for the game.

    As far as collect-a-thon RPG goes, think Pokemon, you play the main gameplay loop of the game, during which you'll either collect a unit, or get resources to collect/gamble (usually gamble, makes it easier to monetize) for a unit. Sometimes the units are this resource. In FE: Heroes it's a separate resource called "orbs" you collect as you play or you buy with real world money. So far it orbs are the only thing I can buy for real money but there are a couple things that look to have the potential to be sold for real money as well. I haven't run out of 'em yet so it won't let me buy more just yet.

    As far as simplified Fire Emblem gameplay goes; the main simplifications I see are the fixed map sizes (6x8 squares), at most 4 man squads, and no starting position selection. Gear and skill/ability customization is still in. And the transitive battle formula is still in. Clearly designed with quick sessions in mind.

    It hasn't impeded my progress yet with bs money-grubbing tactics, nor has it prodded me into trying to buy more orbs (yet.) So its got a positive model in my opinion so far. Verdict is still in the works for the thing as a whole.

    If you're a fan of any Fire Emblem game, it's worth a shot. If you like tactics based games then it may also be worth a shot.

  • Re: Nintendo Switch (formerly codenamed NX) and mobile gaming

    I feel the phone app is probably aimed at portable outings with the Switch. On one hand I feel it's a bad idea unless you know for sure whatever wi-fi you're gonna be using is stable/strong enough for good online play on the go, so why even do so in the first place. On the other hand, putting those features on a separate device would help make the wi-fi connection and battery usage of the Switch more efficient.

    The wording on the free NES/SNES game a month is bad. It can mean that the game is free to play for the month, or that the offer is only available for that month. They need to clarify that. If it's the latter, and the hinted online features for certian games make it in, then I think that part will work out fine.

    No Miiverse on it is indeed a bizarre choice I feel. Though most games never made much more use of it other then a simple social media outlet dedicated to the games, that isn't really a bad thing. Some games made good use of it ingame, like Mario Maker or Smash Bros. And an occasional few games made exceptional use of it, like Splatoon. So much so that Splatoon 2 without Miiverse is a pretty sad prospect.

    Also on the topic of phone apps, the next official Nintendo game for smart devices is Fire Emblem Heroes and it will be out Feb 2. It looks like a slightly smaller scope of Fire Emblem with some level of grind progression in some form. Free to Play but you can pay for convenience. How friendly this progression system is, is unclear at the moment.


The 5¢ Tour