>team based game >people pick characters they concider

>Like characters playstyle
>Hate their appearance
>Like characters appearance
>Hate their playstyle

>concider

Learn to spell.

File: moron.gif (71KB, 512x155px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 512x155px

>playing a game that requires large amount of team coordination with a bunch of random people

>>379714213
>summerfag took the bait

If the players actually are consistently handicapping themselves to a major degree, that is reflected on their rating. Suppose the player has 1500 ELO (or whatever rating system the game uses) and they'd be able to get 1800 ELO if they used optimal picks. Yet, in that case they probably wouldn't be put in 1500 rating games in the first place (or matchmaking would give them 1200 rating team-mates to compensate or whatever). Conversely, a 1500 rating player making optimal picks must be lacking in some other area (such as personal skill), otherwise they'd be higher rated.


In the end, on average and supposing a sensible matchmaking system, the only concrete effect is those players receiving rating lower than their actual potential as players. Their actual performance in matches appropriate to their rating is no different from that of other players with the same rating. On the plus side, you get more varied matches and perhaps the pick actually turns out to be good contrary to the popular belief (even unbeknownst to the picker before the match), or you get practise with/against a pick that might become "meta" sometime in the future.

File: freshshrug.jpg (27KB, 750x496px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 750x496px

>pick troll character, get flamed
>do well, win
>character becomes meta a few months later

>muh meta

Fuck off you retard.

File: deppression.png (1MB, 848x784px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 848x784px

>>379714087
don't people play vidya to have fun?

How about the devs actually bother to balance characters, hm? So that you can still be good no matter who you chose? Hmm?
Yeah, who am I kidding, why would they do this.

And this is why I stopped playing Overwatch. Thanks a lot faggots.

At least Quake will probably be mostly immune to this bullshit

File: 4235233.png (1MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1080px

>team based game
>everyone is good as long as you're good

>>379715479
And besides, even if the matchmaking/rating system cannot offer a match with even odds of winning for both sides, it's not so simple. For starters, the common perception of what is and isn't "good" tends to be an oversimplification - a general rule that tends to be good but doesn't identify specific situations where a pick actually might be optimal (and sometimes the popular wisdom is outright wrong, or wrong depending on the context, such as pro matches vs low-rated matches with randoms). Moreover, a player picking "off-meta" characters might have played it enough to reach a level of true mastery and transcend meta in a sense: the character might not be optimal with perfect play but they play it so much better than the others that it is still the best pick for them to make given the situation. And on the plus side, the opponents don't necessarily know how to deal with off-meta picks so it kinda even things out.

>>379714087
(Overwatch)

File: 1487020429144.jpg (35KB, 567x437px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 567x437px

I still remember when an entire thread threw shit on me because I said I only play Roadhog (first month after the game's release I think)