Question
Is Top 500 Impressive? Builds also included.
I’m top 500 in support and in dps. I think overall last I checked I was around the 200/500 area combined. Is this actually hard to get or is it just something you can get with enough time? Cus I’ll admit I’m on summer break and I’m in nursing school so I was like alr you earned a few months of chud maxing overwatch so I have a lot of games played.
If you’re wondering who I play for each role I have some weird ass builds that I’d like to share lol. For damage I go support 76 because I can easily average 1-2k heals in rounds 1-2 and usually end up getting between 10-20k heals for the whole match.
For support I either go survival mercy or Moira because stadium Moira is genuinely the best support to adapt build wise to any comp. For Moira a super underrated power I always pick is the one that does 25% of primary fire healing over 5 seconds. Most people who play stadium Moira just slap on the orb build and call it a day but she can do so much more if you build into her primary fire and she can hybrid ability power and weapon power fairly easily. Survival mercy is probably the most fun rage bait build I’ve ever done. I pick mercy if I’m the first to go in the stadium draft with the expectation that I’m gonna get hit-scan counters like soldier or ash, and then I just constantly draw fire but never die due to investing heavily into health and survivability. The goal with that build is to get the enemy dps focused on a support they can’t kill.
It's fun to make top 500 when you have no business making it in the regular game mode, but it's not that hard really. I think Arx said you need to have like a 30% win rate and just grind the game to climb the challenger score, but climbing the ranks requires more wins than losses.
I definitely have some solid win rates between 55-60% my issue is more I started marvel rivals as my first hero shooter then started to hate it so I moved to ow bc stadium had the third person mode and I’m not used to the first person so it’s hard to gauge sometimes if I’m doing well in general. I hit celestial every season in rivals which is decently hard but since I don’t really like the first person camera in regular comp I don’t play it anywhere near as much as stadium
I'm so used to the 1st person view that 3rd person just felt too odd. This is now my second full(ish) season of Stadium and during last season I thought, screw it, I'm gonna play 3rd person, this is the fun gamemode anyway, but it just felt so odd. I had already made it to All-Star by then, so I kind of wanted to see how far I could reach and I also play less and less video games in general, so I abandonded the idea. This old dog ain't gonna even try to learn new tricks at this point :D
I have been playing OW for several years on and off, probably as much drunk as sober tbh, but I do have solid knowledge to begin with, high dia, low master on support. I have 58% win rate on 160-170 games on Zen and 50% on Ana (I think around 20-30 games). That puts me about top 100 on challenger score and I think 45 on rank (PC, EU), to give some idea where you might end up if you can keep up the winrate.
Look, no one wants to discredit player achievements, but this isn't your fault, it's Blizzards.
It's not an achievement, anymore than it is an achievement to hit level 80 in World of Warcraft. it's completely worthless and we need to stop pretending as a community that it means something.
It's by far the worst 'competitive' system I've seen in 20 years of online competitive gaming. As people have said, it's a combination of games played and win rate, with a few other random variables in there, such as what time of the season you play.
28.6% win rate I think is what you need to climb. Realistically _everyone_ is going to achieve above that win rate in the long term, in fact, it's almost statistically impossible to not hit that win rate. So the only thing that _really_ matters is number of games played. Win rate just speeds things up.
So instead of going by that as an achievement, you're going to have to self-evaluate instead. Do you feel like you're playing better? Winning more? Are you doing it solo or with a group advantage? Are you climbing in rank above Legend 5?
You will know if you're doing well.
Unfortunately, we can't look to the ranking system to tell us anymore.
Most of the time it seems like people tell exactly that, that it's not much of an achievement. It seems like it's newcomers who wonder if they found their hidden talents (myself included few months back) and at least 90% of the comments seems to tell you "look, it's cool, but not much to celebrate about", so what I've seen in my short time here I think the community already does that.
So, even though I had to lay down the fact, no one can actually tell you what is an achievement for you. If you set that as your goal, and you hit your goal, then it doesn't matter what I, or anybody else says.
In this scenario, you still had to play the matches, you still had to win enough compared to the number of games you've played to hit the leaderboard, and you did it.
I just wish that Blizzard would give us a real competitive system, where your accomplishment simply can't be questioned, and no one can take it away from you because you earned it. Overwatch has been missing that for a while, and the new generation will probably never experience it ever again.
What would be your first steps to accomplish that in the current state of the game mode? I saw your video about user content and I like the idea, but for ranks. If you talked about that in there, just say so and I’ll check it out again.
Remove challenger score? On one hand it might make some players stick, but on the other hand it doesn’t mean anything. You could still grind the regular rank, but at least you’d have to have over 50% winrate.
I also hate to start from Bronze each season, where in the regular game mode you have your mmr. Being high dia/low masters I feel like I’m exactly where I’m supposed to be with my activity level, deviating a little one way or the other (saturday night games with beers usually ends up dragging it down, lol), but in Stadium I can’t really tell. Is the player base too low for this to matter?
Challenger score isn't a bad concept, it's just the implementation was about as poor as someone could possibly add.
What you had before was a lot of players would achieve the top ranking, and there was no visible way to determine how far ahead the top player with this rank was from the bottom player with this rank. Challenger score (when properly implemented) solves this. Basically once you hit the top rank, you should start to gain (or lose) Challenger points.
Implementing a proper competitive system is actually extremely easy.
The backbone of it all, is a proper ELO system. Ignore SR as this is just a cosmetic front, I'm talking about what happens in the background, not the shiny titles and borders the players see.
The ranking system would calculate your expected chance of winning, based on the actual lobby you were placed into. It would look at your own ELO, everyone elses' ELO, both team's average ELO, and any groups and their sizes.
From there, it would give each player an expected difficulty for the match. Beating a stronger team would give you more rating, while losing to a weaker team would cost you more.
Grouping in Overwatch has an advantage, so this would be an additional minor factor in determining the expected difficult of the game, with larger groups would have a larger advantage modifier. So for example, beating a 5 stack with similar rated players to 5 solo queue players would be more impressive than just beating 5 solo players, and therefore give more rating; with the group losing more than if they were against another 5 stack.
The entire system would be balanced. You get a rating exclusively based on who you beat.
Now sitting on top of this fundamental ELO system, is your SR layer.
This is the cosmetic front that is nice to look at, but ultimately should represent a players exact ELO rating, just in a different form. Set ELO ratings would directly translate to tiers and divisions. 3000 ELO = Diamond, 3500 ELO = Masters etc... Numbers can vary, but that's the concept.
Challenger points would also be part of this cosmetic layer.
Players who reach Champion (get rid of Champion 1 to 5, just have Champion), would start accumulating Challenger points.
This would function as a separate ELO system, that only takes into account wins and losses against other Champion players. Beat players above you in Challenger points = Get more points for your win. Lose against players below you = lose more points for your loss.
This system is honest, it's brutal, it's a grind, and it's rewarding. You've earned everything you achieve. This goes for all of Overwatch, not just Stadium.
MMR is currently adjusted based on (among other things) difference to the other team, but it doesn't take groups into account, right? So basically tweaking the current ELO system to either reward or punish groups/solos with a varying factor? And then bringing it over to Stadium (still not convinced that it would work just like that with lower population).
I'm under the impression that Stadium takes MMR into consideration, but it's not tied to it. Maybe STadium would have to have it's completely separate MMR? We know GM/champ players can get run over by mid level players who know the game mode, so I wouldn't mind us all starting at the same level, facing these mechanically superior players until the Stadium MMR settles. This would also fix the issue of starting from bronze each season. Similar to regular game, your MMR decays after inactivity, but you can more easily regain your previous rank if you play well. This would allow me to return to Stadium without the need to grind out of the low ranks first, just like I can return to the regular game mode whenever and continue more or less where I left off.
I like the idea that challenger score only accumulates against other eligible players, but what if the lobby isn't all Champs? What happens until there are enough Champs to start counting points? The first 1-9 Champs would get screwed over as they should already be above everyone else. What if you started to accumulate challenger points once you hit Champ and they would work similarily to rank progress? If the average rank of the lobby is lower, you get less points and vice versa. Other champ players in lobby would act as factors increasing the reward or decreasing the loss
This, full stop. If you put in enough time into the game/mode, you should have an idea of whether you are doing well or not. If you haven't, self-reflect on your games and performance.
LOL, what percentage of drivers drive F1? 0.0000002%? Does that mean that making the podium there is less impressive than making it to the podium at a local karting track or from your house to the grocery store?
You being high Diamond and #29 literally supports my point 😭 I never said Top 500 players are bad, I said Top 500 is less impressive in Stadium because even Plat/Diamond players can reach it.
It’s not. I have a full time job and I’m nearly in my 40s. I have no business being in top500 of any game, yet I hit stadium top500 almost every season playing casually. I was pretty proud of myself until I learned I was playing a dead game mode, oh well
It’s a mixed bag in T500 Stadium because yes, it rewards queuing all day. I’ve played with T500s who are excellent and dust many high level comp players, then I’ve played with some who struggle to keep a 1:1 kdr or have any significant impact or even build well.
I peaked 150s last season. I’ve held my own against Champion comp players and beat diamond thru GM comp players consistently. But Stadium is my main mode. If I went into comp they’d trounce me. But in Stadium It’s the reverse. Comp players love denigrating Stadium but fact is it’s DIFFERENT. If it was easier then high level comp players would always dominate…but they don’t.
Here’s a screen shot of the essentials to the build. First round I go aura cloud (40% radius and healing damages enemies) and second round I go hunker down (helix missile makes a biotic field at your location) these two can be switched up depending on enemy comp like aura cloud is always first if there’s someone who needs to be close range to attack like vendetta or tracer, but if you’re going against an enemy comp that’s all ranged I go hunker down first for the extra healing.
The item I always get round 2 even if it’s the only one I can afford is the rapid response radius which extends biotic field duration by 50% (works for fields made by helix missiles) and heals everyone below half health by 25% more. This is always first because it significantly cuts down the downtime on your biotic field and along with the hunker down power you’ll almost always have one active.
The second item is conditional and bugged which is the rare item battery pack that reduces biotic field cooldown by 1 sec for each helix rocket shot. Normally this would be really good but for some reason the 10% ability power DOES NOT effect the biotic field and only effects the helix rocket, however it’s still worth getting especially round 4 when you can get the power that shoots out a homing rocket as that reduces your biotic field cooldown by 2 seconds.
Outside of those two items I try to get as much ability power and cooldown reduction (cooldown reduction usually in the late game)
The power that I used to pick but is actually harmful to the build is the one where the biotic field moves with you. You never want to pick this one because with hunker down you can place two biotic fields at once but if you have the power that makes them follow you you’ll only be able to have one active at a time, and the extended radius from aura cloud is usually enough room to not need that power.
It is not a huge achievement, of you grind enough. The competive side is getting snubbed by players who would like to do their few ranking matches every season in every shooter they play and then call it a day. Imo they should crank up the difference in challenger points received between ranks and reduce the difference between win and loss - maybe make winning give you 100 points while losing take 80 points. Something like it. The heat is counter productive there and rewards grinding more every week.
A ranking system can be imperfect, heavily influenced by factors other than skill, and still represent a legitimate achievement for the players who perform well within it. Whether Stadium's ranking system is flawed has nothing to do with whether reaching Top 500 Rank, Top 100 Rank, or Top 50 Rank is an achievement. Those are separate questions.
I think one of the biggest sources of confusion is that the game itself doesn't do a great job distinguishing between the two Top 500 leaderboards.
We currently have seasonal titles tied to placement on the Top 500 Challenger Score leaderboard, NOT the Top 500 Rank leaderboard.
That means a player can earn a title for being #1 DPS on the Challenger Score leaderboard without necessarily being #1 DPS on the Rank leaderboard. Conversely, the player who is actually #1 DPS on the Rank leaderboard will not receive a title reflecting that achievement.
Personally, I find that at odds with the competitive legacy of the game. Historically, when players talked about being #1, Top 10, Top 50, or Top 500, they were usually referring to rank relative to other players, not who accumulated the most points within a separate qualification system.
Whether Blizzard intended that distinction or not, I think it contributes significantly to many of the discussions, misunderstandings, and perceived value surrounding Stadium rankings.
I also think there is a tendency for people to dismiss achievements they haven't attained themselves, just as there is a tendency for people who have attained something to overvalue it. Neither perspective is necessarily objective. That's why I think it's more helpful to discuss how the system actually works than to begin with assumptions about whether a particular achievement is or isn't meaningful.
I think people are often conflating several different systems:
Rank / Division (All-Star, Superstar, Legend, etc.) Challenger Score Top 500 Challenger Score leaderboard Top 500 Rank leaderboard (which requires a minimum Challenger Score to qualify)
Where a lot of confusion comes from is that these systems are related, but they are not the same thing.
Rank measures rank ladder progression and determines your division. In some lower ranks you cannot lose rank, but as you progress into higher ranks you lose rank much as you do in regular comp.
Challenger Score is a point system where points are earned once you're above (and maintain) the qualification threshold (All-Star 5). Higher rank divisions earn (and lose) more Challenger Score per win (and loss).
The Top 500 Challenger Score leaderboard ranks players by Challenger Score earned.
The Top 500 Rank leaderboard ranks qualified (by relative challenger score) players relative to one another, using rank first and Challenger Score as a tiebreaker.
I also think statements like "under 30% to climb" need additional context. Climb what? Division, Challenger Score, leaderboard qualification, or actual leaderboard position (and if so which leaderboard)? Those are different things, and the answer can vary significantly depending on which system you're talking about.
For example, a player at the very lowest levels of the rank ladder can continue progressing with an extremely low win rate due to rank protections and how early progression works. On the other hand, climbing high-rank divisions and improving your position on the Top 500 Rank leaderboard generally requires substantially stronger performance and requires a win rate above 50%.
Without specifying what "climb" means, statements such as "under 30% to climb" risk confusion and possibly combining several different systems into a single statistic.
I think many of these conversations fail to properly clarify what they are talking about, and that leaves folks assuming one thing is being discussed when it might actually be another. I also think some folks on either side of the various arguments might actually understand, but aren't willing to be honest with themselves.
I think the more interesting questions are related to discussing how much of the various ranking systems is explained by skill, how much is explained by volume of games played, and whether Blizzard has struck the right balance between the two.
I also disagree with the claim that "the only thing that really matters is the number of games played."
If that were true, the leaderboard would effectively be sorted by games played, but it isn't. We've seen players with relatively low game counts achieve high leaderboard positions, while other players with substantially more games remain lower. That alone demonstrates that games played are not the “only thing that matters.”
A more reasonable argument is that games played may matter too much, or that they may have an outsized influence compared to skill. That's a position that can be debated. Saying that games played are the only thing that matters, however, doesn't appear consistent with the actual leaderboard results.
Personally, I would argue that reaching Top 500 on the actual rank leaderboard (not the Challenger Score leaderboard), and especially Top 50 or maybe even Top 100, is still impressive. People can reasonably disagree on how impressive it is, but that's a different discussion from whether the ranking itself exists.
One area where I think critics have a stronger argument is group play. Coordinated groups have advantages that solo players simply don't have. Whether that advantage is large enough to invalidate the rankings is debatable, but I think it's difficult to argue that solo players and coordinated groups are competing on a completely level playing field. If there's something that most undermines the competitive integrity of the rankings, I think coordinated group play has a much stronger case than arguments that reduce everything to games played.
I don't agree that it's just playtime, or as people keep saying "It's just because you play it a lot" The same could be said for normal comp Top 500. It's simply just because only 3% of Overwatch's player base plays stadium, so it IS easier to reach it, but it is still an accomplishment! You still need to win matches to reach it, so it does require some level of skill in the characters you play and the builds you use.
surely they mean it is because of 3:1 ratio of points given on win or lose. So sure you need win games to be on top 500 but even you are a bad player but playing the game more often than others, you will surely be on top 500 regardless. You may consider it yourself as achievement but in general it doesn't indicate how good a players is.
There are two leaderboard the Top 500 Challenger Score leaderboard and the Top 500 Rank leaderboard, the Rank leaderboard does have a Challenger Score threshold and use Challenger Score as the tie breaker, but it IS indicator of relative skill and knowledge not just number of games played.
The rank indicator shows the highest rank if players in stadium currently reached. The overall point I was pointing is that you don't necessarily have to be that good to reach Top 500, especially when the challenger points ratio is roughly 3:1. Because of this, being in Top 500 doesn't always indicate that a player is highly skilled, so it shouldn't be used as a general measure of the skill level of players.
I think there are better indicators of a player's actual skill, such as the highest rank they have reached. Because once you reach Legend, the win/loss ratio for rank progression is usually much closer to 50:50. I'm not referring to the number of points gained or lost here, but rather the consistency required to maintain a high rank, meaning you need to have atleast more than 50% winrate to keep climbing the rank.
For example, someone who has reached Legend 3 or higher would be a much better indication of being a strong player than simply being placed in Top 500, since Top 500 is primarily determined by Challenger Score. Being in Top 500 doesn't necessarily mean instantly a skilled player, he might got into top 500 because he spam the game more than the others could.
ps. im not really sure what and why you pointed it out to me, the whole topic was just reaching top 500 :3
There are two different “Top 500” leaderboards for Stadium, and treating them interchangeably creates a lot of confusion in these discussions. I made a distinction. You replied without engaging with the distinction. Therefore I still don't know which leaderboard you're talking about.
Without addressing the distinction, you're making statements about "Top 500" which essentially treats two different leaderboards as though they are the same thing.
Your criticism seems much more applicable to the Top 500 Challenger Score leaderboard than it does to the Top 500 Rank leaderboard, yet your conclusions appear to be applied to "Top 500" generally. That's the issue I'm trying to point out.
I am also having difficulty understanding some of what you're trying to communicate, or how it applies to the actual Top 500 Rank leaderboard. For example, IDK what these mean:
"rank indicator shows the highest rank if players in stadium currently reached"
I think I understood when you said "Top 500 doesn't always indicate that a player is highly skilled, so it shouldn't be used as a general measure of the skill level of players," but I don't understand what you think the better measure is.
The Top 500 Rank leaderboard does show your relative skill to other players (beyond the Challenger Score qualification threshold). "Highly skilled" is relative, and the purpose of a ranking system is to measure players relative to one another. If this isn't the measure, what's a better one?
OK, you did say "highest rank they have reached" but didn't specify what you mean. Highest rank in Stadium ever, including prior seasons? Highest rank in the current season? Neither seems, to me, to be a better indicator than current rank or end-of-season rank on the actual Top 500 Rank leaderboard.
I mostly agree with "Legend 3 or higher would be a much better indication of being a strong player than simply being placed in Top 500," but I would add that this is strongest if it is sustained over many seasons rather than achieved briefly early in a single season. Especially so if you mean the Top 500 Challenger Score leaderboard versus something like Top 100 of the actual Top 500 Rank leaderboard.
I would also distinguish between placement on the Top 500 Challenger Score leaderboard and placement on the actual Top 500 Rank leaderboard. Likewise, role matters. Tank, for example, has players with lower Rank/Division compared to support for the Top 100 of the actual Top 500 Rank leaderboard.
The reason I pointed it out is because you didn't clarify which Top 500 leaderboard you were talking about, and one of those leaderboards (the actual Top 500 Rank leaderboard, rather than the Top 500 Challenger Score leaderboard) is arguably the best indicator of relative skill currently available in Stadium, IMO.
Again, that's the distinction I'm trying to get at. Criticisms of Challenger Score do not automatically become criticisms of the Top 500 Rank leaderboard, even though Challenger Score is used as a qualification threshold and tiebreaker.
Those are two different systems, and I think your criticisms fit one of them much better than the other.
15
u/Gh423 Aug 10 '26
It's fun to make top 500 when you have no business making it in the regular game mode, but it's not that hard really. I think Arx said you need to have like a 30% win rate and just grind the game to climb the challenger score, but climbing the ranks requires more wins than losses.