Overwatch 2 makes simple change to keep players from throwing Competitive matches

Overwatch 2 has quietly made a new change to force players to try their hardest to win Competitive ranked matches.

Overwatch 2 Season 9 finally gave players a new weapon cosmetic to unlock with their Competitive points in the form of Jade Weapons, but the devs have taken steps to ensure that simply playing won’t be enough to nab them.

Competitive Challenges were replaced in Season 9 with a Competitive Progression system. By completing 30 levels, players can earn a total of 3,000 bonus Competitive Points – enough to buy a single Jade Weapon.

However, that’s where the Competitive Progression system maxes out. Once you complete the 30 levels, you can’t progress anymore by just queuing up for ranked. If you want to earn Jade Weapons, you’re going to need to either win or draw your matches.

Blizzard explained this decision in an official forum post, revealing that the purpose of this change was so players don’t throw their matches and still get rewarded.

“We have seen reports where players can no longer earn progress on the Competitive Point bonus progression, and we want to clarify what is going on,” said Community Manager Kaedi.

“The purpose is to ensure that players are doing the best they can in every Competitive match and not just playing the mode solely to collect Competitive Points that are used to unlock Jade Weapons.”

If players were able to acquire Competitive Points even if they lost, it could result in them not trying their hardest or even throwing matches just to get to their next game. While the 30 levels of the Competitive Progression system do award a single point for a loss, it’s clear the devs have to put an emphasis on making sure players of all skill levels do what it takes to win.

We’ll have to see how the devs continue to evolve the ranked system to be more competitive. So far, the team has already expressed an interest in implementing a pick-ban system in the next big annual update in order to add more “strategic depth.”