f13.net

f13.net General Forums => PC/Console Gaming => Topic started by: Mithas on November 07, 2014, 02:53:57 PM



Title: Overwatch
Post by: Mithas on November 07, 2014, 02:53:57 PM
So Blizzcon is going on and they just announced a new IP called Overwatch. It seems kind of like a Titan reboot minus a lot of the MMO stuff. Something like a squad based shooter. Not a lot of details yet obviously.

http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/11/07/blizzcon-2014-blizzards-new-game-is-overwatch

Edit:

Site is up. Or rather down probably because it is being hammered right now:

www.playoverwatch.com

Edit by Trippy

Cinematic trailer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYMM0OQpq6w

Gameplay trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dushZybUYnM



Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: luckton on November 07, 2014, 02:55:10 PM
Watched the trailer and gameplay videos via the opening ceremony feed. Looks like a futuristic TF2 with more emphasis on unique characters and abilities.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Bhazrak on November 07, 2014, 02:58:36 PM
Certainly got me interested. Now all they need is hats, skins, pets and whatever else and it will skyrocket.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: luckton on November 07, 2014, 02:59:57 PM
Please...no hats. That's TF2's thing. Keep it there.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Trippy on November 07, 2014, 03:00:23 PM
I guess it's apropos that when I saw "Overwatch" the first thing I thought of was "Space Hulk".


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Fabricated on November 07, 2014, 03:01:36 PM
I guess they weren't totally keen on flushing however many hundreds of millions they pissed away on Titan down the drain.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Fabricated on November 07, 2014, 03:02:17 PM
"Fuck it, repackage it, multiplayer PVP FPS, HATS"

Also lol poor Bethesda; they're doing one of these stupid things too and no one gave a shit about it ALREADY. It's officially doomed.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Bhazrak on November 07, 2014, 03:03:55 PM
"Fuck it, repackage it, multiplayer PVP FPS, HATS"

Also lol poor Bethesda; they're doing one of these stupid things too and no one gave a shit about it ALREADY. It's officially doomed.

Ho damn, I forgot about that. Battlecry or something. Whelp...


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: luckton on November 07, 2014, 03:07:13 PM
So Blizzard has become the Apple of the gaming industry. It doesn't matter what they make, as long as the trailer and gameplay are shiny enough, it'll print money  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Bhazrak on November 07, 2014, 03:12:20 PM
So Blizzard has become the Apple of the gaming industry. It doesn't matter what they make, as long as the trailer and gameplay are shiny enough, it'll print money  :awesome_for_real:

Coming to every genre near you.

Looks like their website to sign up at is up and running now too.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Trippy on November 07, 2014, 03:13:53 PM
LOL Tigole Bitties (aka Jeff Kaplan) is the Game Director.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Falconeer on November 07, 2014, 03:14:35 PM
Ugh, boring, uncool and unoriginal. I'd say almost embarassing, being Blizzard.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Paelos on November 07, 2014, 03:16:31 PM
LOL Tigole Bitties (aka Jeff Kaplan) is the Game Director.


I'll never play it then. Plus I never liked TF2 so if this is remotely like it I wouldn't bother to begin with.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: murdoc on November 07, 2014, 03:18:29 PM
I just cannot get into Multiplayer FPS games. I keep trying them and keep getting reminded how much my gaming reflexes suck.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Fabricated on November 07, 2014, 03:20:57 PM
This is going to be the cash-shoppiest game ever. I don't know if it'll be Zynga-level cynical with its purchases but you bet your ass they'll be releasing skins and hats and stupid shit branded with all of their other IPs for it.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Fordel on November 07, 2014, 03:23:19 PM
The trailer looks really weird to me, and I don't fully understand why. Is that in house blizzard?


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Rasix on November 07, 2014, 03:27:31 PM
LOL Tigole Bitties (aka Jeff Kaplan) is the Game Director.


The Nameless server in EQ spawned both Tigole and Yantis (IGE forebearer).   Only reason Tigole ended up at Blizzard was the large amount of Blizz employees in the resident uber guild (Legacy of Steel).  

Gawd, I even leveled with Yantis before he turned into a festering pustule on the face of gaming.

This looks... OK.  This genre is past me, however.  I've got them old man reflexes.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: luckton on November 07, 2014, 03:38:47 PM
I also wonder if this is a jab at Valve over the whole DOTA thing...

"Oh, ok, fine, you can have DOTA 2, which you made and developed out of one of our products. We're just gonna go ahead and make a FPS akin to TF2 for the next generation. So don't sue us, and we won't sue you, yeah?"

 :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Fabricated on November 07, 2014, 03:39:21 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/ureJsYY.png)

(http://i.imgur.com/eG4ZENg.jpg)


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: luckton on November 07, 2014, 03:41:54 PM
On the one hand, yeah, the resemblance is uncanny.

On the other, how many variations of "ancient chinese/japanese martial arts/exotic weapons guy" can you come up with that hasn't already been done in some shape or form?


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: luckton on November 07, 2014, 03:46:27 PM
They're doing a panel on it now at BlizzCon.

Apparently they're taking great strides in the aforementioned "I'm an old fart/non-twitch gamer these days" issue by having lots of less-lethal/non-combat options that contribute to the gameplay.

Fake edit: Which obviously means no Deathmatch, which was just clarified.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Hutch on November 07, 2014, 04:01:31 PM
It's PvP by Blizzard. They might as well have named it OverCorrection.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Mrbloodworth on November 07, 2014, 04:12:34 PM
Looks kinda like they did Global agenda PvP, with MOBA like character classes.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: luckton on November 07, 2014, 04:26:42 PM
/snip Metzen pics

From the WoW Insider Live blog:

Quote
1:19PM Hanamura, map set in Japan. Part of it is a suburban downtown, part of it is a temple ground. Homeland of the disgraced Hanzo. Metzen says it's a favorite of theirs.

YOU DON'T SAY?!  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: luckton on November 07, 2014, 04:38:40 PM
They're going with TF2 style more than you think...you'll be able to swap heroes in between deaths.

The shoutcast they're doing right now looks neat.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: HaemishM on November 07, 2014, 04:41:20 PM
What the fuck did I just watch? Blizzard just blatantly ripped off and reskinned most of the TF2 classes, and yet somehow made it look even less interesting. They really are some unoriginal fuckers.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Mithas on November 07, 2014, 04:45:23 PM
This will be huge because Blizzard. At least to start. I have no idea if they make much on Hearthstone, but I assume this would be similar from a revenue standpoint.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: luckton on November 07, 2014, 04:48:51 PM
This will be huge because Blizzard. At least to start. I have no idea if they make much on Hearthstone, but I assume this would be similar from a revenue standpoint.

Doing Q&A right now. Business model Q was put up to bat, but the A was "we don't know yet".


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Ironwood on November 07, 2014, 06:34:33 PM
That looks fucking lame.

Pass.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on November 07, 2014, 06:48:55 PM
TF2 got me with the hype back in the day. Then I played and proceeded to be the bottom guy on every server I was ever on, MAYBE getting 2 or 3 kills in an entire match by leeching off others. (Some of you played with me, you know this is true)

Now I'm older and have even slower reflexes. Fuckit, not for me.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: K9 on November 07, 2014, 06:49:18 PM
Have they given up on Heroes of the Storm yet? Because that was some weak shit


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Paelos on November 07, 2014, 06:56:05 PM
Have they given up on Heroes of the Storm yet? Because that was some weak shit

Unfortunately no.

I'd need a lot more information about this particular project to see if it would do well across the masses. I am leery because this is spawned from something they scrapped as "not fun"


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Trippy on November 07, 2014, 07:11:40 PM
TF2 got me with the hype back in the day. Then I played and proceeded to be the bottom guy on every server I was ever on, MAYBE getting 2 or 3 kills in an entire match by leeching off others. (Some of you played with me, you know this is true)

Now I'm older and have even slower reflexes. Fuckit, not for me.
That's who the Medic is for.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on November 07, 2014, 07:40:42 PM
If you enjoy the Medic, you mean.

I don't. I enjoyed playing healers in MMOs more.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Trippy on November 07, 2014, 07:41:48 PM
Yeah, that's true. Engineer is another class you can play if you suck at the shooty bits.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Pennilenko on November 07, 2014, 08:13:55 PM
Looks interesting to me. If it is free. If I have to buy to play then forget it. If somebody can buy a better kill count with money then I wont play it.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Bhazrak on November 07, 2014, 08:24:26 PM
A few other characters off to the left here (http://i.imgur.com/PCyz3b5.jpg) that aren't on the main site. Think the cowboy and green ninja sword guy were shown a bit in the cinematic trailer. I'm putting fat tire-wearing gas mask man on my list of characters I am interested in now.

From the looks of it, they'll have plenty of character options for the person who doesn't have twitchy MLG skills. This is blizzard after all, they want as wide of an audience as possible.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Draegan on November 07, 2014, 08:27:22 PM
I don't get the draw. I really dislike fps games where all you do is run around and shoot each other and die.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Malakili on November 07, 2014, 08:35:51 PM
The idea seems fine.  It will of course come down entirely to the execution of the FPS mechanics.  This kind of game needs to be extremely tight and smooth with its gameplay or it will feel clunky and tedious.  However, given the lack of interesting shooters (literally guys, I still load up Quake Live for fucks sake) I hope they make it work.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Rendakor on November 07, 2014, 08:57:01 PM
Meh. I heard Blizzard does TF2 and couldn't even be arsed to watch the trailer. 0 fucks given.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Venkman on November 07, 2014, 09:30:27 PM
I like the idea. Everything else is TBD until it's on my computer. Haven't played TF2 for years, but could again if wrapped differently.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Margalis on November 07, 2014, 09:35:22 PM
There are like a half-dozen games that look almost identical to this.

BattleCry and BattleBorne are two. I can't remember the names of the others. Nosgoth is also pretty similar. (Though visually different)

TF2 / LoL hybrids. Focus on objectives rather than deathmatch, play as individually named characters rather than classes, more emphasis on special abilities rather than just shooting / jumping.

This doesn't look bad but it does look very familiar. Especially the reliance on catchphrases, character that look and sound cool to 13-year-olds, and central-casting stereotypes / archetypes. That said I am genuinely surprised Blizzard created some original characters, rather than just making another Warcraft / Starcraft / Diablo mashup.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on November 07, 2014, 09:42:12 PM
Snarky response for that is, "Metzen wasn't going to let his cool new voicover Mary Sues get trashed just because Titan was dead."


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Venkman on November 07, 2014, 10:26:43 PM
This doesn't look bad but it does look very familiar. Especially the reliance on catchphrases, character that look and sound cool to 13-year-olds, and central-casting stereotypes / archetypes.

All of this is true to form though :-)


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Mithas on November 07, 2014, 11:06:37 PM
There are like a half-dozen games that look almost identical to this.

Very few of them have the notoriety or the marketing dollars of Blizzard.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Paelos on November 07, 2014, 11:34:21 PM
Okay so here's something that Blizzard haters could point at in my mind and say, "It would make nothing if it wasn't Blizzard!"

There's no ties to anything. There's no prior lore. There's no real attachment. This is purely the Blizzard name on a box of something that's been done by a half-dozen other houses. If it blows things out of the water in numbers, they can point to this forever.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Margalis on November 08, 2014, 12:04:18 AM
Very few of them have the notoriety or the marketing dollars of Blizzard.

That's true. Of if you want to be charitable to Blizzard you could say that none of them have the reputation for quality.

I'm not a fan of Blizzard at all but if I had to pick between Bethesda and Blizzard on which would make a better TF2/LoL hybrid arena shooter I'd pick Blizzard.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: lamaros on November 08, 2014, 12:26:55 AM
This is way more interesting than Battlecry.

Still not for me, though.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: apocrypha on November 08, 2014, 02:09:30 AM
Honestly I no longer care what Blizzard release. They've shown quite clearly with D3 and the direction they took WoW in that all they know how to make is grind with a pretty skin. This'll be no different plus "micro"trans.

Not interested.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: K9 on November 08, 2014, 03:44:17 AM
Moreso than anyone but Valve, Blizzard's talent is making really well polished games. They may not be any good, but they'll still have that shine.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: calapine on November 08, 2014, 05:20:49 AM
The trailer looks really weird to me, and I don't fully understand why. Is that in house blizzard?

It looks like a pixar movie.

(https://i.imgur.com/BMdzXbS.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/PZvJB1j.png)


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: calapine on November 08, 2014, 05:25:52 AM
This will be huge because Blizzard. At least to start. I have no idea if they make much on Hearthstone, but I assume this would be similar from a revenue standpoint.

Yes, I don't see how it can not be not huge, as it's TF2 with more classes, new mechanics, new scenery, high production values and general "it's new!" hype.


I don't care for TF (and TF-like) games, so personally it holds no interests though.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: jakonovski on November 08, 2014, 06:25:53 AM
The environments promise the world, but Blizzard can only clone so TF2 it is.



Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Draegan on November 08, 2014, 08:53:36 AM
This will be huge because Blizzard. At least to start. I have no idea if they make much on Hearthstone, but I assume this would be similar from a revenue standpoint.

Yes, I don't see how it can not be not huge, as it's TF2 with more classes, new mechanics, new scenery, high production values and general "it's new!" hype.


I don't care for TF (and TF-like) games, so personally it holds no interests though.

I can easily see how this doesn't become huge. It's a game that's been done a ton for a long time. It'll be entertaining for a while but Blizzard managed to fuck up Diablo 3, so why would they do anything good here?


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: KallDrexx on November 08, 2014, 09:05:23 AM
Meh I'll play it.

I loved TF2 for a long time, and this seems to have a lot more tactical and interesting mechanics. 


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: luckton on November 08, 2014, 09:05:39 AM
I like to think that, since Bliz also un-fucked Diablo after fucking it rightly so, they are capable of learning from their own mistakes and doing better. I mean, c'mon, how many companies these days have the financial wherewithal to host their own fan convention on a semi-consistent basis? You don't get their without the fans having your back.

I agree that what we've seen thus far is lacking and/or too similar to other market products, but I'm willing to give Bliz the benefit of the doubt for at least trying something new for them.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: MrHat on November 08, 2014, 10:25:11 AM
Meh I'll play it.

I loved TF2 for a long time, and this seems to have a lot more tactical and interesting mechanics. 

This is me pretty much. Plus my IRL gaming friends love FPS so it'll def get a couple weeks out of me.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Maven on November 08, 2014, 11:24:02 AM
This was a brilliant business move -- cancelling Titan and making this game instead. Hearthstone and Heroes of the Storm aside, seeing what they are doing with Overwatch had a lot more impact on my opinion of Blizzard.

Of course the I.P. is going to have no previous ties, that's the point -- they wanted a new I.P. and are using the Blizzard name and marketing to build investment. Cinematic reminded me of Wildstar, actually, but I see the Pixar.

This game announcement officially announces the close of the MMO era, and I don't see the industry ever embracing that model as it was in the 00's. High-investment, high-risk, high failure rate.

Now it's all about small-scale competitive multiplayer which has LoL as king. I saw this game is targeted at people tired of TF2, however difficult it might be to get there. Anyone else make an immediate connection to Monday Night Combat?


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: calapine on November 08, 2014, 12:05:12 PM
Interestingly the matches will be limited to 6 vs 6 fights. Not sure how noob-friendly that is.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Malakili on November 08, 2014, 12:11:15 PM
Interestingly the matches will be limited to 6 vs 6 fights. Not sure how noob-friendly that is.

Annnnnd I just lost all interest.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: climbjtree on November 08, 2014, 12:20:36 PM
I'll play it.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: luckton on November 08, 2014, 12:36:35 PM
Interestingly the matches will be limited to 6 vs 6 fights. Not sure how noob-friendly that is.

If it's anything like most match-making systems these days, it won't be at first, but as the server starts to recognize one's noobness based on performance and stats, it'll pair you accordingly.

Vs. the AI will probably be the recommended path for true noobs at first.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Trippy on November 08, 2014, 01:16:02 PM
Interestingly the matches will be limited to 6 vs 6 fights. Not sure how noob-friendly that is.
Annnnnd I just lost all interest.
Console shooter with no dedicated servers bitches :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: calapine on November 08, 2014, 01:47:37 PM
Annnnnd I just lost all interest.

Well, it's free. What risk is there? Worst case it becomes stale after a few hours.


If it's anything like most match-making systems these days, it won't be at first, but as the server starts to recognize one's noobness based on performance and stats, it'll pair you accordingly.
Vs. the AI will probably be the recommended path for true noobs at first.

My preferred way to play TF was to swim with the masses, run around as a lose cannon, trying to get killls and not care about the objective.

That probably wont be doable in this game.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Malakili on November 08, 2014, 02:15:20 PM
Annnnnd I just lost all interest.

Well, it's free. What risk is there? Worst case it becomes stale after a few hours.


Well, it's not like its a risk, but just realistically I don't have the inclination to install and fire up games just to try them if they haven't proven to be otherwise interesting.  There are too many games out there that I do want to try to take the time out of my day to try ones I don't think I'll like. 

Who knows, maybe as more information comes out it'll look worth trying again, it's not like I can change my mind later.  But as Trippy points out, this is a big signal to me that they aren't going in a direction I care for that extends well beyond the 6v6 limit.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Fordel on November 08, 2014, 04:11:09 PM
The trailer looks really weird to me, and I don't fully understand why. Is that in house blizzard?

It looks like a pixar movie.


It really does. Like I guess that's the modern version of 'cartoon' these days though. It also reminds me a LOT of the fairly recent LoL cinematic. To a point where I wonder if Blizz farmed the cinematic out... but Blizz has like super good in house cinematic people so that seems unlikely.

-edit-

Seriously, if someone just showed me that cinematic and said "new Disney movie" I wouldn't have even blinked. It looks exactly like something my nephew would beg me to watch with him.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Lantyssa on November 08, 2014, 04:26:36 PM
The video was in-house.

We don't know that it's free though.  They haven't announced a pricing structure at all.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Margalis on November 08, 2014, 06:59:15 PM
Moreso than anyone but Valve, Blizzard's talent is making really well polished games. They may not be any good, but they'll still have that shine.

This is still kind of true, but this feels less true to me now.

Previously to me Blizzard polish meant graphical polish, performance polish, look and feel stuff (interface, sound, etc) as well as systems polish. I don't think that last one is the case any more. The systems are now often a weak point in games - to some degree this is true of Diablo, Starcraft and Heroes of the Storm.

They still know how to make the moment-to-moment action feel good and look nice but the weakness of these games is their core gameplay.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Fabricated on November 08, 2014, 07:15:23 PM
This is re-purposed leftovers from a failed project. How can it be anything but bad?


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: jakonovski on November 08, 2014, 07:21:46 PM
Actually this reminds me of that Warhammer Online spinoff. Wrath of Heroes?



Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Threash on November 08, 2014, 07:42:39 PM
Looks incredibly fun.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: KallDrexx on November 08, 2014, 08:39:32 PM
Fits quite well with your signature :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on November 08, 2014, 09:53:34 PM
This is re-purposed leftovers from a failed project. How can it be anything but bad?

But they totally said it wasn't when asked at the Overwatch Q&A and that this was something totally different! If you can't believe Metzen, who can you believe?  :why_so_serious:

Now that I've seen and read more about it, it sounds like it's going to be an FPS Leage of Legends rather than TF2.  The classesHeroes aren't static and will be rolling out new ones on a regular basis to fit certain roles with new abilities.

With a model like that it's got to be F2P with transactions for leagues and skins. However, questions about the business model have been deflected with, "Uh, we're the wrong people to ask," from B & C-level Blizzard staff.  :oh_i_see:

Moreso than anyone but Valve, Blizzard's talent is making really well polished games. They may not be any good, but they'll still have that shine.

This is still kind of true, but this feels less true to me now.

Previously to me Blizzard polish meant graphical polish, performance polish, look and feel stuff (interface, sound, etc) as well as systems polish. I don't think that last one is the case any more. The systems are now often a weak point in games - to some degree this is true of Diablo, Starcraft and Heroes of the Storm.

They still know how to make the moment-to-moment action feel good and look nice but the weakness of these games is their core gameplay.

I agree, and have no idea how that's happened. Probably the inevitable outcome of a corporate structure. Blizzard as a company has been around 23 years now. The guys in charge are old men in the industry, and that corporate structure isn't going to let the young & hungry run things now. How many 21- 24 year olds lead Designers in charge of a project like Warcraft now? Those were Morhaime and Pardo's ages in 1991. Nowadays folks that age might be lucky to get a Q&A position much less Jr. Designer, right?


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Samprimary on November 08, 2014, 09:55:29 PM
This is re-purposed leftovers from a failed project. How can it be anything but bad?

Like, hypothetically?

A company with a ton of resources and manpower that may be cuddling into a bit of a well needed renaissance has an idea for something fun, and really for years give it a go but conclude that it just doesn't translate into The Fun in its intended genre. They abandon the cursed genre, but take all the worldbuilding and whatever coherent cross-class testing and development they could and eventually decide through conceptual testing that they might be able to mix together elements of two more or less contemporary breakout game types and adapt the world idea and the art and stylization (along with some of their class ideas, combat mechanics, etc). It's basically tf3, poaching a lot of ideas without trying to reinvent the wheel, and make the classes a bit more like moba classes. And get real creative with mobility options between classes.

The game comes out and (again hypothetically) manages the miracle work of class balance for such a thing. F13 begrudgingly drydocks its own cynicism train, admits it is actually pretty fun and a lot of them are playing it, and enjoy that it's a welcome addition to a stock of games that one can just sit down and give a spin in the odd hours.

Samprimary additionally gets a pony, and Destiny's plot gets to the point, world peace is achieved, part three of SC2 has a not terrible story, and HL3 is announced.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Malakili on November 08, 2014, 10:09:53 PM
Quote
It's basically tf3, poaching a lot of ideas without trying to reinvent the wheel, and make the classes a bit more like moba classes.

This is probably not an insanely unrealistic outcome.  If there is something Blizzard is good at, it is improving on existing, established games. The problem for them is really that TF2 is already a good TF2, so I'm not really sure what a "TF3" improves on.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Hutch on November 08, 2014, 10:10:08 PM
The game comes out and (again hypothetically) manages the miracle work of class balance for such a thing. F13 begrudgingly drydocks its own cynicism train, admits it is actually pretty fun and a lot of them are playing it, and enjoy that it's a welcome addition to a stock of games that one can just sit down and give a spin in the odd hours.

The game comes out and (again hypothetically) manages the miracle work of class balance for such a thing.

manages the miracle work of class balance

miracle work of class balance

class balance

LOL @ Blizzard managing class balance in a PvP setting. They couldn't do it in WoW, when their A team was still around (and still can't). There's zero chance that these back benchers can handle it.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Kail on November 08, 2014, 10:11:13 PM
Moreso than anyone but Valve, Blizzard's talent is making really well polished games. They may not be any good, but they'll still have that shine.

This is still kind of true, but this feels less true to me now.

Previously to me Blizzard polish meant graphical polish, performance polish, look and feel stuff (interface, sound, etc) as well as systems polish. I don't think that last one is the case any more. The systems are now often a weak point in games - to some degree this is true of Diablo, Starcraft and Heroes of the Storm.

They still know how to make the moment-to-moment action feel good and look nice but the weakness of these games is their core gameplay.

To me, they're still true of Blizzard, it's just less of a rarity nowadays, so they don't stand out as much.  Back when StarCraft was first launched, the "industry standard" was still largely college age guys working on games they loved, and things like intuitive interfaces and approachable difficulty curves and consistent visual design were not top concern.  Nowadays, though, the suits have spoken and these things shift units, so we have whole departments handling this stuff which was often passed off on to one guy before.  At least, that's how it looks to me.

We don't know that it's free though.  They haven't announced a pricing structure at all.


Given that the games it seems to be competing with (League of Legends, Team Fortress 2, Super Monday Night Combat, etc.) all tend to be free, the only way I can see it with a price tag is if there's some kind of extensive single player storyline attached, and I haven't heard anything about that.  The only other successful model out there for FPS right now that I can think of is Planetside 2, and that seems to rely on features I haven't heard Overwatch mention.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Fabricated on November 08, 2014, 10:54:14 PM
Quote
It's basically tf3, poaching a lot of ideas without trying to reinvent the wheel, and make the classes a bit more like moba classes.

This is probably not an insanely unrealistic outcome.  If there is something Blizzard is good at, it is improving on existing, established games. The problem for them is really that TF2 is already a good TF2, so I'm not really sure what a "TF3" improves on.
I point you to Heroes of the Storm. They are not as good at this as you think.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Malakili on November 08, 2014, 11:11:54 PM
Quote
It's basically tf3, poaching a lot of ideas without trying to reinvent the wheel, and make the classes a bit more like moba classes.

This is probably not an insanely unrealistic outcome.  If there is something Blizzard is good at, it is improving on existing, established games. The problem for them is really that TF2 is already a good TF2, so I'm not really sure what a "TF3" improves on.
I point you to Heroes of the Storm. They are not as good at this as you think.

Each of their major franchises basically started this way.  Heroes sucks, but it's basically the only time they've botched it.  Hearthstone sucks too, but they did what they were trying to do well, I just happen to despise what they were trying to do.

I guess you could argue from a what have you done for me lately point of view that they haven't really successfully done this since WoW, so it's been a decade. That's fair.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Margalis on November 08, 2014, 11:50:43 PM
I suspect the game will be fine. Being repurposed Titan assets doesn't mean it will be bad.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on November 09, 2014, 02:14:40 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/oomyzMS.jpg)

 :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: SurfD on November 09, 2014, 02:55:39 AM
The game comes out and (again hypothetically) manages the miracle work of class balance for such a thing. F13 begrudgingly drydocks its own cynicism train, admits it is actually pretty fun and a lot of them are playing it, and enjoy that it's a welcome addition to a stock of games that one can just sit down and give a spin in the odd hours.

The game comes out and (again hypothetically) manages the miracle work of class balance for such a thing.

manages the miracle work of class balance

miracle work of class balance

class balance

LOL @ Blizzard managing class balance in a PvP setting. They couldn't do it in WoW, when their A team was still around (and still can't). There's zero chance that these back benchers can handle it.

I imagine class balancing is orders of magnitude easier when your "classes" are more like "archetypes" (sniper, gunner, mechanic, scout, meatshield, etc) and you are only balancing around a 4-6 button toolkit for each character instead of a 20-25 button toolkit for something like a Druid or a Warlock.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: lamaros on November 09, 2014, 07:01:18 AM
So her ass inflates when she puts her goggles on? A bit unnecessary.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Threash on November 09, 2014, 07:40:51 AM
Quote
It's basically tf3, poaching a lot of ideas without trying to reinvent the wheel, and make the classes a bit more like moba classes.

This is probably not an insanely unrealistic outcome.  If there is something Blizzard is good at, it is improving on existing, established games. The problem for them is really that TF2 is already a good TF2, so I'm not really sure what a "TF3" improves on.

By the time this comes out TF2 will be over a decade old, being a new TF2 should be enough of an improvement.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Falconeer on November 09, 2014, 08:19:42 AM
Class balance is not really a problem anymore, at least in team based games, as shown by MOBAs or games like Smite that have dozens of classes/characters. If anything, all they have to do is clone those games skills and mechanics.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Lantyssa on November 09, 2014, 09:11:31 AM
Given that the games it seems to be competing with (League of Legends, Team Fortress 2, Super Monday Night Combat, etc.) all tend to be free, the only way I can see it with a price tag is if there's some kind of extensive single player storyline attached, and I haven't heard anything about that.  The only other successful model out there for FPS right now that I can think of is Planetside 2, and that seems to rely on features I haven't heard Overwatch mention.
Logic would suggest to us this is true.  That does not make it so.  If Blizzard decides that an initial box cost with a low sub-fee and micro-trans for DLC nets them more money they will go that route.

My friend whose last FPS was playing Unreal Tournament with us on LAN a decade ago because the gameplay isn't for her is considering this.  Because it's Blizzard and she's a WoW-addict.  Just like what happened with Diablo 3 and one of the Starcrafts.  She's never played Starcraft, probably won't ever play this one, but "It was only twenty dollars."

There's time to switch it to f2p down the line after they've made box sales to recoup development and get a whole new boost of people.  If it can turn games like DDO and Star Trek around, imagine what it can do for something that will sell boxes because of a name?


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: UnSub on November 09, 2014, 09:18:49 AM
"Fuck it, repackage it, multiplayer PVP FPS, HATS"

Also lol poor Bethesda; they're doing one of these stupid things too and no one gave a shit about it ALREADY. It's officially doomed.

Ho damn, I forgot about that. Battlecry or something. Whelp...

I've played Battlegrounds and it is so very average. Admittedly I only played a beta version with 3 of the five classes, but it really boiled down to spamming your attacks until the other person fell down or you did.

Maybe it improves with the other classes, or once you start progressing your character, but it wasn't that fun starting from scratch.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on November 09, 2014, 09:25:49 AM
So her ass inflates when she puts her goggles on? A bit unnecessary.

It's probably just a rigging bug of some sort. The same thing Pixar and Dreamworks have shown create bizarre and amusing scenes when they happen in movies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNngNiYXuVE

I thought it was worth a laugh, given the nature of the bug and the sensuality of the character.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Malakili on November 09, 2014, 09:54:18 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qvFxGoQ3ME&feature=youtu.be


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Draegan on November 09, 2014, 09:56:58 AM
So her ass inflates when she puts her goggles on? A bit unnecessary.

(http://cdn.madamenoire.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Sir.gif)


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Maledict on November 09, 2014, 09:57:58 AM
Even for F13 this thread is depressingly negative.

I love Heroes of the Storm - it's far more interesting and fun than dota 2 / LoL, and I'm guessing I'm their target market.

Having gorged on Destiny, Garden Warfare and Wolfenstein this year I'm definitely going through a shooters phase, and Overwatch looks brilliant fun. TF2 is almost totally innaccessible to a new player it seems, and Overwatch looks like it will fill that niche very well.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Draegan on November 09, 2014, 10:00:50 AM
That's where we disagree. HOTS is incredibly boring to me.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Malakili on November 09, 2014, 10:04:29 AM
That's where we disagree. HOTS is incredibly boring to me.

I really really tried to like HOTS.  But it is just awful.  For me it comes down to the gimmicky maps, I think.  Sorry you lose, you didn't collect enough coins compared to the other team.  Fuck right off with that.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Rendakor on November 09, 2014, 10:14:42 AM
I found HOTS awful too. For every nice change, there were 2 things about it I hated.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on November 09, 2014, 11:07:34 AM
Even for F13 this thread is depressingly negative.

I love Heroes of the Storm - it's far more interesting and fun than dota 2 / LoL, and I'm guessing I'm their target market.

Having gorged on Destiny, Garden Warfare and Wolfenstein this year I'm definitely going through a shooters phase, and Overwatch looks brilliant fun. TF2 is almost totally innaccessible to a new player it seems, and Overwatch looks like it will fill that niche very well.

I'd love to give HOTS a try, but apparenly I'm the only person on earth who hasn't been able to get into the test play. No idea how that is.

Overwatch could be fun, but as I said, FPS isn't for me.  No interest in playing "healer" or "engineer" classes in a game where you become the primary target for kids with far better reflexes.  Wasn't fun in TF2 and I don't expect it to be fun here.  Relying on a team of strangers to work with that sort of coordination proved to be just an exercise in frustration for me. Far too many "don't protect the squishies, MAX DPS" people out there.

Game looks slick, though. I'll admit I'll give it a try if it's F2P but I'll drop out after a week or two, as I did with TF2.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Nija on November 09, 2014, 11:46:15 AM
Which game is this engineer description from?

"His main use is his ability to build, repair and upgrade turrets using scrap that he collects from dead enemies and allies. Upgraded turrets have their firepower increased, and level 3 turrets in particular have a rocket launcher added, making them particularly nasty."

A) Team Fortress for Quake 1.
B) Quakeworld Team Fortress
C) TFC for Half Life
D) TF2 on the HL2 engine
E) Overwatch

If you picked E, you are correct!!! Look at that fucking amazing Blizzard innovation! It's like a company with thousands of employees and the ability to budget BILLIONS OF DOLLARS came up with that description! LIGHT YEARS ahead of anything else.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Nija on November 09, 2014, 11:47:22 AM
But no primed grenades or multiple grenade types per class. That shit is way too confusing. Who is our target audience?! Ph. D candidates?!?!


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Maven on November 09, 2014, 11:48:23 AM
I thought that ass inflate was a mechanical representation of a negative movement modifier for Sniper Mode.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: tmp on November 09, 2014, 01:29:58 PM
So her ass inflates when she puts her goggles on? A bit unnecessary.
Looks like there's just some rig glitch happening there, like Merusk said -- you can see the front getting pushed out too, when it happens. For once I'm willing to give them benefit of doubt here.

It does look hilarious, tho :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Kail on November 09, 2014, 03:05:51 PM
Even for F13 this thread is depressingly negative.

Eh, it's too early to rule out most of the negative possibilities, but I think it still looks fun.

Personally, it looks neat to me, and I strongly suspect I'll be playing it... unless they screw it up somehow, which is why maybe I'm coming off as negative here.  It's like going to a restaurant, you can't tell if their food is good until you eat it, but you can easily point out ways it could possibly be bad.

I'm liking Heroes of the Storm, too, but more in a "I've got to kill twenty minutes" kind of way than the LoL/Dota way where it eats up all my playtime and I go to bed wondering about what kinds of builds would work better on a certain character.  I can get why it might not take the existing game's lunch money, but it still looks neat to me.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Venkman on November 09, 2014, 04:50:29 PM
Blizzard needed a new approach. Just making Diablo 2 and Starcraft again didn't work out for them, in part because their target audience already played the shit out of both back when we had the time to do so. But also in part because there's not a next generation of gamers looking to play the kind of stuff we played the shit out of in the 90s and 00s. That is why I think Titan died. It was less that they couldn't find the fun than there is less of that kind of player who wanted the kind of fun Blizzard thought to create during the days of peak WoW.

Queue the card game and the MOBA and now this.

Good for them. It'll fit my less involved needs and maybe help them evolve into a post neckbeard world  :awesome_for_real:

Also, people compare it to TF2. Sure as a class based FPS. But TF2 as a business? Is that even a thing? I mean, it came out in the same year as CoD4, the first Assassins Creed, the first Mass Effect. That's old. Kudos to anyone who can still be playing that seven years later, but I don't see the business of Overwatch in the context of TF2 any more than I see Far Cry 4 in the context of Crysis.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Kail on November 09, 2014, 05:01:15 PM
Also, people compare it to TF2. Sure as a class based FPS. But TF2 as a business? Is that even a thing? I mean, it came out in the same year as CoD4, the first Assassins Creed, the first Mass Effect. That's old. Kudos to anyone who can still be playing that seven years later, but I don't see the business of Overwatch in the context of TF2 any more than I see Far Cry 4 in the context of Crysis.

Not sure if I'm misinterpreting what you mean by this, but TF2 is pretty huge.  Currently it's the third most played game on Steam, (http://steamcharts.com/) behind Dota 2 and Counterstrike: GO (Civ 5 is still fifth, interestingly enough).  It's beating out CoD: Advanced Warfighter (on the PC, anyway).


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: K9 on November 09, 2014, 06:35:56 PM
Moreso than anyone but Valve, Blizzard's talent is making really well polished games. They may not be any good, but they'll still have that shine.

This is still kind of true, but this feels less true to me now.

Previously to me Blizzard polish meant graphical polish, performance polish, look and feel stuff (interface, sound, etc) as well as systems polish. I don't think that last one is the case any more. The systems are now often a weak point in games - to some degree this is true of Diablo, Starcraft and Heroes of the Storm.

They still know how to make the moment-to-moment action feel good and look nice but the weakness of these games is their core gameplay.

I agree with you, when i ay polish I really mean that all the front-end shiny is so much more shiny than what any other company turns out really. There will be exciting-looking cinematics, there will be an artistic UI and a wealth of visual eye candy. They also make games which are fairly coherent and intuitive (say what you like about Blizzard games, but none of them are hard to learn to play). It's only as you dig deeper that the problems reveal themselves


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Fordel on November 09, 2014, 07:23:43 PM
Also, people compare it to TF2. Sure as a class based FPS. But TF2 as a business? Is that even a thing? I mean, it came out in the same year as CoD4, the first Assassins Creed, the first Mass Effect. That's old. Kudos to anyone who can still be playing that seven years later, but I don't see the business of Overwatch in the context of TF2 any more than I see Far Cry 4 in the context of Crysis.

Not sure if I'm misinterpreting what you mean by this, but TF2 is pretty huge.  Currently it's the third most played game on Steam, (http://steamcharts.com/) behind Dota 2 and Counterstrike: GO (Civ 5 is still fifth, interestingly enough).  It's beating out CoD: Advanced Warfighter (on the PC, anyway).


Doesn't TF2 still make a ridiculous amount of money on the hat train to boot?


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Samprimary on November 09, 2014, 07:42:09 PM


LOL @ Blizzard managing class balance in a PvP setting. They couldn't do it in WoW, when their A team was still around (and still can't). There's zero chance that these back benchers can handle it.


I'll be the first to criticize blizzard for a ton of shit but as far as the mount fucking everest of balancing MMO classes goes I am having a hard time thinking of any studio which did it better overall.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Hutch on November 09, 2014, 10:02:36 PM


LOL @ Blizzard managing class balance in a PvP setting. They couldn't do it in WoW, when their A team was still around (and still can't). There's zero chance that these back benchers can handle it.


I'll be the first to criticize blizzard for a ton of shit but as far as the mount fucking everest of balancing MMO classes goes I am having a hard time thinking of any studio which did it better overall.

Saying that they did MMO PvP class balancing better than anyone else, is not the same thing as saying they've done a good job at it.

I'm not trying to have an argument with you about this. I am down on Blizzard right now. I have found it tiresome, over the years, to have otherwise fun and/or useful abilities removed/altered/nerfed because they made my class/build "too effective" in PvP. The upcoming expansion is just the latest round.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Goreschach on November 09, 2014, 11:06:48 PM


LOL @ Blizzard managing class balance in a PvP setting. They couldn't do it in WoW, when their A team was still around (and still can't). There's zero chance that these back benchers can handle it.


I'll be the first to criticize blizzard for a ton of shit but as far as the mount fucking everest of balancing MMO classes goes I am having a hard time thinking of any studio which did it better overall.

Saying that they did MMO PvP class balancing better than anyone else, is not the same thing as saying they've done a good job at it.


Your point being? If they've done MMO balance better than other companies, even if still shit, that suggests that they're better at balance than other companies.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Maven on November 09, 2014, 11:45:27 PM
Let's say there is a scale to measure the quality of Class Balance from 1 to 10. This scale only applies to WoW and similar MMOs. If the industry average is 3, and Blizzard is 5 (the highest recorded), then we should ignore how Blizzard relates to the industry average and still consider Blizzard's class balance skills shit.

That's what I took out of it, which isn't fair to Blizzard. The inherent differences between PVE and PVP fused into the same world using the same classes, skills and itemization ... I don't even think a theoretical model *exists* for what class balance would look like. Does one that doesn't turn the game into pre-Trammel UO?

The only model that comes to mind is a hard split in a character's PVE and PVP skills, items, currencies, etc. Something like The Old Republic's divide between PVE and Galatic Starfighter. That is, don't even bother with the fusion.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Azazel on November 10, 2014, 01:15:24 AM
LOL @ Blizzard managing class balance in a PvP setting. They couldn't do it in WoW, when their A team was still around (and still can't). There's zero chance that these back benchers can handle it.

To my mind, the biggest issue with WoW's class balance was (and still is) Too Many Masters. When they started to nerf PvE abilities because they didn't like the way they affected PvP it was bad enough. When they started trying to turn WoW-Arenas into an e-sport and started fucking with balance even further because of Arenas, WoW's overall balance just got worse.

With something like this in a TF3-type Team-PvP-FPS, it seems a lot more straightforward than the juggling that they have done so badly in WoW.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: calapine on November 10, 2014, 02:04:06 PM
What's balanced is relative anyway.

I played WoW during the vanilla days as Warrior (first arms, later fury) and Warlock and was pretty content about how the balance was.  :grin:


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: MrHat on November 10, 2014, 04:18:06 PM
You guys are crazy.

This looks super fun.  Yes it's an FPS and cartoony and what not.  But it'll probably be free and it's Blizzard so there will be hundreds of thousands of people to play with for a decent amount of time.

I bet it will take less than 30s from when you want to play the game to actually playing the game. 

It's instant gratification.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Nonentity on November 10, 2014, 07:51:40 PM
I played this 6-7 times at Blizzcon.

It's really fun. It will be painful to play solo, much like TF2 is to me, but the game is a good mash of TF2 and a MOBA, but with higher lethality. Even for a pre-alpha show floor demo, every part of it so far drips Blizzard polish money.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Megrim on November 10, 2014, 10:14:23 PM
Watched the trailer. The only thing it did was make me reinstall TF2.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Venkman on November 10, 2014, 11:11:56 PM
Also, people compare it to TF2. Sure as a class based FPS. But TF2 as a business? Is that even a thing? I mean, it came out in the same year as CoD4, the first Assassins Creed, the first Mass Effect. That's old. Kudos to anyone who can still be playing that seven years later, but I don't see the business of Overwatch in the context of TF2 any more than I see Far Cry 4 in the context of Crysis.

Not sure if I'm misinterpreting what you mean by this, but TF2 is pretty huge.  Currently it's the third most played game on Steam, (http://steamcharts.com/) behind Dota 2 and Counterstrike: GO (Civ 5 is still fifth, interestingly enough).  It's beating out CoD: Advanced Warfighter (on the PC, anyway).

Nah you didn't misinterpre, I just got it way wrong. Apparently this is more like the WoW of class based FPS than just an old FPS :-) In other words, I guess TF2 as a business is a thing.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Samprimary on November 11, 2014, 03:07:12 AM


LOL @ Blizzard managing class balance in a PvP setting. They couldn't do it in WoW, when their A team was still around (and still can't). There's zero chance that these back benchers can handle it.


I'll be the first to criticize blizzard for a ton of shit but as far as the mount fucking everest of balancing MMO classes goes I am having a hard time thinking of any studio which did it better overall.

Saying that they did MMO PvP class balancing better than anyone else, is not the same thing as saying they've done a good job at it.


Your point being? If they've done MMO balance better than other companies, even if still shit, that suggests that they're better at balance than other companies.

It's pretty much my take on it. If time has proved anything about MMO's, it's that it is a veritable mount everest of balancing impossibility that few have really ever managed to a satisfactory or half-satisfactory degree, and even if it proves to be an insurmountable task, Blizzard has learned a lot in the process of (probably, unless i'm missing an MMO that did it better) getting the furthest away from base camp, so to speak.

Not to mention that they've got people there still maintaining one of the most iconic balancing acts of all time, between the races of starcraft.

As complicated as a weirdo mixup shuffle balancing act between team deathmatch and MOBA sounds, I take this away from it:

1. Blizzard seems like they are among a short list of groups that might possibly actually get it right enough that the game's very fun, and
2. There is no opportunity cost to us in their effort, or that blizzard is re-purposing their work on Titan and giving this a shot. It's just a chance of something cool. So, yay?


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Ironwood on November 11, 2014, 05:49:16 AM
The opposite end of that spectrum, of course, is 'Fuck Blizzard, No More Money Ever.'

Of course, that's purely my stance and not even shared by the people IN MY OWN HOUSE.

Hey ho.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Samprimary on November 11, 2014, 08:57:37 AM
You might just luck out in that department and this could be a vanity-powered f2p thing, wherein you can play for free until you want a hat.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Ironwood on November 11, 2014, 09:06:03 AM
These things are never free. Somehow, you always end up fucked.

Also, I have very poor impulse control as Wolverine and Iron Man (and his 3 suits) will tell you...


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Fordel on November 11, 2014, 01:06:22 PM
The more I watch the cinematic the more I just want it to be an actual movie or series.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on November 11, 2014, 02:16:31 PM
The more I watch the cinematic the more I just want it to be an actual movie or series.  :why_so_serious:

Good news, then.  Metzen was Hyping-up the "LORE LORE LORE" at the "overwatch origins" talk at Blizzcon. To the point that he and the guy he was on stage with said something dumb about the background of one particular map and how important it was.  In an FPS.  The actual line was something like, "And if you stop for a second and look up at <location> you'll see <macguffin> which refers you back to <storyitem> so you can see just how deep this world is!"

It was talk like that which made it very obvious to me a lot of this game is recycled from Titan. Very little of the audience cares about lore in a FPS PVP game beyond, "Kill this team so you win."  I'm sure there's some hardcore Scout fanfic out there for TF2 that explores his intricate back story, but I'm willing to bet very few give a rats ass about it.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Fordel on November 11, 2014, 02:42:47 PM
If (big if) Blizz could like, make shorts on par with the TF2 shorts Valve puts out, I would totally be on board.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: schild on November 11, 2014, 03:07:12 PM
Just figured out this was about a new game.

Will Shoulderpads replace Hats?

Let's not find out.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Maven on November 11, 2014, 04:05:01 PM
I don't like that man. I'll spare you the rant.

How did Titanfall fare with its integrated storyline?


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on November 11, 2014, 05:15:26 PM
What man? Dude-bro-Mary-Sue-Factory?

It didn't. Though people seem to care about Destiny's story, but it's more RPG FPS than FPS Team Kill game.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Maven on November 11, 2014, 05:51:07 PM
I can't be objective with any perspective on him. He is high off his own kool-aid, and everyone drinks like the blood of Mannoroth because he's the boss they need to please.

I have difficulty accepting that there will be more going in to Blizzard games thinking Metzen is a genius because they don't know better.

I was like that, then I grew up. Metzen's unique quality that keeps him in his position are that all his friends are fellow executives, co-founders, and Art Leads. Which, I guess that's there right to keep their bud on.

Blizzard is a family company, in that once you go in, they'll make you think you're family, unless you betray the family, then you're shit-canned. But they try to take care of all their employees to the best of their ability. Most people leave of their own volition.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: lamaros on November 11, 2014, 07:40:43 PM
I don't like Teamfortress, but I will give this a go before I start slagging it off.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Paelos on November 11, 2014, 10:15:33 PM
I can't be objective with any perspective on him. He is high off his own kool-aid, and everyone drinks like the blood of Mannoroth because he's the boss they need to please.

I have difficulty accepting that there will be more going in to Blizzard games thinking Metzen is a genius because they don't know better.

I was like that, then I grew up. Metzen's unique quality that keeps him in his position are that all his friends are fellow executives, co-founders, and Art Leads. Which, I guess that's there right to keep their bud on.

Blizzard is a family company, in that once you go in, they'll make you think you're family, unless you betray the family, then you're shit-canned. But they try to take care of all their employees to the best of their ability. Most people leave of their own volition.

Good, you should hate him. The rest of the normal players do at this point.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: UnSub on November 12, 2014, 06:59:47 AM
If (big if) Blizz could like, make shorts on par with the TF2 shorts Valve puts out, I would totally be on board.

The cinematic trailer looked good, but the content was damn weird - "Here's a game about killer mercenaries that children will find awesome!".


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Fordel on November 12, 2014, 11:18:57 AM
How is that weird? Seems entirely believable to me!


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Segoris on November 12, 2014, 07:00:59 PM
Outside of being stylized, this does not remind me of TF2 in any way. This is more Transformers: War for Cyberton imo, but with a few more classes available to a team. This is a good thing as TF:WfC was fun as hell in multiplayer, and I say that as someone that prefers larger teams (10v10 or 12v12) but TF:WfC did 5v5 or 6v6. A lot of that came down to map design and having maps large enough to allow for multiple types of playstyles while being small enough that a 5v5 or 6v6 still felt fast paced. Good thing for Overwatch that Blizz has been pretty solid in terms of map creation. The biggest flaw that I remember for their maps was that Horde/Alliance may have been able to reach a certain point before the other team could (like in Arathi Basin) due to distance being a hair shorter.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Samprimary on November 13, 2014, 01:15:05 AM
even with the character hammering a turret into being? or the flying medic?


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Nija on November 13, 2014, 01:22:12 AM
Really? Doesn't remind you of TF2? A level 3 engineer turret that shoots rockets doesn't remind you of TF2?

What the fuck DOES remind of you TF2?!?


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Segoris on November 13, 2014, 04:43:09 AM
even with the character hammering a turret into being? or the flying medic?

Engineer hammering and leveling turrets sure, turrets in general not really. Flying medic I associate more with Global Agenda (with their healing streams and jetpacks) than TF2, mostly because of the flying part.

Really? Doesn't remind you of TF2? A level 3 engineer turret that shoots rockets doesn't remind you of TF2?

What the fuck DOES remind of you TF2?!?

Really. It doesn't remind me of TF2 for gameplay. Turrets and rockets are not exlusive to tf2.

What does remind me of tf2 is a slower based, larger team format with a lot less higher tech gadgets (ex: the area based shield the tank-type dude put on a capture point, teleportation, flight) that are normally found in much different fps games than tf2. All that and hat stores. Global Agenda, Loadout, Transformers, etc all come to mind before tf2.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Sky on November 13, 2014, 11:12:16 AM
I was pretty stoked by the Infinity stylization (Blizz again stealing a tabletop wargame IP surprise). But I loath the genre. Meh.

(http://bluetablepainting.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/280651-0392-maqueta1-2.jpg)


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Megrim on November 13, 2014, 04:47:37 PM
Mmmm, delicious Zerat.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Ginaz on January 12, 2015, 07:22:58 PM
Seems Blizzard has run into a snag with the US Patent & Trademark Office.  Someone else has filled a patent application WRT trademarking "Overwatch" in July 2014, several months before Blizzard did their big reveal at BlizzCon in Nov., for "goods and services related to game software and similar".  Both applications have been suspended as of now.  It'll be interesting to see if Blizzard can buy their way out of this, presumably giving the other company a truck full of money, or if they're forced to change the name.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=146785316&postcount=1


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Tannhauser on January 12, 2015, 07:40:30 PM
That's some good due diligence there Blizzard.

This game looks...OK.  If they have a class for slow reflex folks and it's f2p then I'll jump in at least to try it out.  But yeah, just not feeling it right now.  I don't see a lot of innovation here.



Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Kail on January 12, 2015, 08:41:05 PM
Seems Blizzard has run into a snag with the US Patent & Trademark Office.  Someone else has filled a patent application WRT trademarking "Overwatch" in July 2014, several months before Blizzard did their big reveal at BlizzCon in Nov., for "goods and services related to game software and similar".  Both applications have been suspended as of now.  It'll be interesting to see if Blizzard can buy their way out of this, presumably giving the other company a truck full of money, or if they're forced to change the name.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=146785316&postcount=1

If I were in Blizzard's shoes, I'd probably just change the name.  I don't know that the name "Overwatch" is particularly relevant to the game (aside from the fact that it does involve dudes shooting each other).  Blizzard Dota became Blizzard All-Stars became Heroes of the Storm, so I don't see any major problems renaming Overwatch since they're still so early.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Tannhauser on January 12, 2015, 09:26:07 PM
Well, the heroes team is called 'Overwatch' so yeah...kind of relevant.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Paelos on January 12, 2015, 09:39:48 PM
Well, the heroes team is called 'Overwatch' so yeah...kind of relevant.

So call them Highwatch or something.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: slog on October 07, 2015, 06:25:03 PM
Anyone still paying attention to this?  It looks like it could be good.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Trippy on October 07, 2015, 06:25:59 PM
I signed up for the beta but no invite yet.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Setanta on October 09, 2015, 02:14:08 AM
Same. It's almost as if the game is going to Starcraft:Ghost on us :D



Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Nebu on October 15, 2015, 12:54:22 PM
Ellohime is casting gameplay of Overwatch on Twitch right now.  I really don't get the hype.  Then again, not a huge fan of spammy FPS games.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on October 15, 2015, 01:23:07 PM
The hype is among kids and FPS fans. A lot of us old farts were generally "Meh." or realized our reflexes were shit and weren't interested. I think the character approach is a nice touch and will deliver Blizzard ALL KINDS of new marketables but it's definitely not for me.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Rasix on October 15, 2015, 01:26:49 PM
I'll try it out.  But MOBA and MOBA-likes (this is a FPS/MOBA hybrid, or am I wrong?) almost require as much time commitment as MMOs, unless you really like getting your ass kicked.  My reflexes/coordination at this age are probably barely passable for this kind of content.

I'll give it a try, but I imagine it'll be like my HOTS experience where I get into the tutorial and quickly realize I don't want to spend any significant amount of time on this title.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Nebu on October 15, 2015, 01:28:37 PM
It's an FPS with a character grind and the ability to change your toon mid game.  It's very team objective oriented. 

Definitely 95% FPS and only a wee bit of MOBA


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Trippy on October 15, 2015, 01:28:49 PM
Ellohime is casting gameplay of Overwatch on Twitch right now.  I really don't get the hype.  Then again, not a huge fan of spammy FPS games.
I played a lot of QuakeWorld Team Fortress back in the day and I enjoyed TF 2 too. I will give this a try.

I'll try it out.  But MOBA and MOBA-likes (this is a FPS/MOBA hybrid, or am I wrong?) almost require as much time commitment as MMOs, unless you really like getting your ass kicked.  My reflexes/coordination at this age are probably barely passable for this kind of content.
This is not a MOBA.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Rasix on October 15, 2015, 01:32:56 PM
Ohh OK.  So, like in Team Fortress I'll do good until others mechanics catch up with my inherent ability set learned over the years.

Still, the videos look OK.  I mean, it's going to be free to play, right? Why not give it a shot.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Draegan on October 15, 2015, 02:37:18 PM
The only moba element is that each character has three abilities and an ultimate. I don't think there is any character grind though.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Nebu on October 15, 2015, 02:41:34 PM
The only moba element is that each character has three abilities and an ultimate. I don't think there is any character grind though.

On the stream the characters leveled from xp.  I'm not sure what that did, but it seemed to be a part of the game.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Draegan on October 15, 2015, 02:44:19 PM
The only moba element is that each character has three abilities and an ultimate. I don't think there is any character grind though.

On the stream the characters leveled from xp.  I'm not sure what that did, but it seemed to be a part of the game.

Oh, didn't notice that, but I had meant out of a match though.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: kaid on October 16, 2015, 01:40:26 PM
It's an FPS with a character grind and the ability to change your toon mid game.  It's very team objective oriented. 

Definitely 95% FPS and only a wee bit of MOBA

It is pretty much team fortress 2 taken out and polished a whole bunch with a larger cast of character options. Still given how much play i got out of team fortress I can see playing this and enjoying it.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: kaid on October 16, 2015, 01:41:35 PM
The only moba element is that each character has three abilities and an ultimate. I don't think there is any character grind though.

On the stream the characters leveled from xp.  I'm not sure what that did, but it seemed to be a part of the game.

I believe the leveling up is mostly cosmetic unlocks of skins/color options/ character portrait type stuff.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Malakili on October 16, 2015, 02:06:00 PM
If I can play this without having to unlock heroes to play ala Heroes of the Storm, I could see myself playing the crap out of it.  It's been since TF2 that we've had a really exceptional team based shooter come out, and I'm on the lookout.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: SurfD on October 16, 2015, 11:14:55 PM
I am willing to bet it will work exactly the same way as HotS as far as character unlock goes.  You will have X free hero slots on a weekly rotation, and then you play the game to unlock more heroes / skins / whatever.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Malakili on October 16, 2015, 11:24:12 PM
I am willing to bet it will work exactly the same way as HotS as far as character unlock goes.  You will have X free hero slots on a weekly rotation, and then you play the game to unlock more heroes / skins / whatever.

I feel like this would do TERRIBLE things to the balance of a class based shooter. 


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Samprimary on October 16, 2015, 11:46:31 PM
Yeah, like, I'm pretty sure I would wreck the shit out of people with pharah because the entire character package is inherently styled to my FPS strengths ~AND~ her primary weapon is essentially the Quake rocket launcher, which remains absolutely hardcoded into my head

But if they go with this weird sort of tiered shit where she's an entry level scrub, that'll just suck


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Draegan on October 17, 2015, 02:44:21 PM
None of these games have tiers, it just that players stick heroes/champs into tiers based on their balance (or lack of) and the current meta. I'm not a big FPS person, never have been, but I'm looking forward to this I think.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Falconeer on October 18, 2015, 09:47:54 AM
It's either this or Hirez's Paladins. They seem identical so it's probably a matter of which one comes out first. I am curious about both, although I find the art direction pretty "meh" in both instances.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Maledict on October 18, 2015, 09:56:39 AM
I am willing to bet it will work exactly the same way as HotS as far as character unlock goes.  You will have X free hero slots on a weekly rotation, and then you play the game to unlock more heroes / skins / whatever.

They have said that you wont pay to unlock heroes in Overwatch, so it won't be like Heroes it seems.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Nebu on October 27, 2015, 02:47:37 PM
Anyone here playing in the beta today?  I'd be interested in hearing some feedback.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: MrHat on October 27, 2015, 06:45:41 PM
Looks fun and fast paced from what I could surmise from twitch.  It's TF2 and it's been a while since I've played TF2.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: MrHat on November 06, 2015, 04:44:12 PM
Apparently this is going to cost $40+ and you'll still have to buy things later.

Hilarious.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on November 06, 2015, 05:26:10 PM
ROTFL.

No.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Trippy on November 06, 2015, 05:29:38 PM
If I get all the heroes up front for $40 I'm down with that. I don't like the HotS model.

Edit: get


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on November 06, 2015, 05:37:08 PM
Quote
and you'll still have to buy things later

I would guess that with this being the model all you'll get is two or three heroes.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Trippy on November 06, 2015, 05:40:28 PM
Or it could be cosmetic stuff.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: slog on November 06, 2015, 05:51:47 PM
One of the things I like is being an adult and being able to afford things.  Hopefully a 40 to 60 dollar price tags keeps some of the hackers and script kiddies away.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on November 06, 2015, 06:06:25 PM
Not likely. It doesn't keep them out of COD and BF.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: slog on November 06, 2015, 06:11:22 PM
https://www.reddit.com/r/Overwatch/comments/3rtf6w/there_will_be_no_more_heroes_at_launch_no_hero/

Quote
As part of our interview with Game Director for Overwatch, Jeff Kaplan, we have confirmed that there are no additional heroes planned for release. 21 Heroes represents the entirety of the release roster for Overwatch. At this time, the development team does not have a finalized planned for releasing additional content and heroes.
"There will be no more heroes at launch. At launch its 21 heroes: what you see is what you get." Jeff said. "Whether in the future Overwatch has more heroes is sort of a TBD to us."
"A lot of this is... there's not like this master plan we know exactly what we want to try. Let's see the health of the game and where it's at. Let's see where the fans are at, and what they want."
"Are they feeling like, 'now that I have Genji, D.Va, and Mei, I feel overwhelmed and there's too many Heroes... or is it like 'Wow the game's really fun but like it's starting to feel stale, can you guys add something?' We're gonna gauge it from there."
"There's not going to be a heroes store at launch," Jeff reiterated.
Jeff confirmed that the Overwatch team is not going to be moving on after release, and plans to continue to support the game.
More information from our interview will be posted as we write up the full Q&A. Stay tuned to /r/Overwatch for more information as BlizzCon 2015 goes o


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: HaemishM on November 06, 2015, 06:28:28 PM
None of that makes a lick of fucking sense. I know Blizzard doesn't hate money. So why would they even consider releasing a MOBA like game without a plan for additional DLC they can micro-charge for?


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Trippy on November 06, 2015, 06:35:27 PM
Just cause they don't have more heroes currently planned doesn't mean there won't be things to buy. See: Team Fortress 2.



Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: HaemishM on November 06, 2015, 06:36:50 PM
Yes, but TF2 had its microtrans bolted onto it long after release. This is something that fairly cries out for a heroes store and no matter how much cosmetic shit they have planned, why limit yourself to pennies when you can have dollars?


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Trippy on November 06, 2015, 06:38:42 PM
Hero skins are not cheap.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Soulflame on November 06, 2015, 08:38:33 PM
It's up for pre-sale on battle.net right now.

Cheapest edition is $40.  More expensive ones for skins and... stuff?  I dunno, I didn't look that closely.

PS4 pricing link. (http://us.battle.net/overwatch/en/buy/?platform=ps4&utm_source=app-play&utm_medium=internal&utm_content=ps4&utm_campaign=bnet-overwatch-presales)

PASS.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Malakili on November 06, 2015, 09:09:56 PM
A normal box price.  I'm officially surprised and pleased.  There is a pretty good chance I will actually play this now.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Draegan on November 07, 2015, 06:58:45 PM
I don't understand how any of you are functioning adults. Oh no a 40$ game that might be fun. Pass on that price tag!


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: schild on November 07, 2015, 08:09:28 PM
Draegan, do you just like, come to f13 when you have some unfunny fat aggression to throw at people? Like, you downed an entire Hot N Ready by yourself, feel gross and need to take a dump on someone?

Stop being a tool.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Draegan on November 08, 2015, 06:54:17 AM
 :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Malakili on November 08, 2015, 11:45:40 AM
Pre-purchasing does not come with beta access right now, correct? 


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Quinton on November 08, 2015, 06:03:50 PM
Pre-purchasing does not come with beta access right now, correct? 

As far as I can tell, no it doesn't.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Samprimary on November 08, 2015, 07:06:51 PM
I don't understand how any of you are functioning adults. Oh no a 40$ game that might be fun. Pass on that price tag!

who here was saying this


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: MrHat on November 09, 2015, 09:42:09 AM
Ya, I don't care about $40 if its fun and I play it for more than a few hours.

What I care about is yet again Activision trying to find new and exciting ways to monetize after the box sale, while still including the box sale.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Malakili on November 09, 2015, 09:44:26 AM

What I care about is yet again Activision trying to find new and exciting ways to monetize after the box sale, while still including the box sale.

Pretty much everyone is doing this now.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Nebu on November 09, 2015, 09:51:38 AM
I'm fine with a box cost.  It's a far better option than having to grind all of the heroes.

I don't know why I'm buying this.  My FPS skills are complete garbage.   


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: MrHat on November 09, 2015, 09:53:21 AM

What I care about is yet again Activision trying to find new and exciting ways to monetize after the box sale, while still including the box sale.

Pretty much everyone is doing this now.

Can I still be upset?


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Malakili on November 09, 2015, 09:55:51 AM

What I care about is yet again Activision trying to find new and exciting ways to monetize after the box sale, while still including the box sale.

Pretty much everyone is doing this now.

Can I still be upset?

You may, yes.

Seriously though, as someone who feels no particular compulsion to buy cosmetic items, a box price is a welcome choice.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: slog on November 10, 2015, 08:59:07 AM
I'm fine with a box cost.  It's a far better option than having to grind all of the heroes.

I don't know why I'm buying this.  My FPS skills are complete garbage.   

There seem to be some classes that don't require you to be a Railgun god. 


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Samprimary on November 10, 2015, 04:27:43 PM
Yeah, there is some options that let you be totally awesome without needing to be able to have those twitch hitscan reflexes. Symmetra, bastion, rein, mercy, to a lesser extent junkrat and pharah can be played with zoning aoe.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Paelos on November 11, 2015, 10:30:53 AM
Seriously though, as someone who feels no particular compulsion to buy cosmetic items, a box price is a welcome choice.

I love this model. Let the suckers who care about looking like a slut fund my cost. IDC.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on November 16, 2015, 12:26:53 PM
Anyone diddled around with this at all?

Wife got in the beta which means my 12 year old's been playing. He's having a blast but sucks worse than I do at FPS. He still managed to get "kill of the game" which he proudly told me after work on Friday.  :awesome_for_real:  Apparently it does replays at the ends of matches or somesuch. He didn't want to try any more and show me all weekend, having gone back to playing Minecraft with his cousin instead.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Nebu on November 16, 2015, 01:54:12 PM
Wife got in the beta ...

It appears that you have to be a streamer or female to get into the beta now.  :why_so_serious:

I have been watching a few streamers play this and it looks like a great distraction.  If you're on Twitch, give it a watch.  Seems to be pretty team-oriented without relying so much on pure twitch. 


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: luckton on November 19, 2015, 05:37:08 PM
Check your Bnet account or application. A lot of people got approved to play in this weekend's beta test.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Malakili on November 19, 2015, 06:00:33 PM
Woo! Installing now!


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on November 19, 2015, 09:07:36 PM
Time to see if I suck as badly as I expect I will.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Paelos on November 19, 2015, 09:08:49 PM
Check your Bnet account or application. A lot of people got approved to play in this weekend's beta test.

I got a rock.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Quinton on November 19, 2015, 10:10:07 PM
Client installed for the weekend beta thing.  I'll probably be able to tear myself away from Fallout 4 to check this out for a bit...


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Segoris on November 20, 2015, 05:00:37 PM
I'm playing this today, and yeah I'm standing by my earlier comment that this is much less like TF2 than some may think. Between smaller teams, very few class similarities (there are only two out of twenty-one classes very close to TF2's), and faster gameplay on smaller maps it's just not like TF2

That said, it can be fun, but I don't see anything that is going to make me want to buy this or play it long term as someone not on a competitive team.

If I had to change one thing about OW then I'd add game-rounds instead of this one and done game style. Currently, you play one match then it's basically just tossing you back in a match maker by scrambling the teams (if people even stay). If they setup an option for a best of 5 series with less downtime between matches that would get me to want to play more than 10mins at a time. Even a capture the flag or an arena would be welcome. Oh, and the option to pick which game type you want to play....that would go a long ways


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on November 20, 2015, 07:32:10 PM
I'm glad this had a beta. I suck even worse than I thought I would and now I'm not even a bit tempted.

Seriously only 3 kills my first match and like 12 deaths. Goddamn I'm terrible.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Draegan on November 21, 2015, 07:59:07 AM
I think paladins is a better game.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Pennilenko on November 21, 2015, 08:45:55 AM
I think paladins is a better game.
Yes. I agree.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Kail on November 21, 2015, 02:37:42 PM
I think paladins is a better game.

Can anyone elaborate on this?  Or is Paladins under NDA?  I'm thinking of grabbing Overwatch, but the fact that preorders don't get beta access has me hesitating, so any excuse to jump to a competitor would be helpful.

Beause so far I'm really loving this.  The characters are all really unique and mechanically interesting, the graphics are pretty, the maps are interesting (though I hope they add some more objective types).  The game is a lot less stressful than HotS / Dota / LoL and I'm having a lot of fun.  I'm probably wrong about this, but it feels like there hasn't been much movement in the FPS genre lately outside of the obligatory "realistic" CoD and Battlefield games and this game definitely scratches that itch for me.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Malakili on November 21, 2015, 03:08:43 PM
So, I think I like it.  The most important thing is that movement and shooting mechanics feel basically good.  Not QUITE TF2 levels, but close enough.

They could use bigger maps with more variety.  Their layout isn't bad, the level design is fine, but they do get samey very quickly.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Draegan on November 21, 2015, 04:27:08 PM
Maps are more open in paladins and the card system is kind of fun. It makes each game different.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Fabricated on November 21, 2015, 07:37:37 PM
Overwatch is absolutely like a boiled-down TF2. smaller teams, smaller maps, and skills/weapons are designed for each class to pidgeonhole you into a role so you don't get retards trying to do frontline combat as medics. You do what your hero is designed for or you fail, miserably.

Very slick interface, presentation as blizzard standards.

Feels really casual-ish though so far; I can't imagine them managing to turn this into an e-sport but who knows.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: MrHat on November 21, 2015, 08:36:04 PM
The game feels and looks amazing.

Matchmaking is going to kill it though.

Also, I had a dude on my team screaming the whole game, I could mute other players but not him.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Kail on November 21, 2015, 08:37:40 PM
Overwatch is absolutely like a boiled-down TF2. smaller teams, smaller maps, and skills/weapons are designed for each class to pidgeonhole you into a role so you don't get retards trying to do frontline combat as medics. You do what your hero is designed for or you fail, miserably.

Very slick interface, presentation as blizzard standards.

Feels really casual-ish though so far; I can't imagine them managing to turn this into an e-sport but who knows.

I don't know about "boiled down," personally.  It seems like each character has at least as much depth as a character in TF2, except instead of having two or three weapons they have one weapon and two or three skills.  And Overwatch has more than 20 characters to TF2s 9.  And as for combat medics, it feels like all the support classes (except Mercy, probably) are better hybrids than the TF2 medic.

Not crazy about the "ultimates" personally, a lot of them just feel like "fuck you" buttons.  Junkrat's fucking tire thing, for example.  It feels like they're in there to give players who are getting the shit kicked out of them a chance to feel badass for a second, but it really fucks with the flow of the game for a lot of characters.  Waiting around for an ult to charge is really tiresome, and getting killed by an enemy ult always feels super cheap.

Kind of unsure what the point of the post game voting screen is.  You give players kudos (I think?) and... that's it?  Does it track them somewhere or is there some reason to care about them?  It seems to me that supports and tanks hardly ever get thumbs up, while a mediocre offense player will often get five or six because the featured play which you get shown right before that is always a multikill and it's usually offense players who get those.  Had one run as Lucio where I healed 50% of the total damage of the ENTIRE ENEMY TEAM while going something like 7-1 and got nothing.  

The team balance thing is nice, but I wonder what the deal is with "needs more builders" because AFAIK there is only one builder, Tor, and he's inconsistent as hell.  You either get your turret up to max and wreck everything, or you don't and spend the entire match in zero scrap hell trying to score kills with his dippy pea shooter.  And he's the only one who can fill that role, unless the game counts Symmetra as a builder, and it shouldn't, because her turrets seem super weak and her teleporter is not defensively useful a lot of the time.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Malakili on November 22, 2015, 11:52:39 AM


Not crazy about the "ultimates" personally, a lot of them just feel like "fuck you" buttons.  Junkrat's fucking tire thing, for example.  It feels like they're in there to give players who are getting the shit kicked out of them a chance to feel badass for a second, but it really fucks with the flow of the game for a lot of characters.  Waiting around for an ult to charge is really tiresome, and getting killed by an enemy ult always feels super cheap.

Yeah, the "play of the match" is almost always someone hitting Q and 3 people dying. Woo, the plays, the plays.

I've taken to playing Junkrat almost non-stop now.  I played a lot of demoman in league play in TF2 and junkrat is basically a straight rip off of demo, great mobility included.  The fact that he gets a trap to mitigate his one weakness (quick heroes up close) is just gravy.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Fabricated on November 22, 2015, 02:38:53 PM
This game is pretty fun. Don't know if I'll buy it because I get this feeling that its design exacerbates the problems of pubbie queues vs organized groups. One if frustrating because everyone is retarded, the other requires an insanely high level of play to be competitive.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Setanta on November 23, 2015, 12:17:14 AM
Played a friends version today. It's not TF2 but it's not... as much fun as Paladins. The latter feels rougher in terms of UI and frontend and has a very liimited number of characters but it's just more fun and I'm digging the card system. Paladins' map feels a lot better in terms of gameplay flow. I'm not surprised because Hires has learned from Smite (although I still haven't forgiven them for the mess they made of Tribes).

I'm hoping Overwatch doesn't ship in this format because at the back of my mind is the thought that these are Titan assets they are trying to salvage and this is the first real Blizzard attempt at this genre based on a game that didn't work and TBH, it just doesn't feel like a game I will commit to.



Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Samprimary on November 23, 2015, 12:31:41 AM
This game's gonna get stuck in a trap where pickup players and low skill players will just mash their heads against defense and fail and feel bad, whereas good players in coordinated teams will be able to slam right through defenses.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: MrHat on November 23, 2015, 08:16:08 AM
This game's gonna get stuck in a trap where pickup players and low skill players will just mash their heads against defense and fail and feel bad, whereas good players in coordinated teams will be able to slam right through defenses.

My thoughts exactly. I don't have faith that Blizzard can figure out the matchmaking.

That said, I had a blast playing it this weekend. The movement skills feel great and the weapons feel solid to fire.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Malakili on November 23, 2015, 08:45:08 AM
This game's gonna get stuck in a trap where pickup players and low skill players will just mash their heads against defense and fail and feel bad, whereas good players in coordinated teams will be able to slam right through defenses.

I basically found it to be equivalent to TF2 in this regard.  As I was saying in my previous post, I was playing a lot of junk rat and a lot of times I would take out a turret and / or Bastion and my team would just... sit there... instead of attacking the point.  By the time they figured out what was going on he'd just respawn.  But you get those onesided matches in TF2 sometimes too, and it's fine.  Although there things like scramble teams exist and with players dropping in and out of the server all the time it's a bit different.  TF2 also has the ubercharge, so that plays a big role in breaking/holding defenses.  You know, I'm just talking myself into reinstalling TF2 right now.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Fabricated on November 23, 2015, 09:58:31 AM
There's also heroes who basically gigantic traps for bad players like Bastion who seems really great until you come up against people who know how to play. Then there's heroes with really high skill ceilings that when reached will let people basically just pubstomp with relative impunity.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Malakili on November 23, 2015, 10:38:56 AM
There's also heroes who basically gigantic traps for bad players like Bastion who seems really great until you come up against people who know how to play. Then there's heroes with really high skill ceilings that when reached will let people basically just pubstomp with relative impunity.

Again, a similarity, not difference, with TF2.  My prediction is we see a lot of Luscio and Mercy combined with a lot of Parah and Junkrat.  Tracer probably has a role here somewhere because I can't imagine a character with that much mobility not managing to find some place (see also: scout).  Having a single tank actually does make a fair amount of sense, but I am not sure which one I think is likely to play that role yet.  D. Va's ultimate is very strong and that might play a role in displacing enemy teams, Reinhardt's shield is probably absurdly good when used with a team that actually knows what it is doing, but I haven't seen that in practice yet.



Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on November 23, 2015, 11:53:47 AM
Reinhardt seemed absurdly good in The one game I played. His pin charge is almost an insta kill in anyone and is how I got my three kills.  His shield recharged fast and takes a ton of damage to bring down and has a wide field of blockage.

His problem is he IS a tank and public groups have no idea how to teamwork. I'd have the shield going and my team would either hang back or fire into it instead of focusing on the enemy who had to come around the sides now.

The opposite side picked up a Reinhardt after he saw me pin and block and they just decimated us after that.

Yeah it was only one game but seeing a team with a few working together against my own pug of Rambos they just stopped us cold as soon as they realized what a tank does.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Malakili on November 23, 2015, 12:59:26 PM
I did see some neat synergy with Zarya and D.Va with both heroes using their ults in succession to pull the entire team into the blast radius (Zarya's ultimate is a black hole thing, D.Vas is setting her mech to self destruct killing everyone in the blast radius).  I suspect there are some other synergies/"wombo combos" out there that need to be worked out.  That particular combo broke our defense at one of the capture points.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Nebu on November 23, 2015, 01:10:09 PM
I think Overwatch is going to be to FPS what HOTS is to MOBAs.  It's a fun little game.  It's just not going to live up to Blizzard's expectations.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Kail on November 23, 2015, 04:42:25 PM
Reinhardt seemed absurdly good in The one game I played.

Yeah, he seemed basically like the "win" button for payload objectives.  Stand with the cart, put up your shield, and let the rest of your team shoot around you.  If you've got a decent healer who glances your way every few minutes you never die, and neither will anyone behind you, which is a huge help if your team doesn't have great coordination (which you need with most of the other defensive specials).

Played with Symmetra some more and I'm liking her more and more.  Her teleporter isn't super useful in a lot of situations, but her shields always are.  Her turrets are nowhere near Tor's level, but she can plop them down constantly and on ambush surfaces like walls/ceilings for some nasty traps.  Her weapon is a lot better than Tor's gun, too, I find.  Tears up almost anyone at close range and can smash stationary targets at long range if you charge it.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: lamaros on November 23, 2015, 06:33:46 PM
I think Overwatch is going to be to FPS what HOTS is to MOBAs.  It's a fun little game.  It's just not going to live up to Blizzard's expectations.

I'm not sure why they've gone the more TF2 route. Sure, TF2 gets played a little still, but it's not that big. Meanwhile CS is getting bigger and bigger every year, and has demonstrated many ways to make money.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Samprimary on November 23, 2015, 07:17:17 PM
I finally got out of BAD LAND into NOT EXACTLY BAD land and actually got some of my fucking twitch muscles back from sheer atrophy and started to see a complete reversal in how effectively I could utilize pharah. She has a valley; at low skill levels you can just noisomely spam rockets and do ok. At medium levels you will just get erased by exposure counters. At high levels and with team coordination she's probably a fucking nightmare, if my aerial terror campaigns and concussion discombobulations were any indication.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Fabricated on November 24, 2015, 05:32:13 AM
Nobody in the beta knew how to look up when I played so if you just stay vertical as Pharah you can rack up kills.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Ginaz on April 15, 2016, 09:58:47 PM
Beta test this weekend, 15-16 April, fyi.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Setanta on April 15, 2016, 11:11:34 PM
This is good! I've been playing the stress test weekend and it's nice and polished. Paladins has a long way to go to catch up.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Nebu on April 15, 2016, 11:26:22 PM
Got in the beta this weekend.  Good game.  Definitely not for old men.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Trippy on April 16, 2016, 12:26:15 AM
Servers are pretty unstable for me so far (booted prematurely out of two games so far).

And whoever thought it was good idea to have movement abilities and non-movement abilities both bound to SHIFT is an idiot.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Setanta on April 16, 2016, 02:27:08 AM
Got in the beta this weekend.  Good game.  Definitely not for old men.

That's my only problem with twitch based games now. I know I was quicker in my 30s :D As I move closer to 50 I've found that I need to get new glasses for gaming unless I want to play World of Warships for the rest of my life


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Ginaz on April 16, 2016, 02:29:44 AM
This is good! I've been playing the stress test weekend and it's nice and polished. Paladins has a long way to go to catch up.

I actually prefer Paladins over...Overwatch.  I didn't like any of the tank classes and as Trippy mentioned, having movement and non-movement abilities bound to shift is a bad idea imo.  I also got booted from the training room because "game lasted too long" or something.  Not overly impressed so far and I doubt I'll be pre-ordering.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Kail on April 16, 2016, 03:31:49 AM
The server issues and things are allegedly an intended part of the beta.

http://us.battle.net/forums/en/overwatch/topic/19973717250
Quote
FRIENDLY REMINDER: As this is a stress test, please anticipate uneven game performance and server instability, and note that restarts and downtime may occur without warning. One of our goals for this test is to really push our hardware to the limit, and these side effects are all part of the process.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Trippy on April 16, 2016, 03:43:33 PM
Is it just me or is Bastion way OP?


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Nebu on April 16, 2016, 04:20:22 PM
Is it just me or is Bastion way OP?

Maybe a little.

High school kids jacked up on Mt Dew are far more OP.  I suck at FPS.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Malakili on April 16, 2016, 04:23:57 PM
Bastion goes down pretty easy to demoman or um, quake rocket launcher woman. Yes, this is how I think about the characters.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Kail on April 16, 2016, 04:31:59 PM
Bastion goes down pretty easy to demoman or um, quake rocket launcher woman. Yes, this is how I think about the characters.

Her NAME is Spinfusor chick from Tribes, you ruffian

edot: spellang


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Fordel on April 17, 2016, 03:30:52 AM
Spinfusor bestfusor!

I loved that fucking Frisbee of death.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Malakili on April 17, 2016, 06:51:15 AM
In general I think the updates they made to the game since the last time I played it were quite good. The classes felt better, on average. The new maps are pretty decent. I pre-ordered and am looking forward to this.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Fabricated on April 17, 2016, 12:34:43 PM
Route 66 was a shitty map IMO.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Kail on April 17, 2016, 03:29:52 PM
Yeah, I generally had a blast.  Looking forward to the next beta on the 3rd or whenever.

I don't know if it's just because I'm a noob that sucks, but there were a few changes I have minor gripes with:

Lucio feels like he was nerfed in to the ground, or I'm just misremembering.  His heals are terrible now, to the point where I would seriously, no exaggerations take Soldier 76 as a better healer AND better offensive character.

Symmetra's shields look like they're kind of in a similar place, I have no idea if they do anything now.  They add like 1 pip to the lifebar.  I won't say she sucks, though, because her turret spam is more hilarious than ever and her teleporter is game winning even though it charges way slower than it used to.  If the enemy kills the teleporter she's kinda screwed, but there are maps (like Route66) where you can pin the enemy team behind a bottleneck and they can't get to it.  But it feels weird for the game to be yelling at you in the team select screen to get a "support" character and once you pick Symmetra the game is like "Oh, good, she's basically as good as Mercy at keeping her teammates up, check that box off the to-do list".

D.Va and Genji seemed like pretty junky characters, too.  Maybe I just need to get good at them, but both of them seemed pretty behind the curve in terms of "damage they can deal versus how hard it is to kill them"

My personal "holy shit this character is OP" vote is Junkrat.  He's the counter to half the characters in the game (Symmetra, Bastion, Torbjorn, anyone who relies on LoS), his damage is crazy and he's essentially unbeatable if you fight him in an enclosed area.  He just finds some safe spot and lobs grenades over a wall or through a doorway or something the whole round and nobody can touch him because he's behind cover.  Sometimes he'll ult and get another few free kills from a completely unreachable position.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Malakili on April 17, 2016, 04:16:51 PM
Junkrat, Pharaoh, and Tracer all feel quite strong to me due to having very high mobility. I tend to beat this drum a lot, but mobility is worth a TON FPS games and I think is generally undervalued, and drastically increases the skill cap on a character. Junkrat is basically Demoman, and demoman is similarly overpowered. I think their weapons are balanced on the idea that its harder to hit with them in deathmatch situations, but that really only applies to bad players.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Furiously on April 18, 2016, 09:27:41 AM
Cynical me wonders how much of the "every nationality gets a character" is just to sell more copies globally.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Maledict on April 18, 2016, 10:52:24 AM
Cynical me wonders how much of the "every nationality gets a character" is just to sell more copies globally.

Well, yes?

Same reason Civ always goes out of its way to make sure every area gets represented.

What's wrong with the fact that putting more nationalities into the game results in more sales? Surely that's good pressure, and an appropriate response to market forces?


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Malakili on April 18, 2016, 12:38:42 PM
Yeah, kind of a weird thing to bring up too. A game has a diverse set of characters? Something fishy must be going on!  :oh_i_see:


But really, I don't even think there is a discussion to be had here, the characters are pretty cool.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Paelos on April 18, 2016, 02:05:32 PM
So is the game like HOTS in that you level up characters?


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Trippy on April 18, 2016, 03:48:43 PM
No in-game or out-of-game hero levels in Overwatch. You do level up your account to unlock loot chests which give you random cosmetic items.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Trippy on April 18, 2016, 04:24:40 PM
Cynical me wonders how much of the "every nationality gets a character" is just to sell more copies globally.
It may be a net negative given how badly some of the characters are voiced/portrayed. E.g. Hanzo doesn't know how to pronounce "arigato" properly. He says "ah-ree-gah-tay-oh" instead of "ah-ree-gah-toh". And Mei sounds like she's voiced by at least 3 different people (at least her Mandarin is decent).


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: MrHat on April 18, 2016, 04:33:06 PM
I had a great time with this beta/preview.

I think the timing for this game is just perfect for me.  The gameplay is smooth and the game is polished as hell.  I'll be throwing this into rotation as soon as it's out.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: kaid on April 20, 2016, 10:14:18 AM
Yup I was not going to bother buying it till this fall when I got my new computer but the stress test played so well on my aging system and looked pretty and was fun and responsive I did the preorder for it last night. Plus side is I also immediately unlocked the tracer hero for heros of the storm who is hella fun in that game too.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Sophismata on April 21, 2016, 10:32:19 PM
D.Va and Genji seemed like pretty junky characters, too.  Maybe I just need to get good at them, but both of them seemed pretty behind the curve in terms of "damage they can deal versus how hard it is to kill them".
Genji is actually decent, he just suffers from very extremely shitty design. It was enough to sour me on the game, and unless they fix those kinds of issues I won't be purchasing it. Ah well.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Furiously on April 22, 2016, 01:42:47 AM
I like D. Va, she's more of a flanker than a defense person with her huge head-shot area.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Furiously on April 22, 2016, 02:07:20 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jq-HwvYjLLg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jq-HwvYjLLg) Kinda an interesting look at Blizzard talking about the failure of Titan and how it led to Overwatch.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: patience on April 22, 2016, 09:40:56 AM
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/blizzard-on-cancelled-titan-mmo-we-failed-horrific/1100-6439068/

Quote
"Pressure came from all directions," Kaplan continued. "Not that anybody was outwardly putting pressure on us, but because you're used to doing well and succeeding...having a moment where you didn't do well was almost like an embnarassment. Here you have these great projects like StarCraft, Heroes of the Storm, Hearthstone, World of Warcraft, and then you're sitting on the smoking pile of a cancelled project.

"Nobody said a word, everyone was super supportive, but I think there was this inward embarrassment of like, 'No, we need to prove we're worthy of being at Blizzard too. We can make something that makes the company proud.' It was a trying period of time and there was a lot of pressure. The team is used to pressure, but never quite at that magnitude, and it helped to forge us in a lot of ways."

Video in the link and more out of context quotes. I do believe Blizzard has lost it's touch in certain ways. For example their writers have tried emulating Hollywood style writing too much. In another way their game designers recycled game content from older better games (I'm not talking about assets [even though that also happened] but actually gameplay sequences). Activision wasn't EA levels bad partnership but they added nothing to make them grow as a company.

All that said I still hold Blizzard and their teams among the highest esteem. They are up there with Nintendo and Valve in putting out content that is higher quality than everyone else by a noticable margin (Diablo 3 launch debacle notwithstanding)

I do hope specifically their MMO team really considers hard about what justifies a subscription fee with modern gamers. It's much harder to convince them but I see fundamental reasons why a sub can still work.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: 01101010 on April 22, 2016, 10:33:26 AM
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/blizzard-on-cancelled-titan-mmo-we-failed-horrific/1100-6439068/

Quote
"Pressure came from all directions," Kaplan continued. "Not that anybody was outwardly putting pressure on us, but because you're used to doing well and succeeding...having a moment where you didn't do well was almost like an embnarassment. Here you have these great projects like StarCraft, Heroes of the Storm, Hearthstone, World of Warcraft, and then you're sitting on the smoking pile of a cancelled project.

"Nobody said a word, everyone was super supportive, but I think there was this inward embarrassment of like, 'No, we need to prove we're worthy of being at Blizzard too. We can make something that makes the company proud.' It was a trying period of time and there was a lot of pressure. The team is used to pressure, but never quite at that magnitude, and it helped to forge us in a lot of ways."

Video in the link and more out of context quotes. I do believe Blizzard has lost it's touch in certain ways. For example their writers have tried emulating Hollywood style writing too much. In another way their game designers recycled game content from older better games (I'm not talking about assets [even though that also happened] but actually gameplay sequences). Activision wasn't EA levels bad partnership but they added nothing to make them grow as a company.

All that said I still hold Blizzard and their teams among the highest esteem. They are up there with Nintendo and Valve in putting out content that is higher quality than everyone else by a noticable margin (Diablo 3 launch debacle notwithstanding)

I do hope specifically their MMO team really considers hard about what justifies a subscription fee with modern gamers. It's much harder to convince them but I see fundamental reasons why a sub can still work.

I think the industry is moving away from the word "subscription," to more obscure names like paid DLC and season passes. It's all basically the same - whether you are paying monthly or quarterly or yearly. I think the main shift has been from paying to be able to participate in a game to paying for cosmetic content.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Threash on April 22, 2016, 10:52:43 AM
All they really said was that failing so hard on Titan means Overwatch is going to be super awesome, they don't actually say one single thing about what went wrong with Titan.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Trippy on April 22, 2016, 11:54:38 AM
I only watched Part One so far but I like how they are all patting themselves on the back for turning Titan in the massive long-term success that is Overwatcrh. Oh wait Overwatch hasn't even launched yet.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: March on April 22, 2016, 02:28:38 PM
Right, it was commercial for Overwatch through and through.  I learned more about Overwatch gameplay watching the video about Titan than I'll ever know about Titan.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: patience on April 22, 2016, 02:44:19 PM


I think the industry is moving away from the word "subscription," to more obscure names like paid DLC and season passes. It's all basically the same - whether you are paying monthly or quarterly or yearly. I think the main shift has been from paying to be able to participate in a game to paying for cosmetic content.


DLC I would argue is the devolution of expansion packs from the 90s. Season passes are an attempt at making a subscription model but considering how short lived they are I see most of them as half assed cash grabs.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Kail on April 22, 2016, 03:50:20 PM
I only watched Part One so far but I like how they are all patting themselves on the back for turning Titan in the massive long-term success that is Overwatcrh. Oh wait Overwatch hasn't even launched yet.

I got the impression that it was more "we've made a game we're proud of" than "BRING BACK THE MONEYHATS BOYZ"

It's always a murky problem asking if a game is profitable or profitable ENOUGH or stuff along those lines.  If they're looking to pay back 10 years of Titan development with this, then I think that seems unlikely, but it's not like we know how much development overlap there is between Titan and Overwatch.  Which is kind of frustrating, at least to me.  It drives me nuts how coy devs always are (or are ordered to be) regarding their work, like Gabe Newell is watching, hunched over a notepad and scribbling furiously muttering "of course, why didn't I think of that" when Metzen says it's about using a gun to shoot things.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: 01101010 on April 22, 2016, 04:24:59 PM


I think the industry is moving away from the word "subscription," to more obscure names like paid DLC and season passes. It's all basically the same - whether you are paying monthly or quarterly or yearly. I think the main shift has been from paying to be able to participate in a game to paying for cosmetic content.


DLC I would argue is the devolution of expansion packs from the 90s. Season passes are an attempt at making a subscription model but considering how short lived they are I see most of them as half assed cash grabs.

I thought about that, but the way it works now is the DLCs are like mini expansions and expansions are either <magic name> expansion or a sequel to the original game. I really think subs are now season passes just paid up front which seems to let the studio put their eggs in the marketing of the game before release so people back it and then cut parts of it to release as 'free shit' to milk the buy in and have something planned for the season pass but still have the agility to adjust. But still has less motivation than watch sub numbers plummet.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Threash on April 22, 2016, 07:42:48 PM
I don't see it, sub games for the most part simply no longer let you play if you didn't sub.  DLC and Season Pass stuff is extra, your game isn't getting taken away if you don't buy.  There is nothing like subs anymore, DLC are just expansions and season passes are pre orders.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Paelos on April 24, 2016, 04:08:04 PM
I don't see it, sub games for the most part simply no longer let you play if you didn't sub.  DLC and Season Pass stuff is extra, your game isn't getting taken away if you don't buy.  There is nothing like subs anymore, DLC are just expansions and season passes are pre orders.

I prefer the DLC model simply because in a single player game you can ignore it, and in a multiplayer game you can skip it when you take some time off. Taking Hearthstone as a example in the Blizzard area, you don't need to get every set of cards, or every adventure. You can take or leave what you like and spend money on it how you like.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Triforcer on April 26, 2016, 06:48:46 PM
Just discovered this yesterday.

- Another TF2?  Yay!  I've been hoping for a new class based tactical shooter for years.  I got 5 or 6 great years out of TF2 and never glanced at the endless procession of no scope headshot soldier shooters.

- No stealth class makes me sad, I cannot aim and hate defense/medic classes.  Was this a deliberate design decision?  From reading, Reaper looks spyish- is he my best bet?


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Trippy on April 26, 2016, 07:27:04 PM
If you are looking to get behind the enemy then Reaper is a good choice. Some of the other high-mobility Heroes like Tracer and Pharah will work as well. D.Va is actually very mobile as well even though she's a Tank class and her mech weapon is painfully inaccurate at range so you have to be up close to hit anything consistently so aiming is not all that important with her.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Kail on April 30, 2016, 05:54:01 PM
Open beta runs May 5 to May 9, but the "open" beta for preorder people starts on the 2nd.  I've got a spare key kicking around if anyone wants two more days of beta.  After the 9th, I guess they shut it down again for the ACTUAL release on May 24.  


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Falconeer on May 06, 2016, 07:54:51 AM
Finally tried it. Not sure if I like it more than Paladins, production value aside. But what I noticed, is that I like it less than Team Fortress 2 so far.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Malakili on May 06, 2016, 08:02:23 AM
I find it a LOT better than Paladins with regard to pacing and the feel of the shooter mechanics. On the other hand, it definitely is worse than TF2, at least TF2 with the basic classes and maybe unlocks on the good maps. TF2 has turned into mostly a game of shenanigans with all the unlocks and goofy stuff going on now and is a worse game for it.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on May 06, 2016, 09:51:17 AM
I played two games last night and the playerbase I got stuck with was terrible. Had no idea how to work as a group and, as usual, nobody was willing to pick-up a support class so I did it. (Why is it always my team that's unbalanced? I have shit luck. They had 2 support and one of each class, all I had were the cowboy and sniper clasess)

Surprisingly, despite my hate at the last preview and the shitty team I enjoyed the gameplay a bit more this time around. Maybe all the serious shooter types are off in Paladins and Battleborn. Maybe the game's been tweaked. Maybe I was just meant to play support. Either way Mercy was fun and despite losing I found I enjoyed myself. Surprise.

I'll pound through a more games tonight after Cap. and tomorrow evening and see if I'm still entertained.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Evildrider on May 06, 2016, 04:29:05 PM
Love me some Bastion.  Not sure if it grabs me enough to buy it, but the whole thing ran smooth and fun for me.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Falconeer on May 06, 2016, 04:33:58 PM
After trying them back to back, I like Overwatch more than Paladins so far. I also love Mei, who is clearly a clone of Smite's Ymir. Shamelessly so.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: KallDrexx on May 06, 2016, 06:07:21 PM
Movement speed is so slow.

Also, this game makes me really miss the simplicity of TF2. 


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Falconeer on May 07, 2016, 05:19:21 AM
OMG nerf Bastion now!


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Malakili on May 07, 2016, 07:03:50 AM
Good Bastion players are a pain to deal with. However, a lot of people see the good bastion players, don't really understand how to play him well, and then just set themselves up as sitting ducks for anyone that knows the maps well.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Soulflame on May 07, 2016, 08:20:48 AM
Someone said Genji is a hard counter to Bastion.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Malakili on May 07, 2016, 08:37:14 AM
Genji, Tracer and Reaper and generally anyone who can find a way to flank him kills him quick. While he is deployed as a turret his entire back is like getting headshots (crits).


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Triforcer on May 07, 2016, 08:39:25 AM
Someone said Genji is a hard counter to Bastion.

Everything I've read says that Bastion is one of the two or three worst heroes in the game when people even slightly have their shit together.  But in these early days when your teammates are 3 widowmakers, 1 hanzo and mccree, very tough.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Soulflame on May 07, 2016, 09:36:52 AM
I should have clarified:  Genji's deflect ability apparently will instantly kill Bastion.  According to someone I was talking to about Overwatch, I haven't tried that myself.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Surlyboi on May 07, 2016, 10:55:29 AM
Kinda meh in this. Feels like a more colorful TF2.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Falconeer on May 07, 2016, 12:19:21 PM
Kinda meh in this. Feels like a more colorful TF2.

Totally and shamelessly. Or you could call it TF2 with more classes.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Fabricated on May 07, 2016, 01:47:02 PM
Bastion has a really low skill ceiling and gets positively wrecked by Tracer, Genji, and a few other heroes. He's not bad but there's way, way stronger heroes.

It seems to be intentionally designed that way- there's heroes that are exceedingly simple to use and straight forward (bastion, mercy, Reinhardt), then there's ones that require you to really pay attention to how to use all their abilities (Zarya, D'va, Lucio) to use them efficiently.

Like I'm not good with Zarya but when someone who can play her well works with a team that works WITH her she's insanely fucking powerful. I'm barely mediocre with Lucio and I can quite simply run circles around pubbies with him because of his wall-running, speed boost, and shockingly decent main weapon (the knockback is obscenely good for blasting people off ledges).


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Teleku on May 07, 2016, 02:47:37 PM
Without having looked at any of the background at all.... have they talked at all about WTF Titan was suppose to actually be?

How do you 'salvage' Blizzards next most amazing epic game thing into a TF2 clone?  Considering everybody assumed it was some new big MMO WoW replacement, that's a pretty big damn shift in game play......


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Malakili on May 07, 2016, 02:51:47 PM
Well, it was supposed to be an MMOFPS of some sort. I get the impression Overwatch kept the "setting" and probably some of the assets, but not much else. There is also some rumor going around that Tracer, or some equivalent, was going to be the main poster-character (which she still is).


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Zetor on May 07, 2016, 02:52:31 PM
Bastion has a really low skill ceiling and gets positively wrecked by Tracer, Genji, and a few other heroes. He's not bad but there's way, way stronger heroes.

It seems to be intentionally designed that way- there's heroes that are exceedingly simple to use and straight forward (bastion, mercy, Reinhardt), then there's ones that require you to really pay attention to how to use all their abilities (Zarya, D'va, Lucio) to use them efficiently.

Like I'm not good with Zarya but when someone who can play her well works with a team that works WITH her she's insanely fucking powerful. I'm barely mediocre with Lucio and I can quite simply run circles around pubbies with him because of his wall-running, speed boost, and shockingly decent main weapon (the knockback is obscenely good for blasting people off ledges).
I think Mercy is actually harder to use than Lucio (even if you're just healbotting) because you need to actively target whoever you're healing, switch to damage amp when appropriate, and your escape skill relies on positioning (both from Mercy and teammates) plus switching weapons to do damage is a pain. On the other hand, Lucio has a passive heal aura that can be boosted to act as an AOE heal, and he can do damage at the same time without pressing more than 2 buttons... he also doesn't really need to rely on cooldowns or team awareness to get mobility thanks to wallwalking and the speed aura.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Kail on May 07, 2016, 04:04:35 PM
Without having looked at any of the background at all.... have they talked at all about WTF Titan was suppose to actually be?

As far as I've seen, they have said very little about Titan, the big chunk of info I'm aware of is from 2014.  It sounds kind of like it might not be that far off their original idea, actually.  Like, the game they wanted to make wasn't really clicking with the MMO idea so they decide to scale it down and polish it into something that works better.

http://kotaku.com/heres-what-blizzards-titan-actually-was-1638632121

Quote
...it would have taken place on a near-future version of Earth, in a science-fiction depiction of the world... and zones planned for the game ranged from the west coast of the United States to Europe, South America, and Australia, according to a source...

...One potential scenario, described to me by a person who saw the game, might have gone something like this: You're working for a corporation, helping run a shop, when you're called for a mission by your faction, so you run into an elevator, switch outfits superhero-style, and go off to fight enemies with a group of friends or allies....

...All of the people who described the game to me made a lot of Team Fortress comparisons both in terms of aesthetics and gameplay. Three people who saw the game have compared the aesthetics to Team Fortress 2, with one source describing it as a cross between StarCraft II's in-game cinematics and Pixar's The Incredibles....

The only thing the video really added was that Tracer's ability kit was apparently largely lifted from Titan.  Otherwise, who knows.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Koyasha on May 08, 2016, 12:45:43 AM
Bastion has a really low skill ceiling and gets positively wrecked by Tracer, Genji, and a few other heroes. He's not bad but there's way, way stronger heroes.
I tend to prefer using Pharah to take out Bastion, because I suck at Genji (and frankly, I prefer playing the female characters; that's the main reason Overwatch got my attention cause TF2's all-man cast doesn't really interest me) but I am confused as to how Tracer wrecks Bastion.  I've sneaked up behind him on Tracer, start firing into his weak spot...he spins around and obliterates my 150 hp before he's even down to half health.  Sometimes I can boost forward and try to turn around and shoot him from the other side as he spins, but it's by no means a sure thing.  Sure, a Bastion that isn't paying attention is easy to kill with Tracer, but if they notice and turn?  I don't see anything she can do except toss her stickybomb and flee (and using an ult to kill him seems a little excessive when he's going to be back before that ult is recharged, probably).  Am I missing something about how she should be taking him on?

Bastion supported by Reinhardt is really annoying though; 2000 HP shield that regenerates pretty quickly, shielding a self-healing character.  Symmetra's shield-piercing slow-orbs are the only decent answer I see to that (other than ults, which as I said with Tracer, don't like to consider the solution cause Bastion will be back before ult is recharged).  Of course, Bastion + Reinhardt is teamwork, so I understand it not being something easy to take down with a single character.  Two Symmetras tossing shield-piercing orbs in response will wreck their day, so teamwork vs. teamwork works pretty well.

In general, now that I've finally gotten to try the game, I'm having a decent bit of fun with it - although frankly, I'm pretty sure I'm bad at it.  Not completely hopeless, but...not good.  I mean, I'm smart enough to do things like approach a Bastion intelligently or use various clever strategies, but I'm pretty bad at the actual execution of stuff; shooters have never really been my strong point.  I do find it funny those rare times I just...turn awesome and wind up mowing down one enemy after another with perfect aim, only to utterly fail in the next round or even a few minutes later in the same match.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: ezrast on May 08, 2016, 06:15:35 AM
I'm always bad at shooters as well, but I appreciate that they went out of their way to include heroes that don't require any ability to aim - that alone makes it more playable than TF2 to me. I still kind of suck at Winston somehow but Mei is my very favorite. Few things are as satisfying as an icicle kill, whether a lucky snipe from afar or a cheeky point blank headshot after freezing some sap in place.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Falconeer on May 08, 2016, 06:33:12 AM
I hate that there's not a real scoreboard. I see what Blizzard is doing here, dumbifying leveling the playing field iin order to never make anyone feel useless. By hiding the scores of the badly performing players they are not only making everyone feel good about their game, but they are also reducing the toxicity of online gaming. The way things are now, it is possible (but not always straightforward) to see who played well, but it is impossible in pubbies to see who performed like shit unless you were really paying attention. Fine, I get the point, yet this is annoying to me and not because I want to wreck on the bad ones (I am one of the bad ones) but because little numbers, scores, stats and the likes are of my pleasing and belong to a tradition of online arenas that is not OK to remove. I miss K/D/A. Right, this reminds me of the difference between "Eliminations" and "Final Blows". Eliminations, which is what you see popping up on your screen all the time, are the kills you have been part of, whether as the killer or with an assist. They show up in your "TAB" menu during a match. Final Blows are the actual kills, but to find out yours I think you have to go deep into your Statiistics screen out of a match. I am sure we have all felt grand about a pentakill or something, only to find out later it wasn't really us who did it.

Again, this is coming from someone who is bad at shooters now. I suck. Still, I miss a real scoreboard. Seems like a minor thing, but it's annoying the hell out of me.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Koyasha on May 08, 2016, 06:59:26 AM
Most of the post-game screens show my final blows in one of the boxes at the bottom.  I think those boxes depend on which character you're playing, but pretty sure all the offense/defense characters, at least, have a final blows box, if that interests you.  And it always shows your deaths and eliminations, so you can figure out K/D/A in that screen.

But even final blows doesn't tell that much of the story.  What I love is the number that pops up when you get an elimination.  It seems to be the percentage of the enemy's life that I did.  So if I get an 80% elimination and didn't get the final blow, well, I still feel pretty decent about that cause whoever got the final blow may or may not have gotten the kill on their own, unless it was a sniper headshotting the person (or anyone at all sneezing harshly in the general direction of Zenyatta, I suppose), but I know I did a decent amount of damage and meaningfully contributed to the kill either way.  Similarly, if I got the last 1% I can probably tell whether that person would have gotten away without me or if I just got the final blow on someone who was going to die anyway to whoever was already shooting them.  It makes 'kill stealing' mean less, cause the person who did most of the damage still gets to see that '93' elimination on their screen and get the satisfaction of knowing that Tracer popping in at the last second and shooting the almost-dead guy wasn't exactly the most meaningful thing (unless he was about to escape).

Now it would definitely be nice to be able to go post-game and see a list of your eliminations along with the number next to them.

Oh, Play of the Game started out seeming cool, but is getting a little irritating.  I think they need some kind of culling mechanism to start with - not every game even has something worth being highlighted as 'play of the game' after all.  Beyond that...ugh, I have no idea.  It's clear that it's ridiculously difficult writing an algorithm to determine what was a meaningful play and what was just someone killing three guys that did absolutely nothing as far as the flow of the game was concerned, but I'm sure it could do with some improvements, at least.  Maybe weight things higher the closer the play happens to the actual objective, because a triple kill near the objective is almost certain to be more meaningful to the game than a triple kill because people were screwing around someplace pointless.  That said, sometimes I have seen the play of the game and nodded, going, 'yep, that's definitely the moment that won us/them the match' so it at least works sometimes.  But any play that a healer or support participated in for at least 5 of the 10 second duration of the play  (the Mercy is healing/damage boosting, or the Zenyatta has the discord orb on the targets/healing orb on, or his ult, or even Lucio's auras but especially his ult) should come up as, for instance, 'Play of the Game - Pharah and Mercy' instead of just giving the offensive character all the credit.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: ezrast on May 08, 2016, 07:02:04 AM
I miss seeing stats too, but ultimately I'm pretty sure I'm happier going without.

Except for when I'm playing Mercy. Then I want every player's kills, assists, blocks, damage, objective time, blood type, bank account balance, and astrological sign because fuck wasting my blue and yellow beams of glory on bad teammates.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Malakili on May 08, 2016, 07:41:50 AM
Honestly, K:D only ever mattered in deathmatch games anyway. In a team, objective-based game, it really doesn't matter who many "final blows" you get. I already get annoyed enough as it is when some windowmaker is ignoring the objective on offense, no need to encourage that kind if play even more.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Falconeer on May 08, 2016, 08:53:41 AM
It absolutely does NOT matter, it's a team game. But I still want to see it. Take any team sport, real sports. It does NOT matter to know who scored a goal, who made the most 3-pointers, who made the most saves or threw more TDs. But I sure want to know it and see it.

Since we always had these things since the dawn of online/multiplayer gaming, removing or even just obscuring it sucks.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Kail on May 08, 2016, 11:17:35 AM
It absolutely does NOT matter, it's a team game. But I still want to see it.

They kind of touched on that here:

https://youtu.be/bTMnJ5XJH6Q?t=17m4s

I think their stand is that it's better to not show any information than to show misleading information, and they can't find a way to make a lot of roles accurately represented numerically.  If you want to know your KDA, I think that info is still in there, it's just not there on the tab screen because it's not useful information in-game.

Oh, Play of the Game started out seeming cool, but is getting a little irritating.

Yeah, that's kind of the same problem as the scoreboard to me.  It's hard to measure what's a "good" or "important" play objectively, or which individual player in the dogpile was the one who was most important, so singling out one specific moment from one specific player seems weird.  There's been a lot of plays where, as a tank or healer, I'm thinking I'm doing something important but in the replay it's just a shot of my ass as the guy who the game decides is carrying fires around me.  Though it does sometimes just flat out not work, I was playing a match yesterday and got a 5 x kill on the point as Winston (probably only got the last blow on two or three of them, though), and the play of the game was SERIOUSLY some Bastion sitting on a platform, transforming to turret mode, getting sniped instantly and dying without firing a shot, it was pretty funny. 


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Falconeer on May 08, 2016, 11:37:08 AM
If you want to know your KDA, I think that info is still in there, it's just not there on the tab screen because it's not useful information in-game.

Well, just not mine but others too. I want to read about other players stats too. Again, I think the only reason they did this is to prevent the usual online toxicity. Without knowing how anyone else did (specifically) it's harder to rage on them. Or at least that's the theory. The practice so far is that we are missing a lot of cool, and potentially valuable in a group that is trying to learn the game, info. Incidentally, I think this choice won't fly should they every try and make it a serious e-sport. People, players and spectators, need metrics.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Kail on May 08, 2016, 12:04:26 PM
The practice so far is that we are missing a lot of cool, and potentially valuable in a group that is trying to learn the game, info.

It's not valuable, though, is the point.  It doesn't tell you who's doing well and who's not, and even if it did, you KNOW that this is NEVER going to be used to help anyone learn the game except in the sense that yelling at someone to stop sucking is "helping" them.  If you're trying to learn the game, playing ten matches and learning what works firsthand is going to be WAY more helpful than knowing that your K/D with Tracer is 1.22.

You can't justify a KDA as a tool for noobs if it's not telling us information that noobs can use to improve, and it doesn't.  It doesn't let them know what class they should be playing or how well they're doing at it, instead it gives them the wrong idea (that KDA is important) and they could pick up a LOT of bad habits from that (I want the best KDA every round so I'll play Widowmaker always everywhere, and screw these noobs who choose Mercy, she's got trash tier stats).

Incidentally, I think this choice won't fly should they every try and make it a serious e-sport. People, players and spectators, need metrics.

The metrics are there, though, it's just not on the tab screen.  Dota 2 does this, unless I'm misremembering, where the spectators have access to WAY more numerical data than the players (stuff like total net worth and team net worth teamfight recap stats).  It gives the announcers something to talk about during downtime, fills the screen up with complicated looking charts and graphs, but the players in-game don't need access to it to play well.

I mean, the numbers are there, if you want to take this seriously and look it up later to examine how well you did.  It's just not there if you want to hit tab and blame someone.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Koyasha on May 08, 2016, 12:52:56 PM
Yeah, that's kind of the same problem as the scoreboard to me.  It's hard to measure what's a "good" or "important" play objectively, or which individual player in the dogpile was the one who was most important, so singling out one specific moment from one specific player seems weird.  There's been a lot of plays where, as a tank or healer, I'm thinking I'm doing something important but in the replay it's just a shot of my ass as the guy who the game decides is carrying fires around me.  Though it does sometimes just flat out not work, I was playing a match yesterday and got a 5 x kill on the point as Winston (probably only got the last blow on two or three of them, though), and the play of the game was SERIOUSLY some Bastion sitting on a platform, transforming to turret mode, getting sniped instantly and dying without firing a shot, it was pretty funny. 
Gets it right once in a while too.  I just had a Play of the Game which was...Mercy running in, rezzing Bastion and Torbjorn, and then taking a couple shots at me.  But the thing is, we were in Overtime, and if she hadn't rezzed Bastion and Torbjorn, I would have killed her immediately and then overtime would have ended before anyone else got there.  As it was, I re-killed the Bastion before he did anything, but Torbjorn and Mercy got me, then one of my team got there, more of their team arrived, they secured the point and pushed my team off, and they won.  Was fun to see Play of the Game actually manage to highlight the exact move that won them the game.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on May 08, 2016, 02:33:33 PM
if K/D/A is shown as a public metric, it becomes the only stat people care about. We've seen that in enough FPS games to realize this. Team support like Tanks, Heals, Debuffs get shoved to the side as everyone frets about K/D/A instead.

I die a ton ad don't get kills. I'm still more effective than 80% of my open-beta teammates because:

1) I actually play support and support people. The number of times my team has had the "no tanks" or "too many offense" or "not enough offense" because the idiots all want to play Junkrat and Sniper are already too high and I only have 2 hours /played according to the stats screen.

2) I'll switch-up to a less-favored character if the situation requires it. This morning I took the tank chick because we had 5.6m to go on the "escort" objective in London. Every other motherfucker, for 3.5 minutes, was running as a damn sniper or junkrat trying to kill the enemy team massed on the objective. Only me and one other guy went tank and escorted, getting the win. Fuck the other 5 team members, one of whom got MVP for # of kills. MrPajamas and I won that goddamn game, not him.

3) I'm not concerned about goddamn stats or being called a noob because my K/D/A sucks ass. I know it does. I can look at the screen right now and see it. It's never going to get much better than my 1:25min on fire/ 12s average and 1.92 solo kills. I'm good with that, because I'm at > 50% win rate on everyone but Mercy. Mercy's stats are terrible because for the first 4 games I was playing like K/D/A and "time healed" mattered.

4) K/D/A means that "x is the best hero" meta becomes about damage and survivablily rather than usefulness. Symmetra is perhaps the BEST defensive supports there is. She'd be called terrible in such a meta because of the shitty nature of her weapon and her playstyle being about, oh, DEFENSE and strategy rather than raking-in kills.  Know where to place those turrets to charge your portal. Place the portal where it matters and can't be wiped instantly. I had a game where I had 40% portal-uptime, 20 players transported via portal and 8 eliminations and disrupted several cap attempts w/ my turrets.  Junkrat got MVP for having 15 eliminations. wtf.

So yeah, they can keep the old shooter bullshit in the old shooters. They're still out there to be played if that's what you care most about. Hiding them has only improved a lot of my complaints about "team shooters"


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Trippy on May 08, 2016, 02:56:07 PM
Showing some sort of individual score in team objective-based game modes has been an issue in shooters since there's been team objective-based game modes (i.e Threewave CTF). People will play for the score/stats and not play to win. That's one of the reasons why I switched to ThunderWalker CTF from 3Wave cause TWCTF gave points for doing "defensive" things like guarding the flag (killing enemies near the flag) which is what I was already doing cause I was old and slow even back then.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Nija on May 08, 2016, 06:28:57 PM
I tend to prefer using Pharah to take out Bastion, because I suck at Genji (and frankly, I prefer playing the female characters; that's the main reason Overwatch got my attention cause TF2's all-man cast doesn't really interest me) but I am confused as to how Tracer wrecks Bastion. 

I know this isn't the place for it, but do you seriously mean what you said there? You don't care about the gameplay, you care about the sexes of the characters in the game?

How do you feel about Mario Brothers?
Did you play Zelda, because the name of the game is the girl - but the character is a guy?
Did you wait until the kid down the street beat Metroid, and learned that the character is a girl, before you actually played? Did you wait for that one Nintendo Power to confirm it, for fear of TAINING YOUR GAMING EXPERIENCE?

Okay, that last question is snarky, but the rest is serious. Play games because of gameplay. Please.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Megrim on May 08, 2016, 09:03:40 PM
I tend to prefer using Pharah to take out Bastion, because I suck at Genji (and frankly, I prefer playing the female characters; that's the main reason Overwatch got my attention cause TF2's all-man cast doesn't really interest me) but I am confused as to how Tracer wrecks Bastion. 

I know this isn't the place for it, but do you seriously mean what you said there? You don't care about the gameplay, you care about the sexes of the characters in the game?

How do you feel about Mario Brothers?
Did you play Zelda, because the name of the game is the girl - but the character is a guy?
Did you wait until the kid down the street beat Metroid, and learned that the character is a girl, before you actually played? Did you wait for that one Nintendo Power to confirm it, for fear of TAINING YOUR GAMING EXPERIENCE?

Okay, that last question is snarky, but the rest is serious. Play games because of gameplay. Please.

Ok thought police.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Koyasha on May 09, 2016, 02:50:17 AM
I tend to prefer using Pharah to take out Bastion, because I suck at Genji (and frankly, I prefer playing the female characters; that's the main reason Overwatch got my attention cause TF2's all-man cast doesn't really interest me) but I am confused as to how Tracer wrecks Bastion. 

I know this isn't the place for it, but do you seriously mean what you said there? You don't care about the gameplay, you care about the sexes of the characters in the game?

How do you feel about Mario Brothers?
Did you play Zelda, because the name of the game is the girl - but the character is a guy?
Did you wait until the kid down the street beat Metroid, and learned that the character is a girl, before you actually played? Did you wait for that one Nintendo Power to confirm it, for fear of TAINING YOUR GAMING EXPERIENCE?

Okay, that last question is snarky, but the rest is serious. Play games because of gameplay. Please.
I care about both, and in modern times where there's no concern about how much data you can fit on the cartridge/floppy/cd, I see little excuse for having zero female characters in a game.  I just like playing female characters; can't really explain it beyond that.  If the game is sufficiently interesting, I'll play it anyway, but unless it totally knocks my socks off, I've got enough other games to play that are entertaining and do let me play female characters these days.

That said, I do switch to the guys in Overwatch when it's definitely the best course of action; I don't shoot myself in the foot by going 'only female characters, ever!' and keep playing Zarya or D.Va when Reinhardt or Winston would be so much more effective at this specific match, for instance.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Furiously on May 09, 2016, 04:29:35 PM
I was pretty pleased with myself today. I was playing Mercy and had decided to try playing "res only". I spent the whole match shooting and only topping off people if no enemies were around. I had to use my res a couple times. Oddly enough I was player of the game with just pistol shooting a group of enemies.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on May 10, 2016, 08:17:34 AM
I hate shooters, but damnit this one was fun, AND because of the really varied nature of the characters I was always able to find a niche.  I went ahead and bought it, damn my eyes.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Falconeer on May 10, 2016, 08:57:09 AM
I ended up preordering too but this game still needs a real scoreboard. The problem is not just the absence of KDA. It's the absence of everything related to your team and teammates. No scoreboard means no info at all. Sure, 3 or 4 players (out of 12, and potentially 0 of your team) will have ONE stat shown. Gee yay! My ass.

They could show medals, amount healed, protected, damage done, received, they could show the times Mei froze someone or the times your Roadhog chains pulled an enemy, or they could even separate the scoreboard in four sections, for each role, with different stats. There is so much more they can do with it. Post game now is anticlimatic.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on May 10, 2016, 09:17:55 AM
Win or lose is all that matters. If you lost your stats mean shit beyond dick-waving. I prefer it this way, as I detailed above.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Furiously on May 10, 2016, 12:33:07 PM
I disagree, Battlefield with all it's stats constantly reminds you how bad you are, and then you quit playing. Overwatch makes you feel like you are doing work even when you are bad, retaining all the bad players. Play with a friend who is decent and you will win just about every match.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on May 10, 2016, 02:02:42 PM
It's a Blizzard game, it's for bad people. It's their brand now, at least based on internet hate for them.

Hearthstone: For people bad at card games, considering all the bitching that it wasn't M:TG

WoW: For people bad at MMOs (until it wasn't)

D3: For people who suck at grinding in grimdark (omg colors and people who aren't super-cereal!)

HOTS: For people shitty at LoL or that other one.

Overwatch: For people who suck at shooters and just don't give a damn about your stat porn.

 :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: HaemishM on May 10, 2016, 03:03:46 PM
Though snarky, you really aren't wrong.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Malakili on May 10, 2016, 03:34:12 PM
And then there's Starcraft, which is exactly the opposite. That being said, my feeling is that Overwatch has a fairly high skill ceiling with the highest skill ceiling heroes. It has heroes that are easier to play too. I mean, it's not Counter-Strike, but that's fine.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on May 10, 2016, 05:08:51 PM
Though snarky, you really aren't wrong.  :why_so_serious:

I know, it was the best kind of snark, that with truth behind it. At this point Blizzard has made hundreds of times more dollars pandering to the 'I suck' crowd than others have made stroking hardcore egos. It works and they should continue to go with it.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: HaemishM on May 10, 2016, 05:20:43 PM
And then there's Starcraft, which is exactly the opposite. That being said, my feeling is that Overwatch has a fairly high skill ceiling with the highest skill ceiling heroes. It has heroes that are easier to play too. I mean, it's not Counter-Strike, but that's fine.

Skill-ceilings are fine, but Blizzard succeeds by making the skill floors a lot lower than other games in the same genres, and thus making casuals feel like they don't suck quite as hard until they really get owned hard.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Malakili on May 10, 2016, 05:21:33 PM
Skill-ceilings are fine, but Blizzard succeeds by making the skill floors a lot lower than other games in the same genres, and thus making casuals feel like they don't suck quite as hard until they really get owned hard.

I assume you mean skill floors being higher, but yes.

It works because the games are good though. Even most hardcore players would rather play a polished game with smooth mechanics than jank that's "hardcore." It's one of the reasons that I keep going back to Diablo 3 even though there are other ARPGs I like more in principle right now. It just feels better. That counts for a ton.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Fordel on May 10, 2016, 06:23:07 PM
SC2 is also Blizzards weakest game at this point.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Typhon on May 10, 2016, 06:23:25 PM
By "skill floor" he meant something like, "skill barrier to entry", or "minimum required proficiency", and he really did mean lower.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Malakili on May 10, 2016, 07:04:28 PM
SC2 is also Blizzards weakest game at this point.

Certainly in terms of popularity and probably sales.  It's still the best RTS on the market - but the RTS market is basically dead anyway.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Venkman on May 10, 2016, 08:50:46 PM
I enjoyed Overwatch, but not enough to buy it. The variety is interesting, and the sort of "deck building" that happens at the beginning of a round and then how it evolves over the course of the round seems more varied than TF2. But in the end this felt like yet another entry in the field of action shooters destined to piss off those chasing FOTM playstyles just before the nerfs.

I think it'll do pretty well though. Low barrier and solo practice modes. I don't know what the depth is, but for this kind of game I don't know if there's anyone looking for depth beyond the cosmetic. TF2 is still strong right?


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: HaemishM on May 10, 2016, 10:00:24 PM
By "skill floor" he meant something like, "skill barrier to entry", or "minimum required proficiency", and he really did mean lower.

This.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Kail on May 10, 2016, 10:14:29 PM
At this point Blizzard has made hundreds of times more dollars pandering to the 'I suck' crowd than others have made stroking hardcore egos. It works and they should continue to go with it.

I think one of the things that's driven a lot of Blizzard's success is the realization that lowering the barrier to entry doesn't have to make a game shallow or low skill.  Games like Warcraft and Starcraft WERE the casual versions of the RTS genre back when the interface for much of the competition was an innavigable mess of hotkeys and submenus.

Plus, I'm not really sure about the usage of terms like "skill ceiling" in competitive games.  To me, that implies that there's a certain limit to how good you can get (like, it doesn't matter if you devote your life to it, you'll never be able to beat me at tic-tac-toe) but if there's a professional scene and the same five or ten teams keep floating around the top of it, it seems like 99.9% of the population isn't in any danger of hitting that ceiling any time soon.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Sophismata on May 10, 2016, 11:05:08 PM
At this point Blizzard has made hundreds of times more dollars pandering to the 'I suck' crowd than others have made stroking hardcore egos. It works and they should continue to go with it.

I think one of the things that's driven a lot of Blizzard's success is the realization that lowering the barrier to entry doesn't have to make a game shallow or low skill.  Games like Warcraft and Starcraft WERE the casual versions of the RTS genre back when the interface for much of the competition was an innavigable mess of hotkeys and submenus.

Plus, I'm not really sure about the usage of terms like "skill ceiling" in competitive games.  To me, that implies that there's a certain limit to how good you can get (like, it doesn't matter if you devote your life to it, you'll never be able to beat me at tic-tac-toe) but if there's a professional scene and the same five or ten teams keep floating around the top of it, it seems like 99.9% of the population isn't in any danger of hitting that ceiling any time soon.

Skill ceiling can be a very real thing. Some games and mechanics just don't allow for as much player differentiation as others — ie, the game's state is "solved" much more easily. Naughts and Crosses is a good example of this; the game is easily solvable and has a low skill ceiling. Chess is much harder to solve — it's skill ceiling is higher. Go's ceiling is higher still.

In games, look at something like DotA2 vs HotS. Blizzard's HotS is a great game, but it has a lower skill ceiling than DotA2. There just aren't as many variables and points of interaction for the player.

I haven't played enough Overwatch though to make a call about its ceiling.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Malakili on May 11, 2016, 06:52:32 AM


Plus, I'm not really sure about the usage of terms like "skill ceiling" in competitive games.  To me, that implies that there's a certain limit to how good you can get (like, it doesn't matter if you devote your life to it, you'll never be able to beat me at tic-tac-toe) but if there's a professional scene and the same five or ten teams keep floating around the top of it, it seems like 99.9% of the population isn't in any danger of hitting that ceiling any time soon.

Look at TF2 for example. Competitive play very quickly became about Medic, Demoman, Soldier and occasionally Scout.  Ubercharge was just too important not to play medic, and then the remaining classes I mentioned all have very high skill ceilings (in part because their power level is balanced on the fact that it's harder to play them, which means if you get good at them you get the "free" upside of their increased damage). They also all have very high mobility that means the options available to the player are practically infinite.

Occasionally other classes would show up on a particular map, but a "good" pyro was just almost never going to be relevant compared to a good Demoman. This is what I'm talking about with skill ceiling.

Overwatch has similar variability.  I would imagine that we are going to see a relatively small set of heroes get played in competitive settings. I'm not sure exactly which those will be yet. Ultimates are strong enough that they might push heroes over the top that have lower ceilings otherwise, so we have to account for that variable. But if I have to guess, I'm betting well see more Tracer than Bastion, for example.

This applies much more to competitive settings than pub servers/quick match games, where teams aren't as organized and players are generally much worse.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Fabricated on May 11, 2016, 07:38:35 AM
I tend to prefer using Pharah to take out Bastion, because I suck at Genji (and frankly, I prefer playing the female characters; that's the main reason Overwatch got my attention cause TF2's all-man cast doesn't really interest me) but I am confused as to how Tracer wrecks Bastion.  I've sneaked up behind him on Tracer, start firing into his weak spot...he spins around and obliterates my 150 hp before he's even down to half health.  Sometimes I can boost forward and try to turn around and shoot him from the other side as he spins, but it's by no means a sure thing.  Sure, a Bastion that isn't paying attention is easy to kill with Tracer, but if they notice and turn?  I don't see anything she can do except toss her stickybomb and flee (and using an ult to kill him seems a little excessive when he's going to be back before that ult is recharged, probably).  Am I missing something about how she should be taking him on?
Tracer deals with Bastion the same way she deals with any backliner; blink in behind them, shoot them in the back until you're almost dead, then rewind.

If it's some guy in turret mode they'll at least be forced to stop shooting to self repair which is time they aren't shooting. If you can come back for a return trip he'll be dead.

If there's a mercy or something pocketing him shoot the mercy obviously.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: KallDrexx on May 11, 2016, 02:48:39 PM
For those really really really really really really really really into Overwatch (https://playoverwatch.com/en-us/blog/20117453)

Quote
The fight for the future is coming to your televisions and monitors at the end of May, but the folks at Coca-Cola® and Cinemark® Theaters are joining forces to bring Overwatch to the big screen as well!

For one night only, on May 22, selected theaters in the United States will dedicate their projectors to Blizzard’s new team-based shooter, broadcasting a collection of Overwatch cinematics, hero trailers, and animated shorts—including two new episodes, featuring the Shimada brothers, Hanzo and Genji, and the masked vigilante, Soldier: 76. As an added bonus, attendees will also get a behind-the-scenes look at the game's lore and storytelling efforts during a special developer panel hosted by Michele Morrow (not to mention some pretty sweet swag).

If you'd like to participate, you’ll want to act fast. In order to unlock a theater in your area, each location will need at least 100 reserved tickets by May 12. So, open that Battle.net Friends List, and start recruiting your fellow Overwatch agents today!*


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on May 11, 2016, 02:53:50 PM
Between that and the Taco Bell tie-in they're dumping a shitload of marketing money on this thing.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Furiously on May 12, 2016, 01:43:22 PM
You know the swag bag is going to be crap if you go or something awesome if you don't....


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Samprimary on May 12, 2016, 02:31:05 PM
I'm somewhat okay with bastion, I'm not super salty about him and I usually own when I am being killed by him it is because I am overextending.

But my temperance ends when it comes to bastion in turret mode being three fourths of all play of the games, because it's getting super old.

Nerf bastion POTG


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: ezrast on May 12, 2016, 07:47:29 PM
Hey, it takes a lot of skill to hold down LMB and wiggle left and right a bit.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Setanta on May 17, 2016, 05:34:25 AM
Fuck me, TF2's "Meet the" series has just been trumped well and truly. How the hell did they stop Metzen from not fucking up the story-telling like he does with so many Blizzard shorts

Maybe they didn't mention it to him :D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJ09xdxzIJQ


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on May 17, 2016, 07:35:21 AM
There's so few grimdark and gritty bullshit half-baked Metezn-sue characters that I half-suspect Metzen abandoned ship on this after the initial failure of Titan.

I might just have an irrational hatred of a man I never met, though.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Malakili on May 17, 2016, 12:56:01 PM
I honestly don't think this videos are anywhere near as good as the TF2 "Meet the.." videos.  Maybe it's that I genuinely don't give the smallest fuck about the Overwatch story. But TF2 didn't really have a story at all and they just kind of went with pure characterization and comedy value.

Do I care that these two are brothers? Do I care what kind of weird history they have? Nope.  But Heavy Weapons Guy saying "I have yet to meet one who can outsmart bullet" says everything it needs to about the setting and character.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on May 20, 2016, 05:59:29 PM
I thought this didn't go live until Tuesday, but there's this big blue "Play" button on my launcher. Early access for pre-buying?

Hm.. and now I get "Game server connection failed...retrying." It certainly SEEMS like a Blizzard launch.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Kail on May 20, 2016, 06:41:36 PM
I thought this didn't go live until Tuesday, but there's this big blue "Play" button on my launcher. Early access for pre-buying?

I've had the Play button since the open beta, I think it just shows up if you have the game installed.  Maybe they're letting you preload or something.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Hawkbit on May 20, 2016, 11:14:45 PM
I thought this didn't go live until Tuesday, but there's this big blue "Play" button on my launcher. Early access for pre-buying?

Hm.. and now I get "Game server connection failed...retrying." It certainly SEEMS like a Blizzard launch.

It goes live worldwide at the first zone to hit midnight Tuesday. For PST, it's 4pm Monday.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Furiously on May 23, 2016, 01:35:04 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPRRupAM4DI&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPRRupAM4DI&feature=youtu.be)

I want an Overwatch movie like ten times more than I want a Warcraft movie. The feels these shorts have.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Samprimary on May 23, 2016, 03:04:19 PM
i've actually thought that all of the shorts that have come out since the announcement movie have had really bad, predictable writing. this one is styled in the same mold, it is so telegraphed and generic that it feels markov chain-ish in parts

i mean i like that in this game, blizzard's bad writing is confined to exterior commercial shorts and not actually jammed into your face in the game D3-ish, but it's such a shame that such visual talent is wasted on such predictable shit

HOWEVER

one upside of the whole thing is that someone guessed that Dragons was gonna be pretty much this and released this video before Dragons dropped, and its pretty perfect

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnNOa1cQgBc


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Kail on May 23, 2016, 03:29:29 PM
i've actually thought that all of the shorts that have come out since the announcement movie have had really bad, predictable writing. this one is styled in the same mold, it is so telegraphed and generic that it feels markov chain-ish in parts

They feel like kid's movies to me.  Which is a better fit for Overwatch than something like Diablo at least.

I think they're doing fairly well given the constraints of a five minute video.  It's pretty similar to the TF2 stuff but aiming for drama instead of humor.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on May 23, 2016, 06:16:22 PM
Ok, NOW it's an official "well, no way you're connecting today" Blizzard launch.  :grin: :drill: :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: tmp on May 23, 2016, 08:08:14 PM
i've actually thought that all of the shorts that have come out since the announcement movie have had really bad, predictable writing. this one is styled in the same mold, it is so telegraphed and generic that it feels markov chain-ish in parts
You can take Metzen out of cringe worthy cliché fest, but you can't take cringe worthy cliché fest out of Metzen.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on May 23, 2016, 08:58:34 PM
Getting play of the game as defense (symmetra) and you assholes don't vote me MVP? Instead you give it to that hack Bastion who only got "most damage" because I also had "most eliminations"  fuck you. :D

That's all.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Falconeer on May 24, 2016, 03:06:32 AM
Yeah, good thing they took scoreboards out, and replaced it with this wonderful, informative, satisfying, rewarding new system. Real nice.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on May 24, 2016, 05:14:50 AM
Yep. It is, I didn't rage once or get raged at by anyone but myself.  The above post was tongue in cheek. 


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Malakili on May 24, 2016, 06:38:53 AM
I did have one Genji on my team last night playing like a fucking idiot and then using his K:D to justify his play style when we asked him to start playing the objectives. I saw that literally zero times during my time playing the closed and open beta.

So yeah, exactly the problem people worried about.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on May 24, 2016, 09:23:04 AM
I expect those people to drop off pretty quick as nobody cares about stroking their E-peen over time.

So far the matchmaker's also doing a fine job of putting me up against people who suck equally, too. I tried Arcade for a few games and got smeared all over the place. I think I managed 3 kills in 2 games. Switched back to quick play and games were competitive without being punishing again. None of them turned into the absolute blow-outs that the arcades were because people were playing specific characters going for kills.

Arcade mode, in short, sucked to play as someone not hardcore about shooters.  I guess it makes sense then that I've seen the hardcore shooters praising the mode.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Nija on May 24, 2016, 09:32:33 AM
39 eliminations as Winston and I didn't even make the card lineup. Unbelievable.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: schild on May 24, 2016, 01:08:44 PM
That video a little further up is trash compared to the Meet The series.

All it told me is there are a lot of weaboos at Blizzard.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Falconeer on May 24, 2016, 01:42:42 PM
Overwatch’s Michael Chu On Lore And Storytelling (https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2016/05/23/overwatch-michael-chu-interview/).

Quote
That said, it may be kind of obvious but I do like the story of Hanzo and Genji. They’re two characters with a very interlinked past and that sort of thing is very interesting to explore. I also think his character has gone through so much growth from where he started as a ninja Yakuza in training and then an Overwatch agent and eventually becomes a cyborg. I think the idea of him coming to grips with his life changing so much is an interesting story.

Good stuff here  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Sky on May 24, 2016, 02:12:48 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8bjvoHOSFs


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: schild on May 24, 2016, 03:09:32 PM
Overwatch’s Michael Chu On Lore And Storytelling (https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2016/05/23/overwatch-michael-chu-interview/).

Quote
That said, it may be kind of obvious but I do like the story of Hanzo and Genji. They’re two characters with a very interlinked past and that sort of thing is very interesting to explore. I also think his character has gone through so much growth from where he started as a ninja Yakuza in training and then an Overwatch agent and eventually becomes a cyborg. I think the idea of him coming to grips with his life changing so much is an interesting story.

Good stuff here  :why_so_serious:
:vomits:


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Khaldun on May 24, 2016, 03:21:47 PM
I liked Team Fortress 2 well enough as: 100% casual player and a not-very-good-at-FPS-games player. Like, I could have fun running around trying to do my best, could feel sometimes like I was useful, and when I played it (first year after Orange Box came out) people didn't seem to be so highly tuned in running it that they hated anyone who wasn't 100% super-practiced leet. It was fun and well-tuned.

I've really hated most other multiplayer shooters--people seem too demanding, the gameplay is too precise, there are too many asshats, the genre doesn't float my boat.

Is this worth a shot? Or by the time I play it will there be a bunch of leet assholes screaming at anyone who doesn't do the absolutely optimal or necessary thing precisely when they're supposed to?


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on May 24, 2016, 03:40:09 PM
I'm like you and I'm having fun. It helps that there's characters who don't require 360-spin no-scope headshot skills to be useful.  The majority of my play has been as Symmestra and the ability to think strategically about where you place your Transporter and your Turrets helps far more than aiming skills.  (Plus her weapons is lock-on aim, even if it's short range.)


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: schild on May 24, 2016, 03:58:23 PM
So, yeah, TF2 again.

Did we need this? Like, to exist (as a game)?


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Paelos on May 24, 2016, 04:02:37 PM
So, yeah, TF2 again.

Did we need this? Like, to exist (as a game)?

You ask that about every Blizzard game like you expect them to innovate or do something new instead of polish something and make gobs of money off people you hate.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: schild on May 24, 2016, 04:13:38 PM
What can I say, Blizzard North is best Blizzard.

TF2 already felt like a Blizzard game. Highly polished, distilled until clear, monetized brilliantly, and a literal child could grab it. It had already been Blizzardized. Now it's.... more Blizzardized? I don't know.

At least Hearthstone, while just bad Magic, was at least a departure from Magic and filled a different niche of that market even if that niche is filled with garbage.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: schild on May 24, 2016, 04:15:35 PM
Note, I'm not saying this is bad. I'm just having trouble wrapping my head around it. This particular Blizzard game already existed, it just said Valve on the box.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: luckton on May 24, 2016, 04:27:59 PM
I tend to agree with Schild. I literally have no drive for this game, and love Blizzard stuff with a passion.

Add a story/offline campaign or something and I'll bite, but between TF2 and The Division, my FPS/shoot 'em up itch is being very sufficiently scratched.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: ezrast on May 24, 2016, 09:15:22 PM
My impression from the Beta was that this game requires you to be good (as in, twitchy and good at aiming) significantly less than TF2 does. That's enough for me to prefer it to TF2, I think, even though the latter is probably a better designed game overall.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Kail on May 24, 2016, 09:31:13 PM
Note, I'm not saying this is bad. I'm just having trouble wrapping my head around it. This particular Blizzard game already existed, it just said Valve on the box.

Sure, but that didn't stop them from releasing Heroes of the Storm, either.  People who don't follow Dota or LoL don't really get the differences between any of these three games, they think they're just the same game with different titles, but there are pretty massive changes at a fundamental level that make the gameplay really very different.  Ditto the difference between Hearthstone and Magic: to everyone who doesn't play Magic, they're just two mostly identical trading card games.  Diablo or Starcraft are in the same space, basically: try explaining to someone who doesn't play RTS why Starcraft 2 is different from Starcraft 1.  That doesn't mean there are no differences, or that the differences aren't important, but people who aren't in to the genre are always going to look at it and go "I don't get why this is any different from the million other games which look the same to me".

I mean, sure, there are some similarities between Overwatch and TF2, but it's not like they're indistinguishable from each other, any more than World of Warcraft is indistinguishable from, like, Aion or Tera or whatever.  And while I loved TF2, it's almost ten years old at this point, I think it's good to see some innovation in the space.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Malakili on May 24, 2016, 09:31:56 PM
TF2 also really suffers at this point from the amount of shenanigans brought in by various unlocks. The game was extremely streamlined near launch, and with the exception of a few changes to engineer (upgradable teleporter and dispenser) and spy (cloak time from ammo), I don't really think much of what they did over the long haul has made the game better. When I log into a game and see a bunch of demo knights running around, I die a little inside.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Surlyboi on May 24, 2016, 09:36:04 PM
To call TF2 on its shenanigans as a way of excusing Blizzard for being derivative bitches once again is not acceptable.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Fabricated on May 24, 2016, 09:37:35 PM
Note, I'm not saying this is bad. I'm just having trouble wrapping my head around it. This particular Blizzard game already existed, it just said Valve on the box.
It's TF2+Moba mechanics and trying to capitalize on the latter's popularity and later monetization strategy with new "heroes".


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Malakili on May 24, 2016, 09:39:25 PM
They've said they aren't charging for new heroes, although I guess the skins for them are part of the monetization plan.

Also, yes, this is a TF2 clone. A good one. My point above was I'd rather play this, today, than TF2.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Nija on May 24, 2016, 10:12:11 PM
I think people are actually confused as to what this is.

Think back to TF2 at release. That's a game that hasn't existed in many years. TF2 for the last, what, 5 years has been a complete mess.

There are no MOBA mechanics. It's a class based FPS game. Think quakeworld team fortress. Think TFC. Think TF2. There aren't two NPC sides, no towers, no feeding or whatever. It's not a fucking MOBA.

So, should this game exist? Of course it should! TF2 is fucking garbage and has been for a long, long time. You are all probably thinking fondly about what TF2 was, pre-hats and alt weapons. Not about what TF2 is now.

Go ahead and download TF2 and try it out. I'll wait. Then take a hard look at Overwatch and realize how poorly your memory functions in your (and my) old age.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: ezrast on May 24, 2016, 10:17:13 PM
^ This guy is correct; I should amend my "better designed" comment to refer specifically to the first couple years of TF2, which was all I played.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Rasix on May 24, 2016, 10:20:03 PM
Yah, I'd rather pay $40 on the prospect of liking this than loading up TF2 for free for precisely the issues that Malakili and Nija have touched on. This was prime iteration fodder and it seems unsurprisingly that Blizzard did a decent job of it.

I just haven't bought this because I'm cheap, suck at shooters, and still having fun elsewhere. The sucking at shooters is probably the biggest hurdle at the moment.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: schild on May 24, 2016, 10:20:26 PM
Note, I'm not saying this is bad. I'm just having trouble wrapping my head around it. This particular Blizzard game already existed, it just said Valve on the box.

Sure, but that didn't stop them from releasing Heroes of the Storm, either.  

I actually give HOTS a pass. Valve nabbed DOTA from them when it really should've been made by Blizzard and they HAD to answer it in some fashion. It was expected of them at that point as DOTA was their domain, tangentially, since DOTA became a thing.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: schild on May 24, 2016, 10:21:21 PM
Note, I'm not saying this is bad. I'm just having trouble wrapping my head around it. This particular Blizzard game already existed, it just said Valve on the box.
It's TF2+Moba mechanics and trying to capitalize on the latter's popularity and later monetization strategy with new "heroes".
What MOBA mechanics?

Nija already pointed out that was horseshit. No need to point it out further.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Margalis on May 24, 2016, 11:31:55 PM
I can see the confusion because there are A LOT of "MOBA-inspired" arena shooters coming out. This just isn't really one of them, other than some minor things likes calling every character a "hero" and having specific characters instead of classes.

It's weird to me that someone didn't copy TF2 earlier. The game really has been shit for forever. The design for this game is pretty much "like TF2, except the classes are named characters instead." Why didn't someone do that 5 years ago?

Then again Dragon Quest Builders is the first decently-budgeted Minecraft-style game. Almost unfathomable that it took that long.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Sophismata on May 25, 2016, 12:00:01 AM
It's not as good as TF2 was at its prime (before TF2 became a mess). Overwatch's shooting feels off, there is way less depth and the character design is uninspired or misleading.

But if you're just looking for a casual FPS it works, its match-making works, and you should have fun with it.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Megrim on May 25, 2016, 01:02:34 AM
Yep, Hanzo is still a piece of shit.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Falconeer on May 25, 2016, 02:24:40 AM
I just realized that the main reason I am having a decent amount of fun with this is that I can basically switch between 21 FPS weapons with a very distinct feeling at any given time. As soon as I am bored with how one feels, I can switch to another. And the hero skills are just an added bonus. It reminds me a lot of why I like Smite (the Arena, not the MOBA-lanes bullshit).

To me this feels a lot like Smite (Arena), which I loved, meet Team Fortress, which I loved.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Fabricated on May 25, 2016, 06:41:38 AM
Note, I'm not saying this is bad. I'm just having trouble wrapping my head around it. This particular Blizzard game already existed, it just said Valve on the box.
It's TF2+Moba mechanics and trying to capitalize on the latter's popularity and later monetization strategy with new "heroes".
What MOBA mechanics?

Nija already pointed out that was horseshit. No need to point it out further.
I say MOBA mechanics since it's a huge roster of heroes with roles but distinct abilities and ultimates. Seems MOBAish enough to me.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: rk47 on May 25, 2016, 07:15:40 AM
The doujins will be good.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: schild on May 25, 2016, 01:27:24 PM
Then again Dragon Quest Builders is the first decently-budgeted Minecraft-style game. Almost unfathomable that it took that long.

I had not heard of this. It looks fucking awesome.

Forbes called Minecraft's crafting system willfully obtuse. Well, it's not as willfully obtuse as Squeenix not releasing it over here for PC.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Yegolev on May 25, 2016, 01:41:17 PM
It's not here on any system, it seems, which is very what year is this lol.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Sir T on May 25, 2016, 04:29:09 PM
Paging RK47, Overwatch Porn off the starboard bow!

http://kotaku.com/inside-the-surprisingly-big-overwatch-porn-scene-1778229605 (yeah, do i need to stick a NTFW tag here?)

Oddly, Blizzard is starting to crack down on it now...


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on May 25, 2016, 05:59:29 PM
Why?  Are they suddenly surprised? There's shitloads of WOW porn out there too. No big shocker there was going to be tons of Overwatch porn with much more attractive and human characters that lend to porn cosplay more easily.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: tmp on May 25, 2016, 06:05:35 PM
Quote
On Pornhub, the most popular video game-related porn search is Minecraft

srsly, wtf :uhrr:


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Sir T on May 25, 2016, 06:37:57 PM
No-one likes women with curves these days.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: schild on May 25, 2016, 06:59:28 PM
No-one likes women with curves these days.
That's because the definition of curves has become fat chicks. You can blame MTV for that, but that's the reality we live in now.

Also, given the popularity of Christina Hendricks, and I presume your classical use of the word "curves," I'm going to go with "you're wrong, but she'd look stupid in Overwatch."


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Ard on May 25, 2016, 07:34:57 PM
(http://www.thenerdpirates.com/uploads/2/7/6/1/27616051/7600857.jpg?735)


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: schild on May 25, 2016, 08:10:28 PM
I don't think Sir T can joke. I take everything he says in a boring but serious way.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Sir T on May 25, 2016, 10:22:23 PM
[/Principal Skinner]


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Falconeer on May 26, 2016, 05:08:49 AM
DISCLAIMER: It's my fault (I guess).

I just realized Overwatch costs 40, not 60. 60 is only for the Origins edition which is full of shit I don't give a single fuck about. But Blizzard hid the "regular" edition so well under walls and walls of advertising on their website that neither me nor any of my friends had the slightest idea that there was a 40$/€/£ edition anywhere.

What a masterpiece in misdirection and "marketing", fucking Blizzard.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Lucas on May 26, 2016, 06:32:40 AM
DISCLAIMER: It's my fault (I guess).

I just realized Overwatch costs 40, not 60. 60 is only for the Origins edition which is full of shit I don't give a single fuck about. But Blizzard hid the "regular" edition so well under walls and walls of advertising on their website that neither me nor any of my friends had the slightest idea that there was a 40$/€/£ edition anywhere.

What a masterpiece in misdirection and "marketing", fucking Blizzard.

Ah! Almost fell into the same trap myself, then I clicked alla cazzodicanesomewhere, err, randomly on the screen and found the hidden "standard edition"  :grin:


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Samprimary on May 26, 2016, 01:09:39 PM
a surprisingly large number of people must be playing this. i have seen more talk about this game across more communities since i've seen for anything in years.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: schild on May 26, 2016, 01:27:47 PM
a surprisingly large number of people must be playing this. i have seen more talk about this game across more communities since i've seen for anything in years.

butts

(and gorilla?)


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Malakili on May 26, 2016, 01:59:32 PM
A lot of people are playing this because it's not an exaggeration to say that this is the best shooter to come out in nearly a decade. Yeah it's fashionable to hate on Blizzard. Yeah, it's a TF2 clone. But it's really really good.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: 01101010 on May 26, 2016, 02:53:01 PM
I guess I travel in different circles because this has only come up here. This is not surprising to me.   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Samprimary on May 26, 2016, 04:23:02 PM
a surprisingly large number of people must be playing this. i have seen more talk about this game across more communities since i've seen for anything in years.

butts

(and gorilla?)

(http://i.imgur.com/xEapZff.jpg)


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Surlyboi on May 26, 2016, 04:43:44 PM
A lot of people are playing this because it's not an exaggeration to say that this is the best shooter to come out in nearly a decade. Yeah it's fashionable to hate on Blizzard. Yeah, it's a TF2 clone. But it's really really good.

No, a lot of people are playing it because it's Blizzard and they've bought into the "Blizzard maeks god gaems" collective bullshit. It could be a garbage shooter and the masses would still play it because of the name.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Sophismata on May 26, 2016, 06:20:14 PM
A lot of people are playing this because it's not an exaggeration to say that this is the best shooter to come out in nearly a decade. Yeah it's fashionable to hate on Blizzard. Yeah, it's a TF2 clone. But it's really really good.

No, a lot of people are playing it because it's Blizzard and they've bought into the "Blizzard maeks god gaems" collective bullshit. It could be a garbage shooter and the masses would still play it because of the name.
It's not garbage but the shooting is subpar. Visual style is top notch, though, and the map design is really strong given how much vertical movement some characters have.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Venkman on May 26, 2016, 07:29:11 PM
It works, it's super fast both in loading and in play (I'm done with a match in the same time fucking Division finishes loading), it doesn't separate the super elite from the plebes on any level other than skill, it's gorgeous, it's easy to learn, and it doesn't have chisel-jaw-meets-emo bullshit storylines about one dimensional shit nobody cares about.

On that, it's attractive to the mobile gamer edge.

But, it's also been marketed to hell and gone as the next spectator-pushed eventually-sponsored eSport.

So basically: great product from a strong development team that focused on what's important for the marketers to market.

SOP for any business.

Funny though how after all these year, just doing this continues to put Blizzard on a pedestal so many other games need to excuse.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Falconeer on May 27, 2016, 08:51:31 AM
We are back to the problem of Blizzard visual style. I really don't see how Overwatch is gorgeous at all. Pretty to look at, easy on the eyes, very well made? Sure. Gorgeous? Not even close. It's 2016. Games look waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better than that.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Malakili on May 27, 2016, 08:55:43 AM
The only problem I have with the visuals in this game is that I feel some of the skins substantially change the silhouette of the characters. For example, the Reaper mariachi skin makes him look like Mcree from afar.



Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on May 27, 2016, 09:00:25 AM
We are back to the problem of Blizzard visual style. I really don't see how Overwatch is gorgeous at all. Pretty to look at, easy on the eyes, very well made? Sure. Gorgeous? Not even close. It's 2016. Games look waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better than that.

Super and Hyper-realisim is fantastic for those with systems who can run them. It's not any more or less gorgeous than stylized art, it's just more polys. 

You're also just peen-waving about your reality-capture ability rather than creativity in many cases.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Samprimary on May 27, 2016, 09:02:03 AM
We are back to the problem of Blizzard visual style. I really don't see how Overwatch is gorgeous at all. Pretty to look at, easy on the eyes, very well made? Sure. Gorgeous? Not even close. It's 2016. Games look waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better than that.

Overwatch went 100% the exceptional visual clarity route, and the gameplay is stronger for it. It's like a playable comic book, without any of that raytracing shit.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Falconeer on May 27, 2016, 09:05:16 AM
All true! It's just not gorgeous.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on May 27, 2016, 10:28:46 AM
(http://www.hardcoregaming101.net/eyeofthebeholder/eyeofthebeholder3-ibm.jpg)


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Paelos on May 27, 2016, 01:35:03 PM
A lot of people are playing this because it's not an exaggeration to say that this is the best shooter to come out in nearly a decade. Yeah it's fashionable to hate on Blizzard. Yeah, it's a TF2 clone. But it's really really good.

No, a lot of people are playing it because it's Blizzard and they've bought into the "Blizzard maeks god gaems" collective bullshit. It could be a garbage shooter and the masses would still play it because of the name.

I used to think otherwise, but it's true now more than ever. This was a failed project they rebranded and slapped a tag on, well after they tried to make a new innovative game, and it still came out exactly like something else that had already existed for 5 years.

But it's like Apple, people buy it regardless of the competition because of the name brand.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Malakili on May 27, 2016, 01:50:34 PM
I encourage you to go back and read Nija's post from the previous page.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Fabricated on May 27, 2016, 02:30:32 PM
I'm enjoying this a fair amount but this comes off to me as the Hearthstone of team-based shooters. Like, if someone tells you they're a pro Overwatch player your response should be to laugh hysterically.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Pennilenko on May 27, 2016, 02:49:23 PM
I'm enjoying this a fair amount but this comes off to me as the Hearthstone of team-based shooters. Like, if someone tells you they're a pro Overwatch player your response should be to laugh hysterically.
or instead of laughing, you say, "Yeah man, me too."

Then you go on feeling good with yourself because it is the only game you feel like a pro in because of age.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Paelos on May 27, 2016, 03:08:00 PM
I encourage you to go back and read Nija's post from the previous page.

I'm not sure how anything he said plays against what I said. The fact is this was a failed project that they retooled, it's not at all innovative, and it plays like a game from 5 years ago. Whether or not you find that fun isn't really the point I'm making. The point is that on it's own merits without the Blizzard tag, this game would never draw the following it has. It's not being analyzed by the public on it's gaming merit.

Similar to Hearthstone.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Kail on May 27, 2016, 05:28:12 PM
I'm not sure how anything he said plays against what I said. The fact is this was a failed project that they retooled, it's not at all innovative, and it plays like a game from 5 years ago. Whether or not you find that fun isn't really the point I'm making. The point is that on it's own merits without the Blizzard tag, this game would never draw the following it has. It's not being analyzed by the public on it's gaming merit.

Similar to Hearthstone.

Except that comes off as bagging on the game because it's popular.  The game does have some similarities with TF2 but calling it "not at all innovative", in a genre which has been glutted with yearly sequels and rehashes for years now, comes off as reaching really hard to find something bad to say about the game.  If there's some amazing AAA dev who's consistently pushing out groundbreaking FPS then I'd love to hear about it, otherwise I suppose Blizzard will have to be content with being a complete trash company whose only consolation is that every other company in the world is somehow even worse.

It's not banking on the Blizzard name (if you can even do that anymore, it's not like copies of World of Warcraft: Legion are flying off the shelves), we all had the option to play the game before we bought it.  We all knew what the game was.  And honestly, this argument was old years ago when MMO devs were whining that nobody played their crappy cash grab bandwagon titles because we all just had some kind of Pavlovian response to the Blizzard logo, and not because their games were boring crap, no sirree.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: rk47 on May 27, 2016, 05:30:03 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/3YaycwA.png)


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Tairnyn on May 27, 2016, 05:38:20 PM
My hypothesis is that the Blizzard name gives a sense of permanence, a level of investment power that provides certainty of infrastructure and future updates. The glut of indie games and rapid fire franchises (e.g. CoD) may also help, as younger gamers learn hard lessons from Kickstarters and their niche favorites facing dwindling player counts and the shutting down of multiplayer servers. WoW, Diablo, Starcraft.. they may have lost their luster with most, but they are still there and still pushing content, available to play.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Fabricated on May 27, 2016, 06:27:32 PM
The promise of continued support or at least a long-lived playerbase is a good motivator to buy a multiplayer game.

I paid money for titanfall, which is a damn good game IMO but holy fuck was it hobbled by being Origin only.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Margalis on May 28, 2016, 12:49:14 AM
Blizzard is very good at taking existing game ideas and polishing off the bad bits.

I've always thought of video game design as two things - adding good stuff and removing bad stuff. Blizzard is super good at removing bad stuff, like a game design rock tumbler. Anything that feels off or janky they fix. In douchey video game lingo, their games are low friction.

The problem I have with Blizzard games is that they often don't put in good stuff that's very interesting, and the genres they play in are genres that don't particularly appeal to me. I could go for a really polished 3D Action Adventure game, but a really polished team-based FPS just doesn't interest me.

That said, there's plenty of room for a company that takes existing game ideas and makes a best possible version of it without adding much.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Ginaz on May 28, 2016, 01:00:09 AM
The promise of continued support or at least a long-lived playerbase is a good motivator to buy a multiplayer game.

I paid money for titanfall, which is a damn good game IMO but holy fuck was it hobbled by being Origin only.

I've read a lot of people commenting this exact same sentiment.  They know with Blizzard, the game will be around for a long while and fully supported and updated.  Evolve?  Battlefront?  Titanfall?  All practically dead and as others have said, TF2 just isn't what it use to be.  They also don't have to go out and buy the latest edition of Call of Duty every year if they want a multiplayer shooter with an active player base.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Sir T on May 28, 2016, 01:19:29 AM
Evolve was killed stone dead on release with its DLC crap.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Job601 on May 28, 2016, 03:04:04 PM
I encourage you to go back and read Nija's post from the previous page.

I'm not sure how anything he said plays against what I said. The fact is this was a failed project that they retooled, it's not at all innovative, and it plays like a game from 5 years ago. Whether or not you find that fun isn't really the point I'm making. The point is that on it's own merits without the Blizzard tag, this game would never draw the following it has. It's not being analyzed by the public on it's gaming merit.

Similar to Hearthstone.

This opinion would be convincing if Hearthstone and Overwatch weren't the most fun games games I've played since they were released.  They might not be the "best" by some abstract standard, but they're definitely the most fun.  That is their gaming merit! Compare this to Magic, which has a great literate culture but is more fun to read about than play.  A lot of people agree with me, and they're not all bandwagoning.  f13 in general is still bitter that they were so, so wrong about the quality of Hearthstone.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Margalis on May 28, 2016, 07:37:18 PM
Hearthstone is a very pragmatically designed game.

On paper, just looking at the rules and such, I think it's pretty clearly inferior to Magic by a wide margin. However Magic is simply unplayable online. Even in an offline tournament setting playing Magic is very tedious.

Even though Magic is a "serious" game with deep rules and systems it works far better for casual play. Once you start getting technical about passing priority and such it becomes a mess.

Hearthstone is very playable online. And that's the main goal of the game, so by that metric clearly a success.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: schild on May 28, 2016, 08:36:58 PM
No one here questions the polish or quality of Blizzard games. No one here expects them to fail in either.

Regardless, Hearthstone is the shitty pop star of ccgs. There's nothing wrong with enjoying shitty pop. This isn't about being bitter, it's literally half an ecosystem. They finish out all the systems that make a ccg and keep it as tight as it is and I'll be impressed.

Until then, it's just another highly polished Blizzard game that comes with everything that's promised in such a product - which unfortunately, isn't enough for me when it comes to CCGs.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Malakili on May 28, 2016, 08:54:42 PM
Yeah, Hearthstone does what it does very well. However, the fact that it isn't a TCG makes the game take a very big hit for me.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Sir T on May 29, 2016, 12:37:24 AM
The promise of continued support or at least a long-lived playerbase is a good motivator to buy a multiplayer game.

I'd agree to a point. One of the big draws of Games workshop was that if you bought their stuff and went to a convention there would be people playing their stuff. If you bought their competitors there might not be anyone playing that game. So, therefore, GW stuff became the default whether the games were crap or not, and there has already been acres of internet ink spilled on that subject.

The problem is, of course, that means that it's a self fulfilling circular prophecy when it comes to these giant companies. Blizzard games are always successful becasue they are blizzard and blizzard games are always successful. It does not mean that they are actually good as such. In fact they can just have their games working to a certain low level and watch the money get thrown at them, becasue everyone comes to Blizzard. Its the difference between serving dinner and adding seasoning.

TO me, this game looks like the same art style hat Blizzard has on every one of their games, so its all bling and no flash. Again there's nothing wrong with every one of their games having the same comfortable style. But it also means that there is no way in if you happen not to like that style very much, and sadly I don't. I don't actually dislike it, but it does not appeal much to me.

Overwatch looks like a competent game. It will have a vibrant community of players becasue its blizzard. But I've watched people play it, and it does not appeal to me. It just seems like a 6/10 to me. Nothing wrong with it but no sparkle to entice me. If it's your slice of carrot cake that's great.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: schild on May 29, 2016, 03:12:54 AM
Blizzard games are basically all 6/10. But in the broken down list of stats it goes like this:
Graphics: 7.5 - always
Sound: 10
Gameplay: always passable
Innovation: 0
Blizzardness: 20
Complete  Systems: 5

Blizzardness is the gaming equivalent of umami.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Pennilenko on May 29, 2016, 01:59:54 PM
Blizzardness is the gaming equivalent of umami.

That is the perfect comparison. Never been able to quite put my finger on it that accurately before.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Sir T on May 29, 2016, 07:31:51 PM
I had to look it up. Cant disagree.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Surlyboi on May 29, 2016, 08:59:00 PM
Blizzard games are basically all 6/10. But in the broken down list of stats it goes like this:
Graphics: 7.5 - always
Sound: 10
Gameplay: always passable
Innovation: 0
Blizzardness: 20
Complete  Systems: 5

Blizzardness is the gaming equivalent of umami.

Fucking accurate.

Blizzard is the Taylor Swift of the gaming industry.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Margalis on May 29, 2016, 09:12:02 PM
Except for HOTS, which is missing the Blizzardness and thus just a pretty average game.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Hoax on May 30, 2016, 12:46:26 AM
Except for HOTS, which is missing the Blizzardness and thus just a pretty average game.

And D3 (at release?). I know it got "more fun" later but imo it was at least very similar to HOTS. Not good enough to distract you from the fact it had no soul or no real meat only synthetic umami-taste.

And Hearthstone... that's a Blizzard Zynga/FB/Mobile game not Blizzard MTG. People need to stop insulting MTG by even making that comparison.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Nija on May 30, 2016, 01:29:43 AM
I don't know. I don't play just any Blizzard game and haven't ever been that way. I reluctantly played WoW. I skipped the first expansion, played the second for 3 weeks, and have never returned. I played D3 at release and quit until the expansion, and played that couch co-op on PS4.

This is my first Blizzard game in QUITE AWHILE and it's strictly a gameplay thing for me. I didn't play a single second during alpha, beta, any of that - until OPEN beta.

I really like to think I don't have blinders on for this one. Maybe I do. I'm not sure yet.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Sophismata on May 30, 2016, 02:46:16 AM
I don't know. I don't play just any Blizzard game and haven't ever been that way. I reluctantly played WoW. I skipped the first expansion, played the second for 3 weeks, and have never returned. I played D3 at release and quit until the expansion, and played that couch co-op on PS4.

This is my first Blizzard game in QUITE AWHILE and it's strictly a gameplay thing for me. I didn't play a single second during alpha, beta, any of that - until OPEN beta.

I really like to think I don't have blinders on for this one. Maybe I do. I'm not sure yet.
It's not bad. It's just not great — which is really frustrating since a few of me mates are playing it now as the TF2 replacement. I wouldn't feel bad for enjoying it, though. I'd love to find it more engaging, I might go back and try again if they do another open event, to see if the shooting has picked up.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Setanta on May 30, 2016, 05:13:32 AM
It's not bad. It's just not great

Ironically, that's how I saw TF2. QWTF was fantastic, TFC was good but it was nowhere near as good as the original and TF2 was a refined, cartoon variant that didn't really do anything new, in fact there was a great gnashing of teeth when some of the QWTF systems didn't make it into the cut (grenades anyone?).

The innovative successor to QWTF was Tribes, not TF2.

T2, TFC, TF2, T:V none of these innovated but they were decent games that engaged the audience and somewhere in that mix lives Overwatch.





Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Venkman on May 30, 2016, 09:59:54 AM
I heartily agree with schild's list. But I would add something about "age".

I've played Blizzard games since Warcraft 2. This is so long ago it wasn't even common in my circles yet to theorycraft about games. Back then I was peak Blizzard demographic and psychographic. But that was a marriage, two kids, and three houses ago. 20 years later I'm absolutely not their target market  :geezer: Some pie chart breakdown of their user base would likely feature me in the <5% "other/organic user" category.

Which means I don't know if their games are generic empirically, or generic just to those who measure their time as video games in decades.

I think umani is a good analogy. But Taylor Swift is too for a different reason: skilled, polished, and ridiculously popular with my kids and those slightly older than them. She's one controversy away from being their generation's Madonna, but otherwise, yea, a programmatic phenomenon rather than an organic one.

Of course, how often do truly homespun indie-level successes become international ones without that programming :-)

Anyway, I always go by my analogy to Apple anyway: never the first, rarely even the second, but generally the most polished for their core audience of believers, and sometimes successful enough to attract a whole bunch of people to something new to them.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Malakili on May 30, 2016, 10:26:05 AM
Maybe it can be called Blizzardness, but Blizzard games FEEL polished in a way that few other companies' games do. Even calling it polish is actually a wrong because it's fundamental to how the game plays. Blizzard tends to do away with jank. While many of us are seasoned veterans of dealing with jank to get to the fun, the fact that their games tend to feel right when you play them is enormously important and I think generally undervalued in the gaming industry. The fanciest, neatest, deepest game systems mean nothing when it feels like a slog to do anything.  I think a lot of us (myself included from time to time) wear our willingness to put up with crap for a "deep" or "complex" or "interesting" experience, but I don't think it's wrong to admit that a game that just flat out plays well counts for a lot.

From what I've been hearing this is the thing the new Doom game got right (at least in the single player), to give a non-Blizzard example. I think Blizzard does it better than anyone (including Valve). I can't really stress enough that this is the reason why I end up playing something like Diablo 3 for 1000s of hours even when there are other ARPGs out right now that that have game systems I like more in principle. Diablo 3 just *feels* better to play.  Overwatch isn't particularly innovative, it doesn't have the gunplay of Counter-Strike, the speed and movement of Quake 3, or the map design of TF2. But it does play very very well.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: tmp on May 30, 2016, 08:20:59 PM
Graphics: 7.5 - always
I'd break this further into

Graphics: 6
T&A: 9


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Kail on May 30, 2016, 09:11:54 PM
Graphics: 7.5 - always
I'd break this further into

Graphics: 6
T&A: 9

See, like, when I say people seem like they're really reaching for stuff to hate on, this is what I'm talking about.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: tmp on May 30, 2016, 11:51:39 PM
I'm not so much hating on it as observing that's just how they seem to roll.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: schild on May 31, 2016, 02:21:37 AM
Remove all humanoid or relevant t&a and it's still a 7.5. That's simply what they do. They are C students.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: lamaros on May 31, 2016, 02:46:55 AM
This has got a lot of advertising here in Aus, and from that and what I'm seeing about the internet it feels like Blizzard thinks this could be a really big game and are pushing hard.

No desire to play it for me, though.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Sophismata on May 31, 2016, 03:12:03 AM
Real Hanzo gameplay:
https://gfycat.com/UnimportantShinyBaldeagle

I looked into some of the game mechanics a bit more. It has some pretty shitty mechanics for resolving latency and the servers run at 20 ticks (in comparison, CSGO is 64 / 128 depending on if it's a tourney or not). Overwatch uses favour-the-shooter and some lazy hit calcs help "close the skill gap".

It's probably not relevant for most of you, but it will explain why you can get killed through walls or after blinking / dodging with tracer, genji, etc.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Falconeer on May 31, 2016, 04:13:30 AM
People are starting to figure out how to defend. Sure, defense it's probably meant to be easier, but turrets are slowly starting to make the gameplay stale after only a week. Granted, there are a lot of counters and counter-counters, but a mix of Bastion, Tornbjorn and Symmetra are already pretty much mandatory in a defense and are making defense rounds boring. At least on attack, even if you die over and over, you feel you have to come out with solutions to problems. And winning on offense feels like an achievement while winning on defense feels like you've just done your dull duty.

In short, the three turrets suck. Nerf please.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on May 31, 2016, 06:05:46 AM
Play on low skill with me. You'll still have plenty of Reinharts, Reapers, and Mercy players on def with only one maybe two turrets.  😱


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Malakili on May 31, 2016, 07:17:47 AM
Turrets in this game are very much like TF2 turrets in that a team that doesn't work together and isn't willing to switch to classes that are good against them can just throw themselves against a wall for 10 minutes until they lose. On the other hand, a coordinated team that is working together can plow through them almost trivially. 

Case in point, I was playing TF2 the week before Overwatch release. I decided to play some engineer and ended up racking up insane amounts of kills with some relatively basic turret placements because the other team refused to bring enough demomen or ubercharges to the table. I can imagine a new player in that game just thinking "engineers are bullshit" or something, but they are really dependent on the offense being kind of bad.

I play a lot of Pharah and turrets just aren't a huge problem, especially when you learn the common placement spots.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Falconeer on May 31, 2016, 07:35:10 AM
There are three kind of "turrets". Bastion's, Engineer's and Symmetra's. They behave differently, they are usually placed in different locations, and they are not usually taken out with the same method. I obviously don't think they are unbeatable, but I believe they are making a lot of maps stale and boring. Also, coordinated groups are a luxury usually not available in Quickplay.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Malakili on May 31, 2016, 08:10:27 AM
All of them die to rockets pretty quick. Symmetra's can be a little annoying in certain choke points, but usually they are good for about one kill on you because you didn't realize there was a nest there and then you can take it out the next time. I find Torbjorn's turret to be pretty mediocre. It's ok in a crowded fight when the opposing team doesn't really target it down and it can just sit there shooting for a while, but again, dies fast.

Bastion is a bit of a different story and can really wreck a QM game if your team doesn't deal with it. It's also very map dependent. Genji does absolutely crush Bastion and if you can get any kind of angle on him with Pharah, Hanzo or Widowmaker you can at least for his to get out of turret mode for a few seconds and then engage him.

Again, this feels very much like TF2 to me. Engineers were stupid good at launch because people sucked at the game. Sometimes they still crush a pub game, but they aren't nearly as good now that people generally "get it." They are fairly low skill ceiling things and are going to decline in usefulness as players improve. A turret never gets better at the game. Bastions will get better, but being immobile is a HUGE downside that isn't yet being exploited as well as it will be by opposing teams.

I've seen games were those three heroes crush (in fact, I've done it on each of them myself), but I don't think they present the same problem in principle that you do. This is going to be less and less of an issue over time.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Paelos on May 31, 2016, 09:02:30 AM
Except that comes off as bagging on the game because it's popular.  The game does have some similarities with TF2 but calling it "not at all innovative", in a genre which has been glutted with yearly sequels and rehashes for years now, comes off as reaching really hard to find something bad to say about the game.  If there's some amazing AAA dev who's consistently pushing out groundbreaking FPS then I'd love to hear about it, otherwise I suppose Blizzard will have to be content with being a complete trash company whose only consolation is that every other company in the world is somehow even worse.

It's not banking on the Blizzard name (if you can even do that anymore, it's not like copies of World of Warcraft: Legion are flying off the shelves), we all had the option to play the game before we bought it.  We all knew what the game was.  And honestly, this argument was old years ago when MMO devs were whining that nobody played their crappy cash grab bandwagon titles because we all just had some kind of Pavlovian response to the Blizzard logo, and not because their games were boring crap, no sirree.

Far from it. My impressions of Hearthstone was that the game was fun, even as the card-nerds were shitting on it for being too RNG. But they aren't wrong. Hearthstone isn't innovative, and it IS too RNG where the skill of the player will run into issues given random elements at a much higher rate than other card games. Most players just don't care because 1) it's fun, and 2) it's Blizzard.

It's not a whine, it's a recognition of what the BRAND of Blizzard can do. It brings people to the table. The game itself has to keep them at said table. But to deny that you can still bank on the Blizzard name is simply silly.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Paelos on May 31, 2016, 09:04:45 AM
Blizzard is very good at taking existing game ideas and polishing off the bad bits.

I've always thought of video game design as two things - adding good stuff and removing bad stuff. Blizzard is super good at removing bad stuff, like a game design rock tumbler. Anything that feels off or janky they fix. In douchey video game lingo, their games are low friction.

The problem I have with Blizzard games is that they often don't put in good stuff that's very interesting, and the genres they play in are genres that don't particularly appeal to me. I could go for a really polished 3D Action Adventure game, but a really polished team-based FPS just doesn't interest me.

That said, there's plenty of room for a company that takes existing game ideas and makes a best possible version of it without adding much.

That's a good point about Blizzard which is why I desperately want them to try their hand at a Total War type game instead of CA (who don't understand what is the "bad stuff" and instead removes the good stuff).


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on May 31, 2016, 10:38:02 AM
The Total-War type games aren't action-oriented enough for Blizzard to bother with them. Blizzard works to make each of their games more action-oriented and less cerebral than their predecessors. (Yes, even WoW and Hearthstone). You don't have to do a ton of theorycrafting to do "ok" ad their games, because even button-mashing and sucking wind can get rewarded. I think you'd be stripping-out large parts of what make a TW or 4x game fit in their genre to try and do them Blizzard-style.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Druzil on May 31, 2016, 12:13:19 PM
I'm still pretty low level (12ish) but Bastion is definitely the biggest problem of the 3 in low level play.  I can see how he'd not be an issue on a coordinated team, someone can just switch to Mei/Winston/Genji/Reaper and take him out. 

While I'm still learning the maps though it's way easy for him to just deploy over the top of the team or in one of the million hidden corners and wipe everyone.  If anything, I'd say his mode switching time should be a little longer, but I don't play him so that's just a feeling from the receiving end of things.  Overall he's been less of an issue as I've been leveling up.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Megrim on May 31, 2016, 06:15:18 PM
Real Hanzo gameplay:
https://gfycat.com/UnimportantShinyBaldeagle

I looked into some of the game mechanics a bit more. It has some pretty shitty mechanics for resolving latency and the servers run at 20 ticks (in comparison, CSGO is 64 / 128 depending on if it's a tourney or not). Overwatch uses favour-the-shooter and some lazy hit calcs help "close the skill gap".

It's probably not relevant for most of you, but it will explain why you can get killed through walls or after blinking / dodging with tracer, genji, etc.

Yep, I'd say the biggest issues so far are the questionable hit detection and weak map design. Everything else about it is fine.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Trippy on May 31, 2016, 06:26:05 PM
Overwatch's server tick rate is only 20 Hz (20 updates per second) so yeah that causes problems.



Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on May 31, 2016, 07:21:34 PM
As someone who sucks at FPS, I don't notice or care.  So, Blizzardification +1.

At this point the most obnoxious thing is the people who treat it like an FPS deathmatch and don't stay on the point or think "I can 'main' a character and carry the game with my awesome K/D skills."

Because they largely can't.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Megrim on May 31, 2016, 08:13:09 PM
People are starting to figure out how to defend. Sure, defense it's probably meant to be easier, but turrets are slowly starting to make the gameplay stale after only a week. Granted, there are a lot of counters and counter-counters, but a mix of Bastion, Tornbjorn and Symmetra are already pretty much mandatory in a defense and are making defense rounds boring. At least on attack, even if you die over and over, you feel you have to come out with solutions to problems. And winning on offense feels like an achievement while winning on defense feels like you've just done your dull duty.

In short, the three turrets suck. Nerf please.

Also, Torbjorn's strength isn't really the turret but his completely bonkers rivet gun. It does so much damage it's not funny.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Sophismata on June 01, 2016, 12:58:49 AM
As someone who sucks at FPS, I don't notice or care.  So, Blizzardification +1.
Its effects are fairly noticeable to me, and in combination with some of the other issues explains why the shooting and movement feels slightly off.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Thrawn on June 02, 2016, 08:49:18 AM
So not only did Blizzard already permanently ban nearly 1,600 players in China for cheating in some form, they actually listed out every user name that was banned on the forums as well.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Fabricated on June 02, 2016, 02:22:17 PM
They're pretty brutal apparently- they whack you for doing any sort of DLL injection or file modification. People attempting to develop hacks have gotten whacked multiple times which can get pretty salty at $40 per.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Surlyboi on June 02, 2016, 02:29:33 PM
Good. Every company needs to do that once they've got solid proof of cheating.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Teleku on June 02, 2016, 04:10:52 PM
Yeah, say what you will about Blizzard, but they love to hear the lamentations of the cheaters.  Always loved that about them, whatever their other flaws.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Ginaz on June 02, 2016, 04:16:30 PM
What The Actual Fuck! :ye_gods:

NSFW NSFW NSFW

https://www.reddit.com/r/Overwatch_Porn/


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Teleku on June 02, 2016, 04:26:55 PM
Huh, didn't realize they allowed that sort of stuff at reddit.  Guess they want that sweet sweet 4chan money.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: kaid on June 02, 2016, 04:39:35 PM
Turrets in this game are very much like TF2 turrets in that a team that doesn't work together and isn't willing to switch to classes that are good against them can just throw themselves against a wall for 10 minutes until they lose. On the other hand, a coordinated team that is working together can plow through them almost trivially. 

Case in point, I was playing TF2 the week before Overwatch release. I decided to play some engineer and ended up racking up insane amounts of kills with some relatively basic turret placements because the other team refused to bring enough demomen or ubercharges to the table. I can imagine a new player in that game just thinking "engineers are bullshit" or something, but they are really dependent on the offense being kind of bad.

I play a lot of Pharah and turrets just aren't a huge problem, especially when you learn the common placement spots.

Turrets are strongest early in games like this. People are not well practiced in all the champs to realize there are some seriously hard counters to turrets. Pharah pretty much just owns turrets at massive range unless they are putting their turrets in some more concealed area which also means they are being way less dangerous. For the ones that are in nooks genji molests them charge in deflecting and finish it with a couple quick hits and lol away. long range explosives from a number of characters also do serious numbers on turrets.

Symetras turrets die if you sneeze at them one or two aoe's clears the entire nest and they take a pretty long time to get a full six reset back up again.

Early on those when people don't know the maps and don't know the heroes sentry guns are strong. Most of that goes away pretty rapidly though.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on June 02, 2016, 04:44:12 PM
Huh, didn't realize they allowed that sort of stuff at reddit.  Guess they want that sweet sweet 4chan money.

Oh my sweet summer child. How is it you've never heard of /r/gonewild. (NSFW, don't go looking.)


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: schild on June 02, 2016, 04:44:50 PM
Huh, didn't realize they allowed that sort of stuff at reddit.  Guess they want that sweet sweet 4chan money.
TONS OF SUBS LIKE THIS

What The Actual Fuck! :ye_gods:

NSFW NSFW NSFW

https://www.reddit.com/r/Overwatch_Porn/
You new to the internet there, hombre?

Edit: Really Merusk? Gone Wild? That's the visible tip of the reddit porn iceberg. Also, I think it's unofficial name is /r/4outof10


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Teleku on June 02, 2016, 05:43:02 PM
I do not actively read reddit unless linked to.  I'd ASSUMED, since they are well known and somewhat mainstream, they didn't actively host hardcore pornography (not just topless bikini babe subreddits), since that can lead to legal issues and whatever.  Especially niche internet fetish boards that 4chan loved so much.

Obviously I was terribly wrong and ignorant.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: rk47 on June 02, 2016, 06:05:59 PM
i must bookmark it so i wont accidentally type it by accident.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on June 02, 2016, 08:41:10 PM
Yeah, Widowmaker giving Tracer the 12" D is so common nowadays, it's downright puritanical.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Malakili on June 02, 2016, 08:43:40 PM
I think I'll just read what people on f13 are saying about Ove....  :ye_gods:


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Triforcer on June 02, 2016, 11:48:16 PM
Having a blast playing this in Asia.  Team comps are naturally good, without any prompting- haven't had one 3 sniper dumbfuck game.  And if people are named "l33thaxxor69" in kanji, at least I can't read it.  Oddly, Asians never pick Pharah or Roadhog. 


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Setanta on June 03, 2016, 03:39:04 AM
Apparently 7 million players since release - minus the cheaters that got banned.

Those are good numbers.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: lamaros on June 03, 2016, 04:41:25 AM
Since release? Unique players?


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Setanta on June 03, 2016, 06:01:31 AM
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20160602006554/en/Overwatch%C2%AE-Global-Hit-7-Million-Players%E2%80%94and-Counting


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: tmp on June 03, 2016, 08:04:06 AM
What The Actual Fuck! :ye_gods:

NSFW NSFW NSFW
Blizzard is apparently not amused, and DMCA notices are flying thick and fast.

(yeah, good luck with that)


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on June 03, 2016, 09:51:53 AM
I remain fascinated by the DMCA notices and wonder what prompted them. There's been Warcraft, Starcraft and (to a much lessor extent) Diablo porn for decades. Yes, decades. Why they decided to say, "oh hell, Porn!? No way, not with our fetish-friendly women," this time is beyond me. I can't fathom it at all.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on June 03, 2016, 10:51:16 AM
I think Overwatch hit at an interesting time of peak porn.  The amount or artists out there and programs which allow you to simply rip in game models into a viewer is unprecedented and even before release the sheer volume and variety of Overwatch fanart was...staggering.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Sir T on June 03, 2016, 11:25:07 AM
According to the article I linked a few pages ago, blizzard actually released the models months ago in order to drum up interest in the game. They have removed them from the download link now.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on June 03, 2016, 11:32:12 AM
"Here are our art assets we welcome all our fans to...oh....oh god....oh dear god, what have you done?!"


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on June 03, 2016, 11:46:43 AM
Blizzard employees never use the internet: Confirmed.

For presenting themselves as a bunch of nerdy dudebros they are awfully naive at times.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Xilren's Twin on June 03, 2016, 11:02:07 PM
My son is trying to play this and having a very odd problem.  Any time he plays a match, almost exaclty 2 and a half minutes in, he will get disconnected from his match and booted back to the game lobby.  He is still connected to Overwatch as a whole, and the game tries to reconnect and will let him back in eventually, but it's happened so much Bliz is punishing him as a frequent disconnecter...

Thus far, none of blizz support suggestions have amounted to diddly (i.e. windows updates, graphic driver updates, motherboard updates, dxdiags, traceroutes, etc).
The part that is baffling me is the consistent nature of it - he can time it almost to the second.
Anyone ever seen similar behavior?



Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Kail on June 03, 2016, 11:29:52 PM
Seen a few threads similar (though not with the 2:30 thing specifically, just a lot of disconnects) but no concrete solutions or specifics about the problem.

Some people swear that it helps if you turn on vsync, some people claim the router config was the issue ( https://us.battle.net/support/en/article/300479 ) but I'm not finding anything really solid yet or an official response aside from "it's probably an issue with your ISP"


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on June 04, 2016, 12:09:02 PM
Torbjorn plays of the game are amazing..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiMJ-s4T16M&feature=youtu.be

http://i.imgur.com/jGe20k5.gifv

https://gfycat.com/OffbeatCloudyDogfish


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Venkman on June 04, 2016, 03:34:38 PM
lol.

And is it just me, or does the internet need to deploy a web-standard for video scrubbing an animated gif?


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: calapine on June 04, 2016, 04:20:23 PM
lol.

And is it just me, or does the internet need to deploy a web-standard for video scrubbing an animated gif?

Those aren't actually GIFs but GIFVs so WebM (or MP4, I forget which). But yes, HTML 5 is supposed to take care of that.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Teleku on June 04, 2016, 04:20:26 PM
LOL at that last gif.

Though I also came here to just say they need to put in a fucking game mode that allows for only one turrent player per team.  Or maybe even just one class.  Haveing three different sort of players who can do different sorts of turrents you have to look out for is just......   :oh_i_see:

The chick who can plus 6 laser guns where ever she fucking wants is killing this game for me.  Maybe if they put in some other maps and game modes other than god damn attack defend, that could help also.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on June 04, 2016, 06:06:24 PM
Symmetras turrets are very weak. They'll get the unaware attack or support character if there's a nest of 3 or more but that's why you let the tanks lead the charge.  A single shot from any of the dps is enough to take them out.  She's my favorite but I'm already losing the ability to play her after the first rush because better players know how to take my turrets out quickly. 

Tobjorn is the better all around turret but bastion has saved a few of my defenses because players panic at the high dps and tanks are largely shit. 😱


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Azazel on June 04, 2016, 09:21:31 PM
Paging RK47, Overwatch Porn off the starboard bow!

http://kotaku.com/inside-the-surprisingly-big-overwatch-porn-scene-1778229605 (yeah, do i need to stick a NTFW tag here?)

Oddly, Blizzard is starting to crack down on it now...

Why?  Are they suddenly surprised? There's shitloads of WOW porn out there too. No big shocker there was going to be tons of Overwatch porn with much more attractive and human characters that lend to porn cosplay more easily.

I'm decently familiar with internets, but I didn't realise that this existed. At least in this form of animated video and such. I thought it was pretty much all hand-drawn hentai/slashfiction kind of thing. And I hd no idea that shit like Overwatch porn was a thing.  :ye_gods: :uhrr:


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on June 04, 2016, 10:34:42 PM
You're way out of touch or not looking at the same porn sites I have in the last 10 years. CGI porn has been a thing for a while now. Cosplay/ costume porn is older than me.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Koyasha on June 05, 2016, 09:07:49 AM
Symmetras turrets are very weak. They'll get the unaware attack or support character if there's a nest of 3 or more but that's why you let the tanks lead the charge.  A single shot from any of the dps is enough to take them out.  She's my favorite but I'm already losing the ability to play her after the first rush because better players know how to take my turrets out quickly. 

Tobjorn is the better all around turret but bastion has saved a few of my defenses because players panic at the high dps and tanks are largely shit. 😱
The turrets are fast to put up and recharge pretty quickly, though.  I'm really liking Symmetra myself, and I'm learning not to make big nests of turrets, but instead to put 1-2 on various approaches to let me know which direction enemies are moving in, and create an annoyance.  Then I go over there and deal with the problem personally - Reinhardt is the only character that totally takes me out without a chance, because my beam thingy doesn't outrange his hammer and I can't really dodge hammer blows by moving evasively/bunnyhopping.  Everyone else I find I stand a chance against one on one, though some are harder than others.

It's super satisfying to get Play of the Game as Symmetra and have it be me shredding two or three people with my beam instead of me dicking around while people die to a turret nest.  Other day one of the enemy team went 'Symmetra carry' and I think I was playing offense on that one.  Yeah, I use her for offense too sometimes, and it works surprisingly well.

Another trick with Symmetra; always put the turrets as high as you can.  In order to destroy them, this forces the enemy to turn and look UP, which takes them noticeably longer than if you put them at a level closer to normal aiming level.  Doing this in a place your team is fighting in means that if they turn to destroy the turrets, they're distracted from your teammates for anywhere from a half second to several seconds, which lets people get free damage on them...or they're forced to ignore the turret until the fight is over, in which case the turret probably hurts them badly.  It also minimizes the chances of them getting incidentally destroyed by Junkrat grenade spam, and lesses the chances of the average Pharah rocket spam taking them out.  Even Winston has to look upward to take them out with his lightning cannon.
I'm decently familiar with internets, but I didn't realise that this existed. At least in this form of animated video and such. I thought it was pretty much all hand-drawn hentai/slashfiction kind of thing. And I hd no idea that shit like Overwatch porn was a thing.  :ye_gods: :uhrr:
Yeah, I honestly didn't know about the source filmmaker stuff until the Blizzard DMCA stuff created the Streisand effect on it.  I mean, I'd seen plenty of Overwatch porn from some artists I like and such, but that was all drawn stuff.  I was unaware of the SFM porn stuff until now.  I was also surprised as to how good it looks.  I mean, a lot of what I've seen is pretty damn well animated; either the people doing it are very good, or the tools are very easy to use, or some combination of the two.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on June 05, 2016, 10:46:38 AM
Oh I agree, Symm is my favorite char over-all. I'm just saying she's not OP and better players have quickly learned how to counter and exploit her weakness. Because of that I'm finding a lot fewer opportunities to really take advantage of her after the first few minutes. (And not at all if my team is so terrible the first point is taken within 1:30)

The game is incredibly well-balanced with only one or two characters who are proving strong over-all. Even then their strength appears to be because of the player being good or the opposition panicking.

For example, Mei freaks people out. Junkrat deals with her pretty effectively, though. Lots of people bitch about Hanzo and his dragons of doom (had a gimmick team of 5 Hanzo DESTROY my team last weekend) but that's because people don't switch up and get Tracer to outflank or Widowmaker to outsnipe him. They just kept charging in or hiding and peeking out to get head-shot.  :awesome_for_real:

 (my favorite WTF players remain the tanks who refuse to engage at all. They're just relying on the HP to keep them alive and trying to play as a Deathmatch, peeking around corners while doing terrible damage)


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Venkman on June 05, 2016, 02:22:25 PM
Yea that's the aspect of this game I like the most: the need to switch up. No matter what character you like or playstyle you prefer, they won't be viable in all situations and team configurations. The best way to lose is to just stick to your thing regardless of the conditions of the battle.

The same was said-able about TF2 of course. But I think it's more obvious here because the ability sets are spread further over twice as many classes.

This didn't come easy to me at first. And I still have my general favorite (Junkrat). But I've had to learn all the different playstyles because I never know who else is going to fill in whatever void the team has.

Nothing that you all haven't already kong since known. It's just me being old dog learning a new trick.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Zetor on June 05, 2016, 04:02:23 PM
Yeah, I use her [Symmetra] for offense too sometimes, and it works surprisingly well.
That's something I've been wondering about... Symmetra is easily my favorite character, but whenever it's an attack / payload / king of the hill map, I kinda get the feeling that playing her would hurt the team's chances. Not necessarily because Symmetra's bad at those maps (teleporter can swing games by itself), but rather because I just know that nobody is going to play support unless the NO SUPPORTS warning is in their face... and really, Symmetra's not much of a support, even Torbjorn's armor drops and S76's healing aoe do more than those tiny shields. So I suck it up and play Lucio instead.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Koyasha on June 05, 2016, 04:19:23 PM
Yeah, I use her [Symmetra] for offense too sometimes, and it works surprisingly well.
That's something I've been wondering about... Symmetra is easily my favorite character, but whenever it's an attack / payload / king of the hill map, I kinda get the feeling that playing her would hurt the team's chances. Not necessarily because Symmetra's bad at those maps (teleporter can swing games by itself), but rather because I just know that nobody is going to play support unless the NO SUPPORTS warning is in their face... and really, Symmetra's not much of a support, even Torbjorn's armor drops and S76's healing aoe do more than those tiny shields. So I suck it up and play Lucio instead.
I've noticed people have been getting better at picking healers when I've picked Symmetra lately, so more people are learning that a healer is still a really good idea even if we have Symmetra.  That said, I'm only ever willing to play a healer if someone else is already playing a tank, and vice versa.  If nobody else is playing a tank/healer, I'll just play what I want and try to make it work, because I've gotten really tired of trying to play a support or a tank when no one is working with me.  And a lot of the time, especially on a defense map, but sometimes even on a different kind of map, I'd rather just play Symmetra instead of trying to be Mercy or Lucio.  I'm flat out terrible at Lucio; I can't hit a damn thing with his gun, even worse than my usual aim, and I suck at wallriding too - and Mercy is super-dependent on the rest of the team being worth supporting.  And since my teleporter recharges fast the way I play because I'm getting out there and doing damage instead of waiting for my turrets to do the charging for me, at least I'm getting my team back into the fight faster, so they can run around and do their not-work-together thing, which seems a lot better to me than trying to actively support them with one of the others.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on June 05, 2016, 04:25:35 PM
You can place Symms turrets on the payload and it helps defend from the defend team pushing it back while your team is off playing quake.  It helps more if there's a Reinhard who knows how to stay on and keep it moving.

Attack or king she helps keep the node on your teams control.  I've had my highest kill games on King maps because I can stay in one spot and babysit as they go down.  This is dependent on your team not being idiots and chasing people off spawn of course. You can't lock the place down on your own the way Tjorb can if he's got his Ult ready.



Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Druzil on June 06, 2016, 08:26:53 AM
Symmetra is great, I play heals/tank more than anything but if I see someone playing Symmetra I'll lock in Lucio or Mercy right away.  I think some of the double heal/support combos and the double tank healer combos are really strong and I wish people would pick them more often.  I've been picking Zayra more often when someone locks in a tank early.

Zen is the one I don't have a good feel for yet.  Maybe just because I haven't played him much but I never really recognize when would be a good team comp to play him.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: MrHat on June 06, 2016, 09:03:24 AM
Symmetra is great, I play heals/tank more than anything but if I see someone playing Symmetra I'll lock in Lucio or Mercy right away.  I think some of the double heal/support combos and the double tank healer combos are really strong and I wish people would pick them more often.  I've been picking Zayra more often when someone locks in a tank early.

Zen is the one I don't have a good feel for yet.  Maybe just because I haven't played him much but I never really recognize when would be a good team comp to play him.

Double Tank or Double Healer is super strong.  Well, Rein/Winston + Zarya/Roadhog or Mercy/Lucio + Sym/Zen.

I'm about L40 or so on PC, played a solid amount.  It's super fun, but starting to get a bit stale.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Malakili on June 06, 2016, 09:59:26 AM
I'm still having a lot of fun with it - only level 24 so far to give a sense of how many hours.

Even though I assume it would be horribly balanced, I wouldn't mind a mode where you get more players per team and an open "drop in/drop out" kind of thing. The matches tend to be pretty short, but there are a lot of times where I'm not 100% sure I can sit there uninterrupted and so I can't play at all. I do prefer TF2 in that regard.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Fabricated on June 07, 2016, 10:42:26 AM
This is fun to hop on for a bit every day which I imagine is the intent.

God speed to Blizzard if they're trying to make this an esport.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on June 07, 2016, 11:41:04 AM
This is fun to hop on for a bit every day which I imagine is the intent.

God speed to Blizzard if they're trying to make this an esport.

Yeah that's the best way of playing, IMO. I only just hit 20, I'm baffled by the guys who are 40-60.

Bliz will probably try to E-sport this. They're setting-up seasons and ladders and have tried it in every other game they've done so far. They've had an e-sport hard-on for a long time now, so it shouldn't be too surprising. I just can't see it competing with some of the other tourneys, but who knows. Not me, I'm too old for that shit.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Fabricated on June 07, 2016, 01:24:26 PM
Well, Blizzard is insanely terrible at balance because the pro-meta is not really a meta. there's not exactly many comps that work.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: KallDrexx on June 07, 2016, 04:08:48 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ej3KDV7mfF8


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Megrim on June 07, 2016, 07:51:57 PM
This is fun to hop on for a bit every day which I imagine is the intent.

God speed to Blizzard if they're trying to make this an esport.

They've been trying to replicate Starcraft's phenomenon for a while now. Not very successfully, but they've been trying.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Kail on June 07, 2016, 09:31:13 PM
They've been trying to replicate Starcraft's phenomenon for a while now. Not very successfully, but they've been trying.

Yeah, seriously.  I kind of wish they'd back off.  I love Dota as much as anyone, but turning EVERY game in to some competitive e-sport really shits up the community.

I guess at least it makes more sense for their more recent stuff than it did when they thought enough people would care about WoW Arena duels to force all the PvP systems in the game to revolve around them.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Megrim on June 07, 2016, 10:12:02 PM
I remember reading a post by someone, years ago, about the 'phenoms' of counter-strike and starcraft and how they were effectively a coalescence of emerging broad access internet, and well-designed gameplay. In their specific cases, they were an organic evolution of people playing games against each other because playing with other people is fundamentally fun. He also noted, accurately, that companies will try to replicate this in the future.

So far, the only thing that's come close is dota (as a genre), imho because good and involving game design is actually very hard. It's easy enough to design a fun game, but to create something with the complexity and depth necessary to take it over to the 'advanced' stage while also remaining fun, is immensely difficult.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Malakili on June 07, 2016, 10:24:33 PM
I honestly think it has a lot to do with pride. Starcraft used to be THE eSport. Starcraft 2 even kicked off the current wave of popular eSports/streaming stuff in 2010. Then it mostly fell off. Hearthstone is their most popular "competitive" game now in terms of players and stream viewers.

DOTA 2 and League of Legends with Counter-Strike sometimes making splashes,are about it right now in terms of truly popular eSports. Starcraft 2 is on life support, I don't think anyone actually cares about Hearthstone that doesn't actively play it, Heroes of the Storm is dead on arrival for competitive play, and a host of other games that developers have tried to force have basically fallen flat.



Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Margalis on June 07, 2016, 11:08:00 PM
The thing about the successful eSports games is that they are usually have the dial turned pretty far towards complex and impenetrable, whereas Blizzard games have the dial turned the other way.

It sounds weird that a game that is complex and impenetrable could be a big eSport but look at American football - most people have never played a version of the sport that is close to the game at the pro level (by that I mean with real rules, pads, etc) and the rules of football are complex as shit. But still popular.

The thing that makes Blizzard games easy to pick up and play is part of what makes them not great for eSports imo. Even SC2 suffered from the "deathball" mechanics where the ultimate battle comes down to everyone selecting every unit and A-moving towards each other. (That's a simplification, but not by that much)

Overwatch probably has a better chance of being an eSport than HOTS, but I still think it's unlikely. It will probably end up being about the same as competitive Rocket League, which is to say that it kind of exists, but nobody really takes it seriously or makes money off of it.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Megrim on June 07, 2016, 11:42:17 PM
Star2 sucked because it was designed by people who made warcraft 3, and not the original starcraft. So it really was a replication of warcraft in spaaaaace, imo.

Additionally, people tend to conflate money making with professional competition. I think pretty much any game worthy of competing-in has to inspire the passion for competition in the first place. Soccer, american football, poker, chess, etc. are fun. They generate challenge and provide the room to build and excel in skill and ability, but are also perfectly capable of being scalable. I think now, video game makers almost run the risk of overpushing and overhyping the 'esports' aspect. It comes across as completely inauthentic and needy in the desire to be seen as deep and complex.

There is something to be said for stepping back and letting the game speak for itself, while quietly providing the tools for people scale up if they want to.



 * edit:

the one thing I forgot to add, from a purely mechanical point of view, overwatch is weakly designed in that ammo isn't a resource. I've started playing a lot of junkrat lately and holy shit does the tf2 demo seem balanced by comparison.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Falconeer on June 08, 2016, 04:29:01 AM
I am starting to think Overwatch can really make it as an eSport. Maybe it'll just be the MASSIVE push (meaning: money) they will invest into it, or the goddamn hype, or the fact that the game looks like it has a good and tight design behind it fooling enough people because of all the counters and counter-counters and the ability to change team composition on the fly, the fact that eSports are growing across the board, and of course the ridiculous events and prices that I am sure will come soon, but I wouldn't be surprised if this one actually made it and ended up dominating mainstream things for the next five to ten years.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Malakili on June 08, 2016, 05:19:25 AM
Star2 sucked because it was designed by people who made warcraft 3, and not the original starcraft. So it really was a replication of warcraft in spaaaaace, imo. 


Starcraft 2 didn't really play much of anything like Warcraft 3.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Sophismata on June 08, 2016, 05:52:02 AM
Starcraft 2 sucked because it tried to be too many things to too many people.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Malakili on June 08, 2016, 06:15:36 AM
It's also quite a lot better in its current iteration than it was in the Wings of Liberty era.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Megrim on June 08, 2016, 06:26:47 AM
Star2 sucked because it was designed by people who made warcraft 3, and not the original starcraft. So it really was a replication of warcraft in spaaaaace, imo. 


Starcraft 2 didn't really play much of anything like Warcraft 3.

It plays exactly like warcraft 3, sans heroes.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Malakili on June 08, 2016, 06:32:40 AM
Warcraft 3 has WAY more emphasis on microing individual units. The economy works way differently (and has since Wings of Liberty). Damage types work way differently. I mean they are incredibly different games to the point where I barely even know what you're talking about.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on June 08, 2016, 06:51:38 AM
You build things, gather resources, and send armies/ scouts out while managing their abilities at the micro level. All the while while focusing on a build strategy for a win. Clearly they are the same game.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on June 08, 2016, 10:44:36 AM
I am starting to think Overwatch can really make it as an eSport. Maybe it'll just be the MASSIVE push (meaning: money) they will invest into it, or the goddamn hype, or the fact that the game looks like it has a good and tight design behind it fooling enough people because of all the counters and counter-counters and the ability to change team composition on the fly, the fact that eSports are growing across the board, and of course the ridiculous events and prices that I am sure will come soon, but I wouldn't be surprised if this one actually made it and ended up dominating mainstream things for the next five to ten years.

That and it's actually fun to play.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Sir T on June 08, 2016, 11:08:37 AM
Hmm... people are saying that its Warcraft in space. Maybe they should change the name to reflect that. Like maybe call it Spacecraft.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Fabricated on June 08, 2016, 02:06:35 PM
Unless Overwatch develops an interesting pro meta it's dead on arrival as an esport.

No amount of pushing could save StarCraft 2 from fading towards obscurity. I recall hearing a handful of "pro" players who moved onto other games basically saying that the only reason anyone played it competitively was because Blizz put so much money into tournaments and the like- that it was in fact borderline unenjoyable to play.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Falconeer on June 08, 2016, 02:53:07 PM
Unenjoable to play? Well that is clearly not the case with Overwatch, so there's that.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Venkman on June 08, 2016, 10:47:58 PM
No matter how much money Blizzard puts in, an eSport is defined by the sponsors. They will only show up for the spectators, and those will only be there if it's fun to watch as a social experience, and not just to watch YouTube videos for research.

Overwatch is a fun game, and they definitely want it to be a spectated eSport with sponsors for a new revenue stream beyond just their Paymium model.

But it's not really up to them at this point. It's popular and has gotten good coverage. But they need people to start watching it more.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Falconeer on June 09, 2016, 06:02:58 AM
I am sure you will all say that this doesn't happen, but try to pay attention to it:

- People noticed that it's easier to win on defense. Turrets, more turrets, and in general an easier task.
- People want to win, because they are like that, and because it gives more XP, which means more boxes. And better stats, so bragging right.
- People know that if you Defend on a map, then you have to Attack right after.
- People defend, then quit and go look for another game.
- Often times this makes the re-match fold, sending you back to the title screen.
- Basically, if you don't pay attention, you play more attack than defend across the board due to morons.

Does it matter? Not necessarily. But oh, humans.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Malakili on June 09, 2016, 06:08:37 AM
The funny thing is that when you have an even semi-competent team, attack is easier to win.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Jeff Kelly on June 09, 2016, 06:54:05 AM
The idea that there is a meta has pretty much guaranteed that this happens in all multiplayer games. As soon as a dedicated fan base discovers a new meta and it leaks/is discussed on the net everyone else jumps on it to stay competitive or at least to not get totally steamrolled. Rinse and repeat once a new meta is discovered to counter the current one or once aspects of the game get rebalanced and the current meta won't work any longer.

For me a meta that completely dominates gameplay is always a sign that there is only a limited number of strategical and tactical options and probably fewer than people would like. The obsession of playing the most optimal/perfect build nonwithstanding great games usually don't converge to a single meta at a time but instead offer several competing options with different trade-offs that are all equally influenced by changes in game balance or player familiarity.

Blizzard unfortunately has always been pretty weak when it comes to systems or game mechanics that allow for different viable strategic or tactical setups and builds at a time. Usually there's always one build and/or setup that turns out to be by far the best for a particular character or team each time they rebalance game mechanics in for example Hearthstone or WoW. Which also explains why People are so obsessed with the current meta.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on June 09, 2016, 07:20:33 AM
It's a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy on Blizzard's part, too, as they work out kinks or advantages in the current meta, guaranteeing another will take its place. This is where their refine strategy fails them, because being a little more organic with the buffs/ nerfs instead of laser-focused on that one particular issue/ meta would work out better long-term.

For example, they're looking at buffing D.Va based on metrics. She dies too quickly and doesn't do enough damage according to the metrics so one of the two is going to get buffed.

D. is by no means weak if she's being played by a good player. There's lots of bad players out there, though, and they're using tanks to stay in the fight longer, skewing metrics. Especially D. since she has a "die one" get out of jail free card. (Mech dies but she can hang out until she gets another.)

Their approach to the "problems" with D.Va guarantee she'll be super-strong in the hands of good players because they're focusing on buffing her based on metrics rather than figuring out what good players are doing and making it easier for bad players to do the same.

Ignoring obvious problems like, "McCree is using fan-shot 90% of the time and eating tanks when flash-bang is up, so we should probably fix that." .


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Sir T on June 09, 2016, 07:37:11 AM
Could that be becasue they are looking at metadata pulled from averages of multiple games rather than looking at actual in game replays?


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Malakili on June 09, 2016, 07:39:16 AM
There is always going to be a meta in any game. There is a meta in football, there is a meta in basketball. One of the reasons the Warriors have had so much success is that they "broke" the meta by being able to shoot such a high percentage. Sports don't use that terminology but a meta is just the result of their being good and bad ways to do things. Counter-Strike's meta revolves around the rifles in the game. No one cares that shotguns suck in competitive play 95% of the time. That's ok!

With regard to balance and tweaks, I 100% agree. A minimalist approach is best. I really dislike it when games are constantly being tweaked. Let players find solutions except when things are really busted.

I think it does have to to with analytics and the desire to get the numbers rather than the game to "look right."


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: MrHat on June 09, 2016, 07:49:48 AM

Ignoring obvious problems like, "McCree is using fan-shot 90% of the time and eating tanks when flash-bang is up, so we should probably fix that." .

Pretty sure that the post that mention D.Va buffs also mentions McCree nerfs.

I can't decide if I really enjoy this game because I'm procrastinating and playing with friends or if it's fun.  Is there a difference?


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Jeff Kelly on June 09, 2016, 08:04:14 AM
Maybe you just don't like playing the same characters on the same maps over and over again?

Maybe I'll write down my views on progression systems in competitive shooters at some point and why I think that it's a sign that most multiplayer shooters are inherently boring and need a pseudo-progression to stay interesting. I don't think Overwatch would be as interesting if it didn't include the levelling and loot box mechanics. Just like prestige in COD and other similar unlock mechanics.

There's a Neogaf thread discussing the latest Jimquisition video (where Jim Sterling shares his views about microtransactions and the slot-machine nature of the loot boxes) and the general consensus seems to be that people want the levelling and progression systems and the unlocks and that they probably wouldn't play a game that didn't have those systems in place. This also means that most people in that thread defend Blizzards decision to put loot boxes and microtransaction in the game, because without them the game would be less interesting to play.

It was quite shocking to me to read that many posts by people basically claiming that Overwatch would be a lot less interesting and that they probably wouldn't be playing the game if there was no progression but "just" the gameplay and maps.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Falconeer on June 09, 2016, 09:23:41 AM
It's not Overwatch problem though. It's ALL games' problem, save for very few exceptions. "Progression", "unlocks" and "achievements" are three of the most important keywords for all humans in the 21st Century, and very few things that do not have any of that, or do not toy around with any of that, manage to retain interest for longer than a couple of weeks. We live in an achievement unlock culture, where a lot of things don't seem to count unless they are photographed and shared. Even when a clear progression or an achievement isn't warranted by an actual interface though (we are not speaking only about games here), it can still be awarded or implied by a social context. I am not saying that people have lost all interest in activities that do not make them feel like they are "leveling up" somehow, but with so many billion ways to entertain themselves and only 24 hours in a day, a lot of people are choosing to only invest their time into things that don't feel like they are completely "disconnected" from the flow, the feed, the matrix, the progression. Yes people should play games because they are having fun WHILE they do it, and this is how it was. Now, it's important to know that the hours they invested at least amounted to something and didn't just disappear forever.

Without levels, or the implied social levels you gain within a specific community by playing a lot, so many games wouldn't be as popular as they are now. In fact, why are people even wondering how would Overwatch be like without levels? What would all the other games that are popular now be like without any form of progression? Given how much our perception of everything has changed over the past 20 years since the internet revolutionised the way we interact with each other (and with ourselves), I think it would be shocking to see a game with NO progression mechanics of any kind manage to be succesful and most importantly prove to have sticking power.

With all that said, I have unlocked all the things I care for in Overwatch and I am still playing a whole damn lot because so far the matches are great fun. The boxes are were a cool bonus, but not one cell of my brain is thinking about the loot crates while I am shooting and trying not to be shot. I am sure lots of people wouldn't play Counterstrike GO if it didn't have levels and weapon skins, but I doubt that would say much about how interesting the game is.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on June 09, 2016, 09:43:00 AM
Could that be becasue they are looking at metadata pulled from averages of multiple games rather than looking at actual in game replays?

That could be what it is. While data collection is excellent, it's not the end-all. You can't just look at a pile of data and derive a game plan from it. You need to parse it down and categorize it. The methodology and philosophy you have when doing that will affect the outcome of your decisions. If you aren't aware of this when doing it, you're going get fucked results.

If I have a pile of data that says "Character Y wins 75% of encounters with all 5 other characters" but that character is selected 90% of the time in low-ranked games and never in high-ranked games because a more-difficult-to-play character shuts them down entirely, it's probably not a problem with the character. I don't realize that if I don't compare the right stats, though. I only see that first big number.

Of course, it's all speculation without seeing the data collected and how its parsed. That IS the approach used to balance games, however. They've got the data and they look at it as a whole. The question is where do they expect player performance to come into play.  We saw with WoW raids that Blizzard FREQUENTLY expected players to perform at far higher levels than the average actually does.


Ignoring obvious problems like, "McCree is using fan-shot 90% of the time and eating tanks when flash-bang is up, so we should probably fix that." .

Pretty sure that the post that mention D.Va buffs also mentions McCree nerfs.

I can't decide if I really enjoy this game because I'm procrastinating and playing with friends or if it's fun.  Is there a difference?

I didn't mean to say they were ignoring it, but that the finesse approach should be ignored when you realize, "Oh, well this is wholly fucked, we've got to do a big change to fix it."  Such as they are doing with McCree.



Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Malakili on June 09, 2016, 09:43:44 AM
I don't know if loot boxes keep people playing or not, but when I first played in the beta none of the progression stuff had even been added yet and it was pretty damned fun. Generally speaking I'd like most of the "progression" related stuff to get out of games that aren't about progression. RPGs are based on levels. I don't need it my shooters, my strategy games, my card games (HEX I'M LOOKING AT YOU), or anything else.

Reminds me of:

(https://art.penny-arcade.com/photos/807503965_rBNbP/0/2100x20000/807503965_rBNbP-2100x20000.jpg)


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on June 09, 2016, 09:45:53 AM
I don't play for progression. If anything I'm more pissed I can't just nab a skin I want and have to grind for it than motivated by it.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Nija on June 09, 2016, 10:07:03 AM
Hey don't be afraid to pull the trigger on Torb on O sometimes. I see way too many people turret humping in this game. He has one of the best guns IN THE GAME!

Advance with your team. Shit out a turret and get it to level 2 and WALK AWAY. Put it in random places. Never return to it. Kill people and drop armor. If you have a Symmetra +25 shields and +75 armor on your Genjis and Tracers fucking SUCKS for the defenders.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: KallDrexx on June 09, 2016, 11:25:22 AM
If progression was so necessary for a game to succeed, than TF2 would have never been as popular as it was, nor dota, nor rocket league, etc....

Trying to say that its' a given that a games as a whole aren't as fun without it is handwaving around bad design.  Not saying that's the case with Overwatch, but progression is most certainly not a requirement for games in general to be successful.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Rendakor on June 09, 2016, 01:37:41 PM
Rocket League has all kinds of unlocks as you play. The cool thing about DotA (and MOBAs in general) is that it condenses the entire ding-gratz joy of progression into a single hourish session.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: KallDrexx on June 09, 2016, 02:20:07 PM
Rocket League has all kinds of unlocks as you play. The cool thing about DotA (and MOBAs in general) is that it condenses the entire ding-gratz joy of progression into a single hourish session.

Rocket league's collectables were fully unlockable after 10 hours of playing at release.  People didn't build up their 50+ hours of gameplay by stopping and only coming back when new collectibles came out.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: palmer_eldritch on June 09, 2016, 05:16:29 PM
I don't like teams where nobody stands in the box.

Go and stand in the box, fuckers. Don't all run off and search for that perfect sniping position. Stand in the box.

When my team is standing in the box and the other team is climbing up walls outside it, I know we're going to win. It doesn't matter how good they are at sniping, if they're letting us have the box then they've lost.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Venkman on June 09, 2016, 05:32:22 PM
Progression is not the only thing, but it's glaringly obvious in crowded fields when a game doesn't have it.

The game needs to be fun. But it's the progression that keeps us coming back between sessions, or at least shows the results of doing so.

I don't have any interest in buying loot boxes in Overwatch. But I get the appeal. It's just a legitimized form of the RMT we all did or considered doing for the latest MMO foozle.

And it works well in many types of games. So why shouldn't companies do it?

It's not Overwatch problem though. It's ALL games' problem, save for very few exceptions. "Progression", "unlocks" and "achievements" are three of the most important keywords for all humans in the 21st Century, and very few things that do not have any of that, or do not toy around with any of that, manage to retain interest for longer than a couple of weeks. We live in an achievement unlock culture, where a lot of things don't seem to count unless they are photographed and shared.

I see it as just technology catching up with mass desire. Anything with a bit of skill and luck is going to eventually have a system of rewards and ranks for those who get invested in it.

We need to know our invested time is worth it. Sometimes all we need is for someone to tell us how awesome we are. Other times a little bar chart will do just fine.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Rendakor on June 09, 2016, 06:11:19 PM
Rocket League has all kinds of unlocks as you play. The cool thing about DotA (and MOBAs in general) is that it condenses the entire ding-gratz joy of progression into a single hourish session.

Rocket league's collectables were fully unlockable after 10 hours of playing at release.  People didn't build up their 50+ hours of gameplay by stopping and only coming back when new collectibles came out.
Maybe it's because I sucked, but I was still unlocking shit when I stopped playing. Pretty sure I had more than 10 but less than 50 hours logged.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Malakili on June 09, 2016, 06:15:54 PM

We need to know our invested time is worth it. Sometimes all we need is for someone to tell us how awesome we are. Other times a little bar chart will do just fine.

It generally has precisely the opposite effect on me. I know whether or not my time playing a game was worth it. When a game starts telling me how awesome I am or giving me bars to fill, it starts to give me the sneaking suspicion the game is trying to trick me into playing rather than just being worth playing for the game.  In that sense I could say it actually cheapens the time spent, or at least feels like it does. I played about a bazillionty hours of Quake 3, Counter Strike and Team Fortress ~15 years ago without it ever even occurring to me that there should be some kind of cross-session progression.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Venkman on June 09, 2016, 06:46:03 PM

We need to know our invested time is worth it. Sometimes all we need is for someone to tell us how awesome we are. Other times a little bar chart will do just fine.
I played about a bazillionty hours of Quake 3, Counter Strike and Team Fortress ~15 years ago without it ever even occurring to me that there should be some kind of cross-session progression.
Back in my day we addictively played the shit out of things without any affirmation  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Malakili on June 09, 2016, 07:19:36 PM
Yeah. That's kind of the point right? I mean, if the argument is "you need this stuff for people to play games long term" then all those enormously popular games that didn't have any semblance of progression are evidence against that argument.



Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Kail on June 09, 2016, 08:32:09 PM
Yeah. That's kind of the point right? I mean, if the argument is "you need this stuff for people to play games long term" then all those enormously popular games that didn't have any semblance of progression are evidence against that argument.

Well, to be fair, they're all decade old titles.  TF2 and Counterstrike both have loot based progression systems nowadays, and Quake 3 is dead.  The market changes and if people want levels and loot (and a lot of them do) then you're going to have fewer sales if your competition is offering it and you're not.  

The specific way progression is implemented in Overwatch is pretty terrible, but I can see why they felt they had to stick something - anything - in there to keep the mice pushing the lever.

I really dislike it when games are constantly being tweaked. Let players find solutions except when things are really busted.

Yeah, this is kind of my new pet peeve.  Nothing like coming back to a decade old game and realizing that the game you left isn't there anymore.  Not because the community left or the market changed, but because every time a character's win rate nudged above 55% the devs retreated in to the war room and started napalming everything until the entire game has been re-written several time in a few years.  And as much as I want to blame the devs, it often seems to be what the playerbase wants.  Every time there's a non-balance patch for Heroes of the Storm, people flood the comments section with "OMG I can't believe you still haven't buffed Chen, worst champion in the game gg" "Oh, look, no Tracer nerfs, I guess Blizzard is TOTALLY OKAY with the fact that she can straight up KILL MY CHARACTER in this game" etc. etc.  It's like nobody wants to learn the game, they want the game to admit that it was wrong for letting them lose that one time.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on June 10, 2016, 12:39:23 AM
THat's exactly what players want. yes. Nobody plays games to lose. That's why Single Player is still a thing and some people don't buy games if they don't have a SP or collaborative mode. Being shown just how mediocre you are time and again in a MP game just makes you stop gaming after a while.

Overwatch is the first MP-competitive game I've bought and participated in in nearly a decade. Why? Because I know I suck, but it's FUN (and I can contribute as support) I've dabbled in a few MP-comp games but never spent money on them. Why bother being a sheep when you don't have the time or inclination to be a wolf. I can throw that money at the diminishing number of SP games out there instead and feel like a badass, even if I can't do speed runs and die 100x more than other players. I'll never know it.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Falconeer on June 10, 2016, 02:55:57 AM
Very few popular games "without any semblance of progression" exist to begin with now (which ones?), and they are mostly from a different era. To make a game now that does NOT have any semblance of progression is probably a formula for failure. Exceptions exist, but they exist in everything and it's not a good idea to plan and design an expensive game hoping to become a widely popular exception. Why would they do that? I hate Blizzard, but who would do that?


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Spiff on June 10, 2016, 11:45:49 AM
So apparently stars under people's portraits equal 100 levels, saw a bronze + 14 (114) player today; I mean I know how some people get with new games, but I can't even fathom that.

For me around level 25 the shiny is starting to wear off somewhat tbh. It's not 'vanilla TF2 fun' and the maps and playmodes are somewhat limited atm.
Also if we're comparing dingrats and foozles: hats > the poses and unimaginative skins Overwatch is giving me.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: AcidCat on June 10, 2016, 05:42:29 PM
For me around level 25 the shiny is starting to wear off somewhat tbh. It's not 'vanilla TF2 fun' and the maps and playmodes are somewhat limited atm.

I'm of similar mindset at around level 31. It all starts to feel very repetitive and one-note after a few rounds IMO. Fun in short doses but I'm not feeling the unmitigated love that much of the internet seems to have for this game. I wonder how people will feel in a few weeks once the hype has died down.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Malakili on June 10, 2016, 05:50:19 PM
I think one of the things this games lacks right now is a real defining map. The maps are fine for the most part, but it doesn't have a map I really look forward to above the others or that I really hope comes up. Dustbowl and Dust (2) and Nuketown and so on get old when people play them 24/7, but I think having that kind of game-defining map does something good for a game overall. I expect new maps will come along over time, but I hope they really knock at least one out of the park instead of a bunch being just good.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Trippy on June 10, 2016, 06:15:51 PM
2fort4! :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Kail on June 10, 2016, 07:22:56 PM
I think one of the things this games lacks right now is a real defining map. The maps are fine for the most part, but it doesn't have a map I really look forward to above the others or that I really hope comes up. Dustbowl and Dust (2) and Nuketown and so on get old when people play them 24/7, but I think having that kind of game-defining map does something good for a game overall. I expect new maps will come along over time, but I hope they really knock at least one out of the park instead of a bunch being just good.

I wish they'd release some modding and map editing tools.  I'd kill for some 12v12 capture the flag or something.  Blizzard has been weirdly anal about mods ever since Dota.  Heroes of the Storm, before launch, was supposed to have a full map editor (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQDbEC7nOI4) but since launch they've not mentioned it even once that I can find.  Diablo 3 I don't think can be modded, WoW is limited to UI mods, Starcraft 2 can be modded but unless I'm remembering wrong there were a bunch of weird restrictions on it or something...


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Malakili on June 10, 2016, 08:16:12 PM
Starcraft 2 has a pretty fully functioning editor.  The ToS very clearly states that Blizzard basically owns everything made with it, however. They are scared to death that another DOTA comes along and they don't see the money for it. They are hurting their games rather than helping. I kept playing Diablo 3 for years because of mods. Valve did the smart thing and just hired all the people who made big mods for Half Life.



Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Venkman on June 10, 2016, 09:04:35 PM
Yeah. That's kind of the point right? I mean, if the argument is "you need this stuff for people to play games long term" then all those enormously popular games that didn't have any semblance of progression are evidence against that argument.

The size of the industry and amount and type of competitors are a factor though. It wasn't $80BN industry powered by games that cost $30-60MM on average that long ago :-)

You're speaking of an age when all sense of progress was unique by genre. I'm hazy on some of the history, but I feel like FPS's were defined by session-based K/D only, RTS was measured by social bragging rights, RPGs were (and still are) about character stats over the long haul (this stretched back to late-70s Ultima), sims were about progress through the world as a map-based progression, and almost all of the stats-chasing as the goal was relegated to MMORPGs. Heck, RPGs are really just the honor system first populiazed by D&D character sheets.

Over the last 10 years that stats-chasing has permeated the other genres. But it hasn't consumed them. It's just expanded them. MOBAs would be MOBAs without ranks, though maybe not the eSport it's become. MMORPGs are still a thing even if it's just about Eve and some hangers ons like WoW, RTS is RTS, FPS is FPS, and so on.

These games adopted these methods as a way to extend engagement for those who would otherwise up and quit after getting bored.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: lamaros on June 10, 2016, 09:17:06 PM
This game has no chance as an eSport.

The game isn't free, for one, and the gameplay is nothing on TF2, which itself was very popular but never anything close to an eSport.

Hearthstone is the only thing with any potential, but they'd need to up the depth of the game to give professional skill any kind of watch ability.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: schild on June 10, 2016, 09:19:09 PM
My friend told me Kibler had switched over to Hearthstone, as far as streaming goes.

Which is, I don't know, a complete and total fucking waste of his skillset. I have to assume he suffered a major stroke and didn't want anyone to know.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Malakili on June 10, 2016, 09:28:12 PM


These games adopted these methods as a way to extend engagement for those who would otherwise up and quit after getting bored.

I totally get that. What I'm saying is that if you're getting bored you should quit and if you're being kept around by loot boxes and meaningless levels then what you're calling "extended engagement" I'm calling "being tricked into playing a game you don't actually like anymore."


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: lamaros on June 10, 2016, 10:18:56 PM
I know that a lot of CS players enjoy the skins side of things, but I'm still playing the game 18 months after I started simply because it's a fun game that I enjoy. Better longevity than anything else I've played for a long time.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Fabricated on June 10, 2016, 10:21:18 PM
I'm enjoying the random hero brawl this week. Nice change of pace until the RNG gets really weird and makes everyone on your team symettra.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Viin on June 10, 2016, 11:26:51 PM
I like playing random too (usually). Makes me play characters I wouldn't normally pick but have gotten to like after being forced to use them. The times it sucks is when the other team is pushing for the last checkpoint to win and we really need some DPS and I keep get the monkey or some shit.

Still horrible with tanks.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on June 11, 2016, 08:46:09 AM
Any and every competitive game will become an esport but there's gonna be a gap in popularity. if LOL and DOTA are football/soccer then Overwatch will be curling. 

There's just a ceiling for how popular games can be, based on how well you can spectate in them.  Fighting games, MOBA games, even hearthstone it's possible to watch the action from both sides at once.  In any FPS game you are just severely limited to one perspective at a time.  Even if there are multiple screens you can only focus on one.  I'm sure overwatch will have a competitive scene but they won't be selling out stadiums for it and I think blizzard knows that.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Malakili on June 11, 2016, 09:36:56 AM
Yeah, shooters are definitely my favorite competitive genre to play, but it is my least favorite to watch. No shooter has really satisfactorily found a way to do it well yet. I think you'd need several free flying observers recording the action from different spots/angles and then have a producer putting the coverage together on the fly like a football broadcast.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Sir T on June 11, 2016, 10:13:58 AM
They would have to code a "spectator mode" where you could see glowing representations of everyone running around the ma and where you could zoom into people at will. I'm not sure if that could be done.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Malakili on June 11, 2016, 11:02:40 AM
I think you'd could get away with 4-5 "camera operator" spectators who are free-flying and simply following the action from different angles/perspectives. I'm thinking do away with first person perspectives altogether in the broadcast. This is already effectively possible in some games, the problem is the production required to take all that video and actually produce a usable broadcast, which is likely only really viable at large, well funded events.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Koyasha on June 11, 2016, 11:40:03 AM
Their 'play of the game' system is a good start, if a little rough.  If they actually manage to perfect a system that can consistently identify the most exciting to watch perspectives and switch to them, they've sort of got an automatic producer cutting things together exactly right.  Maybe.  It'll take a lot of time and work to get it working right if that's what they're thinking, though, so I doubt it will actually happen in this game.  But someday a game will certainly manage that.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Hawkbit on June 11, 2016, 11:57:52 AM
This looks like fun, but I'm terribad at FPS on PS4. Are there classes with less of a reliance on twitch aiming? It's kinda hard to tell from streams.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Falconeer on June 11, 2016, 12:32:44 PM
Plenty. Mei, Symmetra, Winston, Junkrat. Even Pharah or Mercy, in a way.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Spiff on June 11, 2016, 12:55:44 PM
It has the easiest aiming of any fps I've ever played anyway; projectiles seem to have an enormous hitbox, whether they be rockets, arrows or even just bullets.
Or you can always go as Reinhart and just swing a huge frickin hammer (when you're not busy cowering behind your shield like a 2 ton pansy).


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Malakili on June 11, 2016, 02:12:39 PM
Their 'play of the game' system is a good start, if a little rough.  If they actually manage to perfect a system that can consistently identify the most exciting to watch perspectives and switch to them, they've sort of got an automatic producer cutting things together exactly right.  Maybe.  It'll take a lot of time and work to get it working right if that's what they're thinking, though, so I doubt it will actually happen in this game.  But someday a game will certainly manage that.

The problem is you're still seeing things from the first person perspective then. That would be like watching football by switching between helmet cams. It's a terrible experience. You need cameras that are above and around the action capturing it. First person might be interesting in instant replays and analysis to see what the player saw, but I think that overall you need to produce it much more like a sport.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Falconeer on June 11, 2016, 02:40:28 PM
Mechwarrior Online, a FPS by all means (albeit a slow one) that doesn't even allow 3rd person camera for competitive playing, does exactly that when streaming tournaments: the spectator tools allows to see the battlefield from a free-flying camera (or the cockpits) and the players/'mechs are highlighted with blue or red from any distance. It's a game with a very tiny playerbase, but the concept is there and they have realized it and they are using it for their eSport tournament that is being broadcasted right now. It's not that complicated and if one of the worst software house ever can do it, I am sure Blizzard can master it.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Setanta on June 11, 2016, 05:15:00 PM
Their 'play of the game' system is a good start, if a little rough.  If they actually manage to perfect a system that can consistently identify the most exciting to watch perspectives and switch to them, they've sort of got an automatic producer cutting things together exactly right.  Maybe.  It'll take a lot of time and work to get it working right if that's what they're thinking, though, so I doubt it will actually happen in this game.  But someday a game will certainly manage that.

The problem is you're still seeing things from the first person perspective then. That would be like watching football by switching between helmet cams. It's a terrible experience. You need cameras that are above and around the action capturing it. First person might be interesting in instant replays and analysis to see what the player saw, but I think that overall you need to produce it much more like a sport.

Smite has the ability to do a battlefield overhead viewpoint in competitive streams by commentators - it looks terrible and you lose all of the excitement.  I'm certain that HiRes will include it in Paladins which is also trying to set itself up as an esport... and making a hash of the whole game IMO.



Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Kail on June 11, 2016, 05:44:38 PM
Mechwarrior Online, a FPS by all means (albeit a slow one) that doesn't even allow 3rd person camera for competitive playing, does exactly that when streaming tournaments: the spectator tools allows to see the battlefield from a free-flying camera (or the cockpits) and the players/'mechs are highlighted with blue or red from any distance. It's a game with a very tiny playerbase, but the concept is there and they have realized it and they are using it for their eSport tournament that is being broadcasted right now. It's not that complicated and if one of the worst software house ever can do it, I am sure Blizzard can master it.

I always hate to make financial arguments, but it does seem bizarre to me that game companies (lots of them) are spending thousands or millions of dollars on competitive tournaments but the tools used to view those games are almost always just tacked on as an afterthought.  Dota 2 should be the BASELINE if you're trying to develop a game that people will watch, not the weird freakish outlier. 

Dota 2:
  • Has an (optional) automatic camera that will zoom around and focus on the action that any spectator can switch on at any time, in addition to the free camera and player views (yes, this is possible)
  • Is crazy stuffed with stats and charts and data that casters can pull up at any time
  • Can be viewed from inside the game client, so you don't have to go to Twitch and watch the game as streaming video (and not just tournaments, you can log in any time and spectate a live high level game)
  • Has integrated store support for things like tickets and tournament passes

I'm certain that HiRes will include it in Paladins which is also trying to set itself up as an esport... and making a hash of the whole game IMO.

Yeah, I have no idea WTF they're doing with Paladins.  "No updates to our alpha game for a month so our teams can practice for the BIG SEROUS BUSINESS E-SPORTS TOURNEY" is the stupidest thing I've heard so far.  Pausing testing on your pre-beta game so that teams can get good on your unbalanced, unfinished version of it is just baffling.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Venkman on June 11, 2016, 06:47:08 PM
I'm not familiar with DOTA2, but what you describe doesn't sound passive enough to appeal to a wide base of spectators. That sounds great for people looking to up their own game. That's fine as far as it goes. But it's not great for trying to get a huge array of spectators to pay for drinks at the bar while they watch.


I totally get that. What I'm saying is that if you're getting bored you should quit and if you're being kept around by loot boxes and meaningless levels then what you're calling "extended engagement" I'm calling "being tricked into playing a game you don't actually like anymore."

Well sure. If these companies designed their games for the one time purchase and it didn't matter how long people played after that. But that hasn't been possible since CD-ROM days.

I can't off hand think of a popular game that doesn't have post-launch patches, ongoing server costs, and either a single player metagame with cloud saves or multiplayer like this one. All that stuff carries a very high post purchase run rate. First we had subscriptions to tackle that. But that only worked for one genre. Then we onshored MTX/IAP. But the amount of people willing to buy that stuff is usually a pretty low percentage of the active player base.

Because of all of that, companies needed ways to extend play time and sessions as long as possible.

Companies are financially required by their to their stakeholders to exploit this.

It's not an accident that the way this occurred is linked to how our brains are wired. Playing for some grind currency that nets you a character foozle which gives you a moment of joy before you start eyeing the next foozle is as close as you can get to slot machines without getting hit with gambling regulations.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Malakili on June 11, 2016, 07:04:29 PM
I mean, to be fair a lot of the post-launch costs that you're talking about are also due to things a lot of people around here aren't thrilled about.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Kail on June 11, 2016, 07:35:54 PM
I'm not familiar with DOTA2, but what you describe doesn't sound passive enough to appeal to a wide base of spectators. That sounds great for people looking to up their own game. That's fine as far as it goes. But it's not great for trying to get a huge array of spectators to pay for drinks at the bar while they watch.

It's passive in the sense that these are the tools casters use to describe what's happening in the game.  Who really came out ahead in the last fight, who's doing well, who's missing all their shots, that kind of thing.  Overwatch has nothing like that, the only thing I've seen is a derpy status bar at the top which has characters health and their ult charge (and if they're "on fire") so you can tell who's dead.  They don't even have a minimap or anything to tell you where the players are.

And while the bar scene is fine, there's more to sports than just people in a bar.  Twitch broadcasts are roughly like watching TV (really compressed TV but whatever) and if you want that, you can have it, slap it on the screen in your bar and put some pretzels on the counter.  But watching in client is more like going to a sporting event in person, IMO even more than going to the actual physical location of the LAN event wherever it's being held.  You can look wherever you want, if you've got a specific player you like you can just follow him around, if you want to watch how they do a certain thing you can go look at it even if the casters don't think it's very exciting, or if you want to spend the entire game with your eyes on the jumbotron watching what the casters are watching, you can do that too.  A loooot of people who are watching this stuff are watching from their computer, and it's kind of maddening to see it treated as a kind of junky television when it can do so much more.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Falconeer on June 11, 2016, 09:13:21 PM
Just an example of how they do it in MechWarrior: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Y3ZaPIMAJ4


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Malakili on June 11, 2016, 10:40:35 PM
Just an example of how they do it in MechWarrior: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Y3ZaPIMAJ4

Yeah, something in that ballpark is what FPS games need in general.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Falconeer on June 12, 2016, 10:35:26 AM
Uhm, I just checked and looks like Overwatch has exactly that kind of spectator tool already. They are at least one step ahead of us on this.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Kail on June 12, 2016, 05:43:37 PM
Uhm, I just checked and looks like Overwatch has exactly that kind of spectator tool already. They are at least one step ahead of us on this.

They have a freecam, yeah.  The spectator is still on a team, though, so you only get location pips for "your team" and the enemy is invisible.  The tournaments never use it for more than two seconds before going back to player cam so we can stare at some Reinhardt ass, though, I do wish they would get some decent camera operators for this stuff.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Falconeer on June 12, 2016, 06:18:37 PM
Nope, I am pretty sure you are either wrong, or they patched it. I watched a tournament today and all players were outlined through walls in blue or red.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Kail on June 12, 2016, 06:30:37 PM
Nope, I am pretty sure you are either wrong, or they patched it. I watched a tournament today and all players were outlined through walls in blue or red.

Hmm, weird, unless there was a widowmaker ult going on I've never seen that.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Falconeer on June 12, 2016, 06:31:32 PM
No, I watched the tournament for two hours :) As I said, outlines in red and blue for the whole two hours. Maybe they patched it in as I said. It makes sense and it shouldn't be too hard to make it, right? Anyway, it's there.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Venkman on June 12, 2016, 06:55:18 PM

It's passive in the sense that these are the tools casters use to describe what's happening in the game.  Who really came out ahead in the last fight, who's doing well, who's missing all their shots, that kind of thing.  
Oh right, I missed where you said earlier about this being for casters. That's what makes it easier and more passive for spectators: announcers doing their thing and highlighting to keep the narrative going.

Funny. I wrote that paragraph and it comes off like I'm being sarcastic. But I'm not! :-)

Quote
...watching in client is more like going to a sporting event in person... [but] A loooot of people who are watching this stuff are watching from their computer, and it's kind of maddening to see it treated as a kind of junky television when it can do so much more.
That's where my brain is at though. The less interactive, the more passive, the more people who'll give over their eyeballs, the higher the ad values, the higher value the sponsors.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Setanta on June 15, 2016, 02:59:13 AM
This apparently hit 10M unique accounts.

Bots?


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Teleku on June 15, 2016, 05:25:04 AM
$40 is a lot of money to spend on one bot.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Falconeer on June 15, 2016, 05:34:39 AM
I am sure those are real numbers and players.

And this is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UU8jqxAiHQ
Overwatch makes a lot of people feel they are suddenly good at FPS. 

:ye_gods:


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Malakili on June 15, 2016, 06:23:30 AM
I didn't even realize at first that headshots were a thing in this game. When I did and started aiming t the head, my death matching ability on some of the heroes rose dramatically, heh.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Fabricated on June 15, 2016, 07:46:38 AM
The Hanzo hitboxes are hilarious. At least he can't fire insanely fast like Widowmaker.

Widow and McCree got nerfed a bit just yesterday. Both are still really powerful however- McCree just can't effortlessly fan-down tanks now, and super MLG Pro Widow players can't quickscope anymore.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on June 15, 2016, 09:12:35 AM
I am sure those are real numbers and players.

And this is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UU8jqxAiHQ
Overwatch makes a lot of people feel they are suddenly good at FPS. 

:ye_gods:

And we're just fine with that. The same way the Hearthstone players suddenly think they're good at CCG and HOTS good at LOL types. :D

Now if more folks would start using mics down at my shitty level of play I might win a few more attacks.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: kaid on June 15, 2016, 10:50:05 AM
It is a bit silly but it seems to work in game and is plenty fun as is. I prefer the larger hitboxes over auto aiming and this game runs glass smooth on my old rig which I was pretty worried about. Hell it ran fine even when I was doing some pretty intensive things in the back ground. I will forgive a lot of hitbox oddities as an exchange for playing super well on my system and looking great while doing it.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Viin on June 15, 2016, 11:07:57 AM
The Hanzo hitboxes are hilarious.

This is probably my one gripe right now. Most of the one-shot deaths I get are from Hanzo sniping me from some ridiculous position while he's spamming shots my general direction (granted, not very quickly).


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: HaemishM on June 15, 2016, 11:14:21 AM
I am sure those are real numbers and players.

And this is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UU8jqxAiHQ
Overwatch makes a lot of people feel they are suddenly good at FPS. 

:ye_gods:

Jesus.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Rasix on June 16, 2016, 10:13:43 AM
Apparently this has taken over in Korean PC Cafes as the #1 game. AFAIK this hasn't happened since LoL came to Korea.  Koreans really love Blizzard.

Some are heralding this as the start of LoL's slow decline, more rational people are waiting out the honeymoon phase. Of course, it could be both.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Azazel on June 17, 2016, 02:00:46 AM
They've been trying to replicate Starcraft's phenomenon for a while now. Not very successfully, but they've been trying.

Yeah, seriously.  I kind of wish they'd back off.  I love Dota as much as anyone, but turning EVERY game in to some competitive e-sport really shits up the community.

I guess at least it makes more sense for their more recent stuff than it did when they thought enough people would care about WoW Arena duels to force all the PvP systems in the game to revolve around them.

You forgot all the PVE systems as well.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: TheWalrus on June 19, 2016, 04:22:30 AM
Just downloaded and played tonight. This is the first type of this game I've enjoyed, even with my shitty old rig and terribad graphics capability. Lag was ridiculous for me, but I still had fun. Far as I'm concerned, this game is a win.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: jakonovski on June 19, 2016, 02:09:11 PM
This really is a shooter for the older gentleman, the hitboxes are generous and there are lots of abilities you don't have to aim.

One thing I wish they did was an in-game breakdown of what every ability does. Nobody will figure it out on their own, it's all on the internet.








Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on June 19, 2016, 02:20:17 PM
This really is a shooter for the older gentleman, the hitboxes are generous and there are lots of abilities you don't have to aim.

One thing I wish they did was an in-game breakdown of what every ability does. Nobody will figure it out on their own, it's all on the internet.








Hit f1


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: jakonovski on June 19, 2016, 03:39:30 PM
I know that. I mean more detailed information than what is given. Sure, I can go to a wiki but come on, why should I need to.



Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Ginaz on June 19, 2016, 03:55:56 PM
I know that. I mean more detailed information than what is given. Sure, I can go to a wiki but come on, why should I need to.



You know there's a training room where you can test each heroes' abilities on your own, right? :facepalm:


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: jakonovski on June 19, 2016, 04:28:38 PM
Training room is not the same thing as information written down. All I want to do is read.

It's naturally no biggie because there's more wikis you can shake a stick at. But it'd be nice to have some of that information, technical and lore, readable in the game, don't you think?   





Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Ginaz on June 19, 2016, 05:16:09 PM
Training room is not the same thing as information written down. All I want to do is read.

It's naturally no biggie because there's more wikis you can shake a stick at. But it'd be nice to have some of that information, technical and lore, readable in the game, don't you think?   





What is there to read?  You press F1 and it tells you what each skill does.  Better yet, you go into the training room and you can actually test them and see how they work out in game.  I spent a good hour or so in the test range before playing against other people.  What more do you want?  A printed manual?  Blizzard didn't re-invent the wheel here.  It's a FPS with a few abilities thrown in.  Not that hard to figure out.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on June 19, 2016, 05:47:50 PM
Yeah I'm wondering the same thing.  Are you looking to min/ max dos or know exactly how many head shots widow needs to kill rod of or something?


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Sophismata on June 19, 2016, 05:48:41 PM
Training room is not the same thing as information written down. All I want to do is read.

It's naturally no biggie because there's more wikis you can shake a stick at. But it'd be nice to have some of that information, technical and lore, readable in the game, don't you think?   

What is there to read?  You press F1 and it tells you what each skill does.  Better yet, you go into the training room and you can actually test them and see how they work out in game.  I spent a good hour or so in the test range before playing against other people.  What more do you want?  A printed manual?  Blizzard didn't re-invent the wheel here.  It's a FPS with a few abilities thrown in.  Not that hard to figure out.

It'd be nice to know things like, y'know, actual damage numbers.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Ginaz on June 19, 2016, 08:59:28 PM
Training room is not the same thing as information written down. All I want to do is read.

It's naturally no biggie because there's more wikis you can shake a stick at. But it'd be nice to have some of that information, technical and lore, readable in the game, don't you think?   

What is there to read?  You press F1 and it tells you what each skill does.  Better yet, you go into the training room and you can actually test them and see how they work out in game.  I spent a good hour or so in the test range before playing against other people.  What more do you want?  A printed manual?  Blizzard didn't re-invent the wheel here.  It's a FPS with a few abilities thrown in.  Not that hard to figure out.

It'd be nice to know things like, y'know, actual damage numbers.

Are there any other FPS that give you that info?  Serious question because I've never seen it.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Kail on June 19, 2016, 10:57:02 PM
What is there to read?  You press F1 and it tells you what each skill does.  Better yet, you go into the training room and you can actually test them and see how they work out in game.  I spent a good hour or so in the test range before playing against other people.  What more do you want?  A printed manual?  Blizzard didn't re-invent the wheel here.  It's a FPS with a few abilities thrown in.  Not that hard to figure out.

There's a lot of stuff not mentioned in the game anywhere that's hard to get from the training range.  What the difference is between a shield and a barrier, what the difference is between health and armor, that kind of thing.  The specific nitpicky details of abilities, like that Symmetra's alt fire goes through barriers and so does Reinhardt's E but his Q will be blocked by an enemy barrier even though the graphic looks like it goes through.  That stuff would be helpful to know without having to find a wiki.

Usually in my experience in other FPS for stuff like weapon damage, they might not put the numbers right in the open, but there tends to be some kind of indication to say if one weapon is more powerful than another.  Maybe they'll have a little bar graph for stats like damage and rate of fire and accuracy and whatever, or they'll rate the gun from 1 to 5 stars in certain categories, but there's something in there to say how good it is, if only so you can see how effective slapping a scope or whatever on it will be.  

Outside of FPS, this information is all pretty commonly available in Dota type games, and it feels weird for them to not be giving it to us here.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: jakonovski on June 20, 2016, 02:42:07 PM
I'm treating this game more as a MOBA, that is true. The game even has those little ability videos that LoL had when I played it a long time ago (which actually show the Symmetra barrier thing).










Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: MrHat on June 20, 2016, 04:25:37 PM
I'm treating this game more as a MOBA, that is true. The game even has those little ability videos that LoL had when I played it a long time ago (which actually show the Symmetra barrier thing).

It should be treated as a MOBA in so far as getting ults timed properly will win more than being really good at shooting people in the head.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Venkman on June 20, 2016, 05:03:35 PM
I rather like the lack of numbers. Between that and the geriatric-rated hitboxes, this game feels more like well-tuned action shooter than a moba but not so first-person-y that it's inaccessible to normal people.

F1 doesn't tell me shit though. The only way to really learn how to play is trial and error against other people. Which is also like other action shooters. The practice room with the robots is useless, and playing against AI only results in inflating one's own sense of one's skills.



Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Falconeer on June 21, 2016, 07:40:02 AM
17 years old South Korean girl plays Zarya so well that two pro players bet their careers that she's cheating (https://www.reddit.com/r/Overwatch/comments/4ozx0o/1_zariya_player_hackusation_cleared_by_blizzard/) (and throw her a death threat too because "of course").

Turns out she's just very, very good, as demonstrated live for more than an hour. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaXsmG4g3Xk)


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Fabricated on June 21, 2016, 09:06:42 PM
One of the world's best Widowmaker players said he was having to wait for 20+ minutes to get a game. As it turns out hundreds and hundreds of players had blocked him to avoid playing with him when Blizzard looked into it. Apparently people have been using the "avoid player" feature to block really insanely skilled players.

Their solution: Remove the feature to avoid players. lmao


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Megrim on June 21, 2016, 09:43:42 PM
To be fair, how'd you fix it though?


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Koyasha on June 22, 2016, 04:52:02 AM
One of the world's best Widowmaker players said he was having to wait for 20+ minutes to get a game. As it turns out hundreds and hundreds of players had blocked him to avoid playing with him when Blizzard looked into it. Apparently people have been using the "avoid player" feature to block really insanely skilled players.

Their solution: Remove the feature to avoid players. lmao
Seems like a typical 'we can't have nice things' to me.  Great for avoiding people that just don't work with the team, things like that, but people abuse it to avoid people they don't want to play against because they're too good.  Not sure how it would be fixed either.  Avoid player only working for your team (as in, the people you avoid don't get put on your side, but them being on the enemy side is still valid) would help, but not sure it wouldn't introduce just some other form of abuse.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Teleku on June 22, 2016, 09:23:46 AM
If your allowed to avoid bad players, you should be allowed to avoid good players.  Or you have to suffer both.  Can't have it both ways hypocrites!   :-P



Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Yegolev on June 22, 2016, 10:11:24 AM
you're


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Sky on June 22, 2016, 10:21:09 AM
Wait, how is not wanting to get curbstomped by people taking the game way too seriously a bad thing? Uneven skill levels to that degree sucks, the last thing I want to do for a relaxing evening after a long day at work is be Johnny Widowmaker's cannon fodder.

Then again, I just don't play games like that because people are broken and I've learned to not expend my energy on it, despite loving the genre.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: HaemishM on June 22, 2016, 10:29:35 AM
Well, good matchmaking isn't supposed to put you up against someone with such a huge skill disparity but sadly, I don't know many matchmaking schemes that actually work like that.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: 01101010 on June 22, 2016, 11:09:44 AM
Well, good matchmaking isn't supposed to put you up against someone with such a huge skill disparity but sadly, I don't know many matchmaking schemes that actually work like that.

Supposedly there is a skill algorithm to slot you with like skilled players, which I'm sure is along the lines of K/D categories (but hopefully more elaborate). Sadly, that only works for the middle of the bell curve. Those ends have to get put into the game at some point.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Falconeer on June 22, 2016, 11:15:48 AM
Very long post by Kaplan on the matchmaker, how it works in a lot of details, why they removed the "Avoid Player" function, and a lot more. It is worht a read if you are into this game, and before you say things that might be hearsay or don't make too much sense.

True Wall of Text.

Quote
Allow me to share some of my personal thoughts on matchmaking...

We’ve been following all of the discussion around matchmaking. When topics get discussed in the community (and often among game developers) we tend to talk about things in very black/white or right/wrong terms. But most important decisions you make as a game developer are difficult trade-off decisions with no perfect answer.

The goal of the matchmaking is to make it so that you as a player do not have to find 11 other people to play with. You can click a Play button, and the system finds other players for you. That’s the basics. The reality is, the matchmaker is extremely complex in what it is trying to do. It does way more than I am going to mention in this post so while I am going to offer some information here, I am leaving some things out (not all intentionally – it’s just a really complex system).

At a most basic level, the matchmaker is trying to put you with 11 other people. But it doesn’t just randomly select 11 people. It takes into account a number of factors (more than I am going to list and not necessarily prioritized).

The first factor is time. The matchmaker will try to find you match quickly and not force you to wait too long. A very common thing that happens is that a player will become dissatisfied with a match and say “I don’t care how long you make me wait. I’d rather wait 20 minutes and have a good match than get matchmade into a match like you just put me into.” What we’ve seen is that when the time crosses a certain threshold, players begin to complain about it taking too long to find a match. It sounds good… waiting for that perfect match. But when the reality of waiting too long comes down on most people, they end up vocalizing their discontent on the forums. Also, there is an unrealistic expectation that if a player waits longer for a match, the “better” the match will be. The concept of “better” when it comes to matchmaking is a really hard one to define.

If I were to summarize match results into 5 broad buckets it would be these:
My team won. We beat the other team by a long shot.
My team barely won.
My team barely lost.
My team lost. We lost by a long shot. It wasn’t even close
It was a broken match somehow. Maybe someone disconnected,
was screwing around or we played with fewer than 12 people.

(of course there are more cases than this – I am overly simplifying here)

Most players will say that they want a match to be either type 2 or type 3 as I described above. Those sound even. Barely win or barely lose. But I believe when psychology comes into play, most players actually expect type 1 or type 2 to be the result. Even an amazingly close type 3 match can turn into a highly negative experience for a lot of players. And if you keep “barely losing” it’s not a very fun night. Winning is fun and good. Losing is less fun than winning.

So waiting a really long time to lose by a long shot is obviously not good. But waiting a really long time to barely lose is also a negative experience. And if we assume that your chances of winning are 50%, that means that even waiting a really long time for a “better” match means that you’re going to wait a really long time to probably lose half the time… If your expectation was that you were going to wait a really long time for an awesome match where you either 1) Won by a long shot or 2) Barely won… but still won nonetheless, your expectations for what the system can or should do are in the wrong place. We do not generate bots to take losses so you can win more than 50% of the time. Those are real people losing on the other end of every loss you take.

A second factor we take into account is ping. We’re matchmaking people all over the world and we want to match people to the closest servers for the best play experience. In our second stress test, we had other things prioritized over ping-based matchmaking such as skill and time. For those of you who participated in that stress test, you’ll remember how terrible the game performance was on the first day as well as how “lit up” the forums were demanding that players be given an option of server choice. So now we prioritize ping for players. Some players live in challenging parts of the world when it comes to high speed data connections (I’m looking at you, Andes mountain range…) so it’s not perfect for everyone. But largely, most people get a really decent connection to our game servers. Matching players with wildly disparate pings also results in a higher frequency of undesirable side effects such as “getting shot behind walls”. Of course if you live in Houston, Texas and group with your buddy in Geneva, Switzerland, you’re now introducing uncertainty to our system that’s harder for us to deal with… but we allow it.

Which brings us to the next factor that we match on: grouping. The majority of our matches are comprised of either all solo players or solo players and players grouped with one other person. However, the system does try to match groups of equal sizes together first and foremost. As the time people wait grows, we expand the search to try to find others for them to play with. This means that occasionally we will match groups with players who are not grouped or in a group size that is smaller than their own. Like I mentioned, this is exceedingly rare but can happen. And that match is only made when players have crossed a waiting threshold that we deem too long. For most group matches a group of 6 is placed against another group of 6.

Groups are a big challenge in our matchmaking system. You can group with people of wildly varying skill and ping and we allow you to. It’s pretty unlikely that there is another group in the queue that exactly mirrors the unique circumstances that you have set up (pings, skills etc.). We want you to group. We feel that it’s the best way to play the game. So we try to avoid things that discourage grouping and we want to continually improve the social systems so that you’ll find it easier and easier to group with people you have chosen to play with. Playing with people you choose to play with is going to be more reliably fun than playing with people we choose for you. I once used the analogy of hanging out with people on a Saturday night. If you were to go out with five of your friends it would probably be a better time than if we tried to find 5 random people for you to go out with, no matter how smart we were in our selection process…

Anyway, this leads me to matchmaking rating. This rating is the most important thing that we try to match on. Basically this rating means “how good are you?” Commonly, you’ll hear this referred to as Matchmaking Rating or MMR. MMR is derived differently in different games. Overwatch borrows a lot of knowledge from other games but also does a lot of things unique to Overwatch. As each player plays games, their matchmaking rating goes up or down depending on if they win or lose. The system is extremely complicated and there is a lot more going on here than I am going to spell out. So please don’t take this as the comprehensive guide to how MMR is calculated in Overwatch. There is definitely a lot more going on under the hood.

In Overwatch, whether your MMR goes up or down is contingent on winning or losing. But there are a number of factors that determine how much that rating goes up or down. For example, what map you’re playing on and whether you were attacking or defending is factored in. We know the win rates on attack/defend on all of the maps and we normalize accordingly. Not all wins and losses are equal. We also look at your individual performance on each of the heroes you played during the match. Everyone has better and worse heroes and we have tons of data showing us what performance levels should be like on those heroes. We also look at your opponents and whether or not their matchmaking rating is higher or lower than yours. These are just a few of the things that are considered when determining how your skill should go up or down. At no point in MMR calculations do we look at your win/loss ratio and win/loss ratio is never used to determine who to match you with or against. We are not trying to drive your win/loss percentage toward a certain number (although the fact that so many people are at 50% win rates makes us extremely happy). All the system does when it comes to matching on skill is attempt to match you with people of a similar number.

The system is of course deeper than this. There are penalties and handicaps added for things like not playing for a while or playing in groups of varying sizes. We also do special things for brand new players to (hopefully) keep them away from the general population. Players will often mistakenly look at player level and accuse the matchmaker of making unfair matches. One thing that I have mentioned before is that we were evaluating your skill during closed beta, open beta and the second stress test weekend. If you played in any of these (over 10 million players did), we had already determined a skill rating for you (most likely). This means that it’s not uncommon to see a level 1 matchmade against much higher level players. In most of these cases, the Level 1 is a skilled player who played during the phases I mentioned but did not immediately play at launch.

There are many factors that are beyond our control that add noise to the matchmaking system.

Leavers are extremely disruptive
Players vary wildly in their skill with different heroes. We have no clue which of the 21 heroes you are going to play during a match
Groups form with wild variance in skill levels and ping. Contrary to popular belief there is not a “perfect match” for your unique snowflake group
Sometimes your little brother plays on your account
Sometimes the cat walks in front of the screen
Sometimes your wireless mouse runs out of batteries. (Why do you use a wireless mouse btw?)
Sometimes a highly skilled player buys a new copy of OW to “start fresh” on a new account
Sometimes you have internet problems
Sometimes you play drunk or tired… or both
That first game of the night…
…that last game of the night
“Life”
So this brings me to some thoughts I’ve been having about Overwatch. While this whole post has been mostly my personal thoughts – this next part is “especially” my thoughts and not reflective of the team or the company’s POV.

For better or for worse, we focused the design of the game on winning or losing as a team. OW is not a game where you ignore the map objectives and then look at your K/D ratio to determine how good you are. We want you to focus on winning or losing and as a result you do focus on winning or losing. We tried to make it so that losing isn’t the end of the world, but to a lot of people they expect to win far much more than they lose. I sometimes wonder if we were able to clone you 11 times and then put you in a match with and against yourself, would you be happy with the outcome? Even if you lost? Out of the 5 types of matches I described above, it is my belief that you would still experience types 1-4. Are those “stomps” still not acceptable? Because they will happen…

And I believe OW is strange game in that regard. I spend a lot of time studying the matches that I am in because I am very focused on matchmaking. I’ve been in so many Control Point maps where my team got destroyed on the first point, the enemy team got destroyed on the second point and then we play the third point to a 99%/99% overtime. If you judged any of those single points on their own merits you could say you have two stomps (one in your favor, one against you) and one close match. Same players...no change in matchmaking. Or take a match that I was just in on Route 66, for example. My team was on attack and could barely push out past the train cars. Two members of our team swapped heroes and we proceeded to march the payload all the way to the end of the map practically uncontested. The match went from a stomp in one direction to a stomp in the other direction.

So while it is possible for a mismatch to result in a stomp, not every stomp is a mismatch. If every time a team dominates another team it is viewed as “the matchmaker is broken”, the problem we have is with perception and expectations. Look across all pro sports. Even matches happen every night. Stomps happen every night. It’s a reality of any competitive game. Does that make being on the receiving end sting any less – probably not.

We are constantly improving the matchmaker. We learn more each day. We have one of our best engineers and best designers full time dedicated to the system. Many of those “silent” patches that go out during the week are adjustments to the system. For example, we recently realized that “Avoid this player” was wreaking havoc on matchmaking. One of the best Widowmaker players in the world complained to us about long queue times. We looked into it and found that hundreds of other players had avoided him (he’s a nice guy – they avoided him because they did not want to play against him, not because of misbehavior). The end result was that it took him an extremely long time to find a match. The worst part was, by the time he finally got a match, he had been waiting so long that the system had “opened up” to lower skill players. Now one of the best Widowmaker players was facing off against players at a lower skill level. As a result, we’ve disabled the Avoid system (the UI will go away in an upcoming patch). The system was designed with the best intent. But the results were pretty disastrous.

We will always be working on our matchmaking system. We’re listening to feedback, we’re playing the game a ton ourselves and we’re looking at hard data to inform our decisions. This post wasn’t my way of saying everything is fine. I just wanted to share some of my thoughts as someone who has been evaluating the system itself very closely as well as monitoring the feedback. I want to put it out there that there is a lot of room for improvement but also suggest that there are forces in play that cause some fair matches to sway lopsided due to forces out of our control. The game is as much (if not more) art than it is science. We’ll keep working to make it better!


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Nija on June 22, 2016, 11:48:14 AM
I have only thought about this for half a minute, but I think what you'd do is make people add a reason for avoiding a player. Reasons would be like, personal attacks / racism, general chat spam, aim botting / cheating. Then you'd look into things. If someone is spouting racist shit in chat, block their ability to chat. If they are constantly on the mic, give them a set amount of seconds/match they can chat and then cut them off. If they are cheating, investigate.

For the cheating thing, if they are found to not be cheating after someone investigates, remove those blocks. The next time someone reports them for cheating, pop up a message that says 'we investigated on DATE and found them to not be cheating. Would you like to report anyway?"

This all implies that you add a few new systems to the game to support this kind of thing. More work, but the end result is that you get to actually avoid the 12 year olds yelling nigger into the mic and get slayed by the good widowmakers. All is right in the world, in other words.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Teleku on June 22, 2016, 11:59:22 AM
Except for when all the 12 year olds spam the system with reports of RACIST at every single person who kills them.  Or 100,000 people just put down RACIST as the reason to avoid the pro-player and they have to spend the time investigating each one.

Just not sure that system would work on a game this large.  They'd have to spend millions more a year in labor cost just to hire enough people to investigate the flood of reports.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Nija on June 22, 2016, 12:08:21 PM
You're probably right. I haven't actually seen many idiots on PS4. Most of the people I mute I only mute because htey are coughing into the mic or they have a crazy feedback loop going so I hear their game audio through their mic. Nobody has called me any names yet, but I'm pretty bad on console. That's probably why. I'm a non-issue, so I don't make anyone mad.

Although there are ways to get around this by looking at the # of reports someone has submitted. If someone reports 30 people a day and calls people racists, vs a guy who has reported 4 people over the course of 3 weeks, it's pretty easy to put a weight value on these things to make the noise go away.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Samprimary on June 22, 2016, 12:11:14 PM
if there's a field where you have to put why you are avoiding someone i would fill it literally every time with just "WIDOWMAKER" until i ran out of characters


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Teleku on June 22, 2016, 02:16:12 PM
Really?  I think Widowmaker is my least feared hero.  I love it when I see one on the other team.  99% of the players in this game play her BADLY.  She is a ball and chain on the team.  1% play her as god almighty.

Hanzo by far gives me more sniping grief than Widowmaker ever does.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Sky on June 22, 2016, 02:58:22 PM
99% of the players in this game play her BADLY.  She is a ball and chain on the team. 
if there's a field where you have to put why you are avoiding someone i would fill it literally every time with just "WIDOWMAKER" until i ran out of characters


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Venkman on June 22, 2016, 06:09:19 PM
One of the world's best Widowmaker players said he was having to wait for 20+ minutes to get a game. As it turns out hundreds and hundreds of players had blocked him to avoid playing with him when Blizzard looked into it. Apparently people have been using the "avoid player" feature to block really insanely skilled players.

Their solution: Remove the feature to avoid players. lmao

So I get why they turned off avoid player. I don't think it was a smart move myself, but I can see it.

What makes me really curious is this specific player's issue. When I saw this story the other day I thought: Hundreds of people blocked him? Because he was "insanely skilled"? How did Blizzard know that was the reason? And what kind of rubes was this guy playing against that he was so insanely skilled they blocked him on that merit and not, like, racist spewing or other things?

Maybe he was in one of those sparsely populated areas and was therefore always up against the same people? Or maybe he was bragging about his l33t sh1t on some local board?


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Malakili on June 22, 2016, 06:19:21 PM
It literally never even occurred to me that I might use that feature to avoid someone just because they were kicking my ass.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Viin on June 22, 2016, 06:31:28 PM
The answer is ranked games.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Megrim on June 23, 2016, 12:03:17 AM
COMPETITIVE GAMEPLAY (https://thumbs.gfycat.com/RawSaneDegus-mobile.mp4)

 Sorry, I just think this shit is hilarious.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Falconeer on June 23, 2016, 02:12:51 AM
I am level 102, which only proves that despite all the criticism I am clearly having fun with the game. Yet every time I get killed by crap like that -which is a lot- I simply want to drop buckets of guano on every single Blizzard idiot who made this possible.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: jakonovski on June 23, 2016, 02:22:47 AM
I gotta play more Hanzo, I don't care if it's the aim assist getting kills, still feels good!



Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Bzalthek on June 23, 2016, 05:19:30 AM
I'm primarily Junkrat/Reinhardt (Though Lucio / Mercy is getting more practice, but... fuck Hanzo.  With a razorbladed bat.  I get hook/shot comboed by Roadhog?  ok, I can deal.  Mei froze me and stands there for a second aiming for my head where I SWEAR they animated an infuriating fucking smirk... fine, GG.  But Hanzo?  I'm gonna cross this - nope headshot.  I'm gonna remote jump over this - headshot.  I'm gonna charge this cowering Mer - headshot!  I'm gonna wait a second before moving out beacause I know Hanzo - HEADSHOT!  WHARGARBLE!


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on June 23, 2016, 05:36:10 AM
Reaper, relocate, boom Hanzos dead. Tracer, zippy sprint blammo to the head Hanzos dead if you've got any aim.

That's how I handle it and I suck. The problem is most people seem to want to use snipers or range to take him out. You need to get close and stay mobile and there's characters better at that. 

How many games do you have Falc?  Jesus I'm only 28 and not going to hit 100 any time soon. At 170 games.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Falconeer on June 23, 2016, 05:43:00 AM
Hanzo is of course not invincible or OP. No character feels invincible or OP, althoguh I still maintain that some tends to be too dominant in low-level/disorganized play (too much "Molten coooooore!" gets me really close to ragequit). I just dislike very much the idea of being hit behind a wall or in the head when their crosshair was basically on my foot.

I have hit 705 games last night: http://masteroverwatch.com/profile/pc/eu/Falconeer-2753 - Linking my stats to be candid about my mediocrity. No number of games can fix that. Yesterday in a casual game I was the highest level player and some guy started barking at me (in voice) for my character choices and ended the match with some raging whine along the lines of "my god why are you level 98?!" Hahaha, that actually made me laugh.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Bzalthek on June 23, 2016, 09:48:07 AM
Yep, level is by no means indicative of skill.  I can't aim for shit (hence my hero preferences) but I'm a lil over 115 atm (I'm off during the summer, so it's constant gaming).  I have very bad reflex twitch, and I have a lot of trouble leading shots on moving targets with pharah's rockets, let alone a gun (thank god 76's ult).  My bitching in no way implies a class is OP, just that my personal bane is that "Ryu ga waga teki go fuck yourself" bastard.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on June 23, 2016, 10:17:35 AM
My largest problem has always been I can't headshot. Everything I know about guns says center mass center mass center mass.  I'm just not able to switch that thinking for a video game.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Rendakor on June 23, 2016, 03:35:38 PM
Finally got around to picking this up; had to reinstall battle.net. :why_so_serious: Sent friend requests to a bunch of f13ers it suggested, but my tag is Rendakor#1605 for anyone playing here who I missed. Haven't really watched any videos on this or anything, but I kinda wanted to shoot some mans.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Venkman on June 23, 2016, 08:48:12 PM
That's where this game shines. Just get in and shoot people.

But I feel like Hanzo will be nerfed at some point, maybe just the hitbox. It's stupid. Luckily not a lot of people they match me up with seem to play him well.

Also, while I have a sequence of classes I go through as the match progresses, often I still end up as a chaotic bouncy ball Junkrat. I just like jumping as everything I throw is jumping too. Makes for a difficult target :-)


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on June 23, 2016, 10:00:02 PM
It's really, really, really just that the rating you have sucks. Before mine fell Hanzo was never a problem. Now that I'm below 45% win and rapidly approaching 40% I see stupid shit like standing around waitng for Hanzo in the same spot. Or trying to snipe Hanzo with soldier 76. Or trying to gun him down with bastion.  Just pure wtf stuff.

http://masteroverwatch.com/profile/pc/us/Merusk-1698

I really wish I could aim for shit. I'm like the only person on the objectives 90% of the time and it gets frustrating down here in the sewer.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Nija on June 24, 2016, 10:05:45 AM
If you find yourself the only person on the objective in a round, switch to Roadhog. The self heal gives you good sustain. Note the refresh timer on self heal.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Zetor on June 24, 2016, 10:46:30 AM
OTOH it can also be an ult battery for the enemies...

I have like zero experience with any of the tanks and my twitch aim skilz are nonexistent, so I just go with Junkrat (offense) / Symmetra (defense / KOTH) most of the time if only because their area denial is pretty good in a typical pub match.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Nija on June 24, 2016, 11:20:25 AM
If nobody is going to be on the objective you may as well be an ult battery for the other team and put your team out of their own misery.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Viin on June 24, 2016, 02:35:38 PM
If nobody is going to be on the objective you may as well be an ult battery for the other team and put your team out of their own misery.

Truth. Nothing worse than a team that just stands around sniping. On Defense it's the worst - no one will ever stand near the escort to stop it from moving. So one guy (Tracer, usually) just moves it along, dodging their bullets for 60 seconds.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: NiX on June 24, 2016, 02:51:30 PM
Truth. Nothing worse than a team that just stands around sniping. On Defense it's the worst - no one will ever stand near the escort to stop it from moving. So one guy (Tracer, usually) just moves it along, dodging their bullets for 60 seconds.

I don't see the problem. That guy playing Hanzo on Attack is definitely helping the team! He just got 4 kills with his ult and still didn't touch the point. The loss was probably <insert tank or healer>'s fault!


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Venkman on June 24, 2016, 06:52:32 PM
It's really, really, really just that the rating you have sucks. Before mine fell Hanzo was never a problem. Now that I'm below 45% win and rapidly approaching 40% I see stupid shit like standing around waitng for Hanzo in the same spot. Or trying to snipe Hanzo with soldier 76. Or trying to gun him down with bastion.  Just pure wtf stuff.

http://masteroverwatch.com/profile/pc/us/Merusk-1698

I really wish I could aim for shit. I'm like the only person on the objectives 90% of the time and it gets frustrating down here in the sewer.

Huh I haven't been to masteroverwatch until now. Finally got my account hooked up. And that whole site reminds me why I like OW. It's a fun get in/get out romp that doesn't require I care as much about it as I've had to in early games, but still provides ways for others who want to care more to care about :-)

I guess I'm currently at 48%, so that's what's matching me with others? And I can't tell if that's going up/down because I guess 18 hours played isn't enough time or something?


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: 01101010 on June 24, 2016, 08:17:24 PM
Picked this up. It's ok but i am not seeing the awesome. Repetitive with little reward.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: KallDrexx on June 24, 2016, 09:19:07 PM
Man, the battle.net app goes way out of it's way to hide the fact that there's a $39.99 version.  if I didn't already knew that existed I would have ended up paying $60 instead.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: schild on June 24, 2016, 09:20:02 PM
i paid $60 :(

whatever, I have 900 hours of Diablo 3 logged. They can have the extra $20.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Falconeer on June 28, 2016, 07:09:10 PM
Competitive mode is on. Ranked season 1 just got patched in, 980 mb.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: KallDrexx on June 28, 2016, 08:27:28 PM
Ugh this game.  I've never gone from having fun to being frustrated so fast.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on June 28, 2016, 09:03:14 PM
Competitive mode is for Suckers and 20-somethings with gaming sponsors so they can play 16 hours a day. If you're not one of the above then don't fall for it.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: March on June 29, 2016, 05:40:22 PM
Everytime I think, hey, maybe I'll just try this out and see if I like this kind of game... maybe *this* time I will... I go to download and they hit me up for $60 (or $40) bucks.  Hmmn.  I'm not that curious.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Phildo on June 29, 2016, 10:27:37 PM
I just tried it out for the first time and, while fun, holy fuck was that overwhelming.  Way too many characters to keep track of without a lot of practice.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Samprimary on June 30, 2016, 12:32:32 AM
I got my tryhard on and really super got into competitive placing. I was in the zone.

I won 8 out of 10 of my placement matches and got at least one gold in each one.

I'm rightly fucked now because it put my ranking really high so i'm gonna get smacked down for ages

But at least I'm one thirtyith of the way to a golden weapon, right?


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Falconeer on June 30, 2016, 04:33:22 AM
"Competitive" (Ranked, we used to call it) is not bad at all. Why? Because it gives you a skill score over time which leads to better balanced games than Quick Play. In Quick Play you are matched with other players based on your MMR (MatchMaker Rating), while in Competitive you are matched based on your "skill level" (the value you get after 10 placement matches). The skill value seems to be more accurate than the MMR, and also the matchmaker is more strict when trying to put together a competitive match. As a result, AFTER the nightmarish placement matches, I got much much more balanced games in Competitive than Quick Play. Also, in Competitive teams of randoms are still inevitably slightly more interested in working together and make wise picks than in Quick Play. That isn't always true but it certainly is more true than in Quick Play.

In short, after careful examination (More than 30 Competitive matches) I have to say that there are basically zero reasons to play Quick Play over Competitive. The only difference are:

- You can leave Quick Play whenever you want without having to worry about being a jerk
- You get way less toxic people commenting on your or someone else's skill

But if you like me wouldn't leave a game regardless of the format, and are completely immune to strangers' rants, Competitive provides better games.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Viin on June 30, 2016, 11:34:43 AM
I've had a similar experience with Rocket League's competitive games. Even though I get frustrated with crappy teammates on Competitive (especially on 2-on-2, getting a crappy teammate is like losing half your team or worse), the overall experience is better. Going back to Quick games is like watching teenagers make out for the first time: no no you are doing it all wrong, here let me show you ..


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on June 30, 2016, 12:24:35 PM
I disbelieve but I might give it a shot then.

After the team of all-Tjorborn on the Industrial City map who refused to hide behind my Rienhard's shield at Point A (seriously, we would have won. It's a winning strat for a broken map at that level.) I can't facepalm much harder.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Falconeer on June 30, 2016, 01:32:37 PM
If you try, just soldier through the ten placement matches. Those are totally random so they can be all sorts of shitty or awesome. Aftter that, things are, at worst, the same as Quick Play.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Rendakor on June 30, 2016, 06:17:10 PM
I want as little toxic interaction as possible, so I'll likely stay in Quick Play.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: KallDrexx on June 30, 2016, 07:49:05 PM
I want as little toxic interaction as possible, so I'll likely stay in Quick Play.

Ditto.  I see no point to add stress and frustration of pugging it up and letting idiots bring your score down unless you are playing with a group of friends.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Viin on June 30, 2016, 09:26:17 PM
Well if anyone wants to play with someone they internet-know, my Battle.net name is Viin#1561. Competitive or Quick Play works for me.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Falconeer on July 01, 2016, 04:33:55 AM
This represents me, my playstyle and my success with Overwatch so well.

https://gfycat.com/WatchfulPlushChinesecrocodilelizard


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on July 01, 2016, 01:14:39 PM
Did my 10 last night, Viin got to see what it's like down at my level for the last 2. I think it was physically painful for him.

Rank 39, lowest tier. Wooo sucktitude!


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Yegolev on July 01, 2016, 01:45:16 PM
like watching teenagers make out for the first time: no no you are doing it all wrong, here let me show you ..

the visual


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Viin on July 01, 2016, 02:32:08 PM
Did my 10 last night, Viin got to see what it's like down at my level for the last 2. I think it was physically painful for him.

No worse than most of the Quick Play PUGs I've played. I can count on two hands the number of good matches I've had on Quick Play (where both teams played well).

2 more ranked matches for my ranking - I don't expect much better than you got Merusk!


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Teleku on July 01, 2016, 02:56:40 PM
Won my first 5, lost the 6th.  They may as well rename competitive play to Soldier 76 play.  Dear fucking god, he is about the only hero I can think of that really needs a nerf.  Either halve his health, halve his accuracy, or halve his damage.  All of them together is rofl.  If our team is losing (usually because we don't have at least 2 Soldier 76's), I just switch to him and rape.  And I honestly never played him more than about 5 minutes before starting competitive play.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: jakonovski on July 01, 2016, 03:33:52 PM
Yesterday I played like shit, went 7-2. Today I was the perfect team player, 3-9. It's all literally a crapshoot at the matchmaking stage (quick play).



Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on July 02, 2016, 11:05:51 PM
So yeah, Competetive play is in fact cancer and worse than quick play, as I expected.

QP nobody bitches outside of a few twats. Start losing in ranked? All kinds of bitching about shit. "Stop doing that. OMG what are you thinking. etc."  As i expected. When people have something to lose, they turn into bigger assholes.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Falconeer on July 03, 2016, 05:30:12 AM
As I advertised. Did I not mention that? But, since we as humans of the grown kind have the ability to not read a chat or not have our feelings hurt by what complete strangers say, what's left are more balanced matches (plus some "competitive points" which one day will lead to rewards).


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: HaemishM on July 03, 2016, 11:56:51 AM
When people have something to lose, they turn into bigger assholes.

See League of Legends Ranked. Though I enjoy the competition, generally speaking competitive games really make me want to cleanse humanity. It's like The Purge if the Purge couldn't physically kill you.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: KallDrexx on July 03, 2016, 02:45:07 PM
I saw the math on another forum doing the math that if you assume a 50% win ratio on competitive and 15 minute average per match + waiting time, you'd have to play an hour and a half per day for the whole season to purchase the golden guns.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Falconeer on July 03, 2016, 03:04:39 PM
Golden guns are shit. I am collecting "competitive points" to buy better reward in future seasons. They will add more weapons and probably skins too. Even if I get to 300, I am NOT gonna buy no goddamn golden gun.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Samprimary on July 03, 2016, 04:14:24 PM
eh, maybe if you could give mccree this piece of shit

(http://i.imgur.com/fUOH63j.jpg)


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on July 03, 2016, 05:24:32 PM
I saw the math on another forum doing the math that if you assume a 50% win ratio on competitive and 15 minute average per match + waiting time, you'd have to play an hour and a half per day for the whole season to purchase the golden guns.

Those familiar with WoW's PVP won't be surprised by this. The rewards are meant to be very rare and only for those "elite" gamers. Much like the Arena mounts, old high-end PVP titles, and the like. They probably have a target of no more than 10-20% of ranked players getting the guns but won't voice it so people don't quit out.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Falconeer on July 04, 2016, 02:16:50 AM
It also guarantees that people will stay in the system instead of cashing their reward 'easily' and quit playing Competitive making queues longer. I was wondering how come they didn't put in lower tier rewards, like stuff you can buy for 50, 100, 200 wins instead of 300 as it is now. That's the answer.

Top 500 ranked players at the end of the season, the true elite, will get a unique animated spray. But the 300 win/coins are to prevent emptying the player pool.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on July 04, 2016, 11:46:13 AM
So the new thing in ranked appears to be just quitting out at the start if you don't think your team is good enough. 5 matches this morning where someone quit before the game started. Didn't get a single game in.

Ranked is proving to be a hell of a bad thing. Especially since the matches are NOT any better than the quick plays i was doing.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Soulflame on July 04, 2016, 12:16:28 PM
So they literally managed to implement the worst aspects of Starcraft and WoW PvP in Overwatch.

I am amused.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on July 04, 2016, 09:06:27 PM
I've taken to amusing myself by retorting to players that bitch "This team sucks ass."  That, "We all suck, that's why we're ranked so low."

So far the only retort I've gotten is, "Yeah, speak for yourself." Then sullen silence.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Falconeer on July 05, 2016, 04:01:30 AM
I've taken to amusing myself by retorting to players that bitch "This team sucks ass."  That, "We all suck, that's why we're ranked so low."

Haha that's exactly what I tell them! "Why do you think the matchmaker put you here with me? Look at our ranks. We are all scrubs."

Fact.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: HaemishM on July 05, 2016, 11:37:08 AM
That doesn't shut the shitgoblins in LOL, not sure why it would in anything else.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: jakonovski on July 05, 2016, 03:05:21 PM
I just had a look at my stats and I'm really successful with McCree despite being unable to hit anything with him. I'm ok with the stun grenade though, which I feel is a hugely powerful ability.



Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Sophismata on July 06, 2016, 12:35:22 AM
I've taken to amusing myself by retorting to players that bitch "This team sucks ass."  That, "We all suck, that's why we're ranked so low."

Haha that's exactly what I tell them! "Why do you think the matchmaker put you here with me? Look at our ranks. We are all scrubs."

Fact.

In general I see this behaviour in a lot of competitive games. For reference I play at masters / rank 1, and the massive change in player attitude as you progress is very noticeable. The worst players — those permanently stuck in bronze league or rank 40 or whatnot — are the loudest, most obnoxious and most blind players I've had the displeasure of being teamed with. They think they're hot shit, they're never the cause of bad plays and it's always their teammate's fault and only, if only they didn't keep getting matched with other people in bronze league they could finally show how good they really are.

Ignore them, they'll be angry and bitter and in a state of perpetual disappointment until they either learn to 1) have fun, it's a game and/or 2) get better.

Playing at high ranks / leagues in my experience has been a lot more player friendly, with way more tolerance for mistakes ('cause most of us fuck up from time to time) and at least a certain understanding that every game isn't a life-or-death critical battle for rank or placement.

(Side note - I used to rage at people being trash too, years ago, until I learned it did nothing except make everyone feel like shit. Now I just shut-up and do my damn best to make sure the entire team wins, and it's pulled me out of tight spots even in games where we've had a 35%-45% predicted win chance).


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on July 06, 2016, 09:17:44 AM
Makes sense, people tend to be very self-delusional and not very introspective. On top of that as Westerners we live in a bubble of our own awesome and are all the hero of our own story from birth. Trying to reconcile a lifetime of being told we're #1 and super-awesome with the facts before us is something that takes maturity.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Malakili on July 06, 2016, 08:58:27 PM
I feel like last patch basically ruined the game for me. With everyone in the same QM pool it kind of worked out for someone who is in the middle between casual/doesn't care and tries to win any given match anyway. Now the QM seems filled with mouth breathers and competitive is more than I really want to do. I've run into this exact problem before in other games, of course. It seems to happen for me in any game that has matchmaking, eventually. Never got this way about TF2, etc.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: KallDrexx on July 07, 2016, 12:03:35 PM
I haven't had any issues with mouth breathers, but I also have team voice chat off (only group voice chat on) and I don't pay attention to chat. 


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: jakonovski on July 07, 2016, 03:11:37 PM
I gotta agree on the mouth breathers. Coming off a game where my entire team was too stupid to even once take cover behind Reinhardt's barrier. It was really quite something.

edit: and attacks are doomed to fail because there's always a genji or a widow on the attacking team, usually both.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Sophismata on July 07, 2016, 08:27:47 PM
edit: and attacks are doomed to fail because there's always a genji or a widow on the attacking team, usually both.
I only played this game during the free weekend, but I played Genji pretty much exclusively and he's an amazing attacker. High ranged damage, fantastic defence and the second best mobility in the game.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: jakonovski on July 08, 2016, 11:33:48 AM
edit: and attacks are doomed to fail because there's always a genji or a widow on the attacking team, usually both.
I only played this game during the free weekend, but I played Genji pretty much exclusively and he's an amazing attacker. High ranged damage, fantastic defence and the second best mobility in the game.

I actually meant Hanzo the archer but I get them mixed up all the time.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: rk47 on July 08, 2016, 05:08:50 PM
yea fuckin azns man they all look alike.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: jakonovski on July 08, 2016, 05:30:18 PM
See one cyber ninja, seen them all.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on July 08, 2016, 10:34:36 PM
yea fuckin azns man they all look alike.

Stray.. I thought you were banned!


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Triforcer on July 10, 2016, 05:05:04 AM
Playing in Japan is great because nobody uses chat or voice (being a hodgepodge of Japanese/Korean/Chinese on the servers).  You can do your own thing without bothering anyone or anyone bothering you.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Falconeer on July 10, 2016, 02:07:33 PM
Yeah, not sure how it is in NA, but in EU I would say I get one talker every forty matches or so. No kidding. And I am talking "Competitive". Chat sees some more action, but not that much at all really.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: TheWalrus on July 10, 2016, 03:54:59 PM
Genji and Zenyatta are a hoot. A full hoot.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on July 10, 2016, 04:36:23 PM
Zen got propper buffed since beta. He's pretty fun now, I agree. He also does very nice damage.

Playing in Japan is great because nobody uses chat or voice (being a hodgepodge of Japanese/Korean/Chinese on the servers).  You can do your own thing without bothering anyone or anyone bothering you.


Probably nice because of the cultural teamwork zeitgeist. Ours is RAMBO and it shows, even more in competitive. You've got to be THE GUY so screw waiting on your team to do a coordinated charge or ultimate burst. Or, Oh, just pulling an example "at random" not running past the Tracer whose hanging at the spawn entrance and chasing your Mercy back to the group so she's at 1/4 health by the time she joins up.

When people talk in pug competitive they win. When it's silent it's a loser mess.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Rendakor on July 11, 2016, 09:30:53 PM
The only people I hear talk in PUGs are those screaming insults when we're losing.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Falconeer on July 12, 2016, 01:02:24 PM
New heroine next week. As predicted, Ana (Pharah's mother), a healing sniper who shoots allies to replenish their HP. Also, more Crowd Control thanks to a sleeper granade.

Gameplay: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcCGKrYgr0k

Story: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzFWIw7wV8Q


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Samprimary on July 12, 2016, 02:29:04 PM
i wonder what her movement ability will be?


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Spiff on July 12, 2016, 03:03:31 PM
Past few days I've been having more and more competitive games where people just ditch en masse if we're not winning after the first round.
I'm hoping it's not a growing trend 'cause of the general 'easy come, easy go' nature of the game.
Dropped 4 ratings in a large part due to 3 matches in a row lost like this, seems when you lose a few in a row your rating really plummets.

P.S.: Despite telling myself to not give a shit about some bullshit e-peen fluff competitive ranking, I got kind of sucked in (of course) and now go cry in a corner every time I lose a point.

P.S.S.: A new hero is nice and all, but someone else mentioned the lack of great maps and I can only mirror that sentiment. Competitive is stroking my ego a tiny bit, but once that wears off there'd better be some addictive new maps 'cause 'Fun New Flashy Shooter!' shouldn't be getting this monotonous this quick.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Samprimary on July 12, 2016, 03:47:15 PM
i could give a shit about the competitive ranking; you get one competitive point per win, no matter who you won against.

Won against a rating 88 pro bang team on a near lethal drip of adderall? one point

Won against a hapless assembly of rating 10 players that have the reflexes of a Glide script? one point

Power your rating down as hard as you can whenever you can! Easier players means more competitive points forever! Organize with players that will collectively euthanize games that you probably won't win! Intentionally dive your competitive placement matches! In this game, rank is forever a hindrance!


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Megrim on July 12, 2016, 07:36:36 PM
Past few days I've been having more and more competitive games where people just ditch en masse if we're not winning after the first round.
I'm hoping it's not a growing trend 'cause of the general 'easy come, easy go' nature of the game.
Dropped 4 ratings in a large part due to 3 matches in a row lost like this, seems when you lose a few in a row your rating really plummets.

P.S.: Despite telling myself to not give a shit about some bullshit e-peen fluff competitive ranking, I got kind of sucked in (of course) and now go cry in a corner every time I lose a point.

P.S.S.: A new hero is nice and all, but someone else mentioned the lack of great maps and I can only mirror that sentiment. Competitive is stroking my ego a tiny bit, but once that wears off there'd better be some addictive new maps 'cause 'Fun New Flashy Shooter!' shouldn't be getting this monotonous this quick.

The only way enjoy comp is to play with a organised team. Otherwise it will be shit at all mmrs.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on July 12, 2016, 09:28:58 PM
i could give a shit about the competitive ranking; you get one competitive point per win, no matter who you won against.

Won against a rating 88 pro bang team on a near lethal drip of adderall? one point

Won against a hapless assembly of rating 10 players that have the reflexes of a Glide script? one point

Power your rating down as hard as you can whenever you can! Easier players means more competitive points forever! Organize with players that will collectively euthanize games that you probably won't win! Intentionally dive your competitive placement matches! In this game, rank is forever a hindrance!

Since dropping to 34  from 39 I'm certainly finding it's less worrysome.  :awesome_for_real:

Playing support means if your DPS suck, your whole team sucks.  I'm Mercy/ Zen/ Lucio most of my matches and a tank for the majority of the rest. I win 1 out of every 3 games and just /headdesk most of the time.

Most recent game:
 "Phara's above us!" *non-tanks who can aim continue to play Junkrat/ Mei. Solider 76 tries to snipe with rockets, never fires gun*  Well, ok then. at least I'm getting tons of ultimate boost healing your sad, silly asses.

I'm not thrilled with a sniper-support, since I can't aim for shit. I imagine the thought process is a sniper-support character will draw in those useless Hanzo players to do something useful.  However, DPs wants to DPS. They're not going to play support any more than when WoW made Monks or gave Druids the ability to DPS & Heal in the same spec for a time.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Malakili on July 13, 2016, 10:38:18 AM
One of the things that frustrates me the most is when nobody plays support, so I suck it up and play it. Then everyone on the team runs around individually, doesn't protect me, and no single player is good enough to be worth following around and healing.  It's particularly frustrating because I'm actually pretty good as Pharah and end up playing support to far worse players a lot of the time in QM. I have only played 4 competitive matches so far and am 3-1. I only play them when I can sneak into a premade my friend runs sometimes. Otherwise NO WAY JOSE.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on July 13, 2016, 10:48:46 AM
I've had those games, even in competitive. If I die in rapid succession more than a few times, I hang back at spawn for a bit and follow folks in. If I follow 2+ people in and STILL get stomped, I comment, "heal yourselves, I'm done being the target nobody protects" and switch to Junkrat or something. If there's bitching after that, I might say "play it yourself, you kept running off and letting Reaper/ Tracer/ Reinhardt waste me. (Seriously.. Reinhardt, guys?) I'm done. "

I'm just doing competitive because they seem to spawn games faster than quick play now. In the basement the matches aren't any better or any closer and the players still make the same shitty mistakes. They still run in one at a time and feed ultimates to groups who have any sort of coordination. They still take a few shots at guys camping spawn but then run off happily ignoring them if the Tracer/ Reaper does their escape move. (Wtf. ) They ALL still don't fucking know how to snipe or shoot a goddamn Phara out of the sky with anything but Bastion.

I was on a winning side yesterday and we dominated Anubis. Won attack in under three minutes and WOULD have had defense at point A if I haddn't fumble-fingered an escape from attacking Hanzo's dragons so I could've rezzed my team. That wasn't any more fun than it was being the guys getting shit-on in a match like that.

Then low-rank competitive is also starting to get smurfs. No way the Reaper who racked-up 50+ kills and 2 deaths should've been down slumming it with me at rank 35.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Falconeer on July 13, 2016, 02:12:09 PM
Past few days I've been having more and more competitive games where people just ditch en masse if we're not winning after the first round.
I'm hoping it's not a growing trend 'cause of the general 'easy come, easy go' nature of the game.
Dropped 4 ratings in a large part due to 3 matches in a row lost like this, seems when you lose a few in a row your rating really plummets.

P.S.: Despite telling myself to not give a shit about some bullshit e-peen fluff competitive ranking, I got kind of sucked in (of course) and now go cry in a corner every time I lose a point.

P.S.S.: A new hero is nice and all, but someone else mentioned the lack of great maps and I can only mirror that sentiment. Competitive is stroking my ego a tiny bit, but once that wears off there'd better be some addictive new maps 'cause 'Fun New Flashy Shooter!' shouldn't be getting this monotonous this quick.

The only way enjoy comp is to play with a organised team. Otherwise it will be shit at all mmrs.

So not true.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Falconeer on July 13, 2016, 02:17:40 PM
Then low-rank competitive is also starting to get smurfs. No way the Reaper who racked-up 50+ kills and 2 deaths should've been down slumming it with me at rank 35.

Honestly, I think that can totally happen with Reaper. Mostly because it happened to me. Reaper in particular is a character that -if left unchecked- can be devastating. I had more than one game exactly as the one you described (50+ eliminations, even a couple with stats as 30 final blows and 3 deaths), and I am definitely a below-average player. Reaper is such an easy character to play with super high damage, escape skill, and a game-changing ultimate.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Samprimary on July 13, 2016, 04:33:17 PM
pulling this off was pretty satisfying

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYHu1b-NX0o


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Nija on July 13, 2016, 05:58:29 PM
I like the response time of the Bastion at the end.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Falconeer on July 13, 2016, 07:10:42 PM
OVERWATCH COMPETITIVE MODE TO ONLY ALLOW ONE OF EACH CHARACTER ON TEAMS

http://www.ign.com/articles/2016/07/12/overwatch-competitive-mode-to-only-allow-one-of-each-character-on-teams


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Samprimary on July 13, 2016, 07:13:29 PM
that's too bad, i was just thinking our team could use yet another hanzo on offense. whatever shall they pick now?


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Kail on July 13, 2016, 07:26:44 PM
that's too bad, i was just thinking our team could use yet another hanzo on offense. whatever shall they pick now?

[mouse cursor drifts slowly towards Widowmaker]


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Koyasha on July 13, 2016, 08:26:34 PM
I think that's bad.  I think it discourages switching to deal with a problem.  If I switch away from a character I'm good at/enjoy temporarily, to deal with a problem and then intend to switch back, then someone else picks the one I had before, I'm in the future disincentivized to switch characters.  Also, if someone else is already on that character but not dealing with the issue when I think/know I could do it, then I can't.  So, in anything but a premade team, it strongly discourages me from switching except in more extreme situations.  It hurts the fundamental ability to switch at any time in order to deal with the enemy.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on July 13, 2016, 10:28:53 PM
It's also a ham fisted way of addressing the whines of terrible players. Some maps are great for matches like dual Reinharts, dual Tjorb or bastion and a mercy. Poor players won't switch characters to address the comps and whine LOUDLY about it.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: KallDrexx on July 14, 2016, 07:12:39 AM
I think that's bad.  I think it discourages switching to deal with a problem.  If I switch away from a character I'm good at/enjoy temporarily, to deal with a problem and then intend to switch back, then someone else picks the one I had before, I'm in the future disincentivized to switch characters.  Also, if someone else is already on that character but not dealing with the issue when I think/know I could do it, then I can't.  So, in anything but a premade team, it strongly discourages me from switching except in more extreme situations.  It hurts the fundamental ability to switch at any time in order to deal with the enemy.

This is only for competitive mode though.  If you are doing this you should be communicating with your team, and switching would be organized (and be more about what will help the team rather than what is fun for you).


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Falconeer on July 14, 2016, 01:00:48 PM
Rumour is that they realized two Tracers (if not more) are just too hard to counter. Before you just jump in with your probably weightless (I'm sorry) opinion, read around a bit about the recent two-Tracers meta in the pro scene.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Samprimary on July 14, 2016, 02:47:01 PM
a large amount of it was probably generally driven by the mass switch/stack teams would do in overtime that also led to the overtime spawn changes and overtime decay rate. mass tracers and lucios and the occasional winston  would just keep brazenly berserking the cap point from spawn in an endless procession of overtime resets.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Fabricated on July 14, 2016, 10:22:48 PM
They're also changing overtime to slow down spawns and have it burn off faster. I imagine that'll be good overall but might be annoying if you get hit with a wall of ults when the team rolls into a point.

I find myself enjoying Torj a lot because his primary weapon is actually very good and people in quick match do not respect it. I line it up and lazily fire the left click into the upper starting door on King's Row on Defense and I always get some shitter Hanzo or Widow with headshots right off because they just don't care to move. I also wish people would stop...stop shooting when Reindhardt puts his shield up. No no no, unless you really CAN hit someone else keep shooting that fucking shield because when it breaks he's dead meat.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Teleku on July 15, 2016, 12:46:12 AM
Next I hope they put in a mode where you can't change your character, like in MOBA's.  You made your choice assholes, now live with it!

Been wanting them to put in a one character only mode since launch.  Might actually go back to playing competitive now!


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Kail on July 15, 2016, 12:59:53 AM
Next I hope they put in a mode where you can't change your character, like in MOBA's.  You made your choice assholes, now live with it!

That was their weekly brawl mode last week, I believe

edit: nope, it's this week, my bad


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Koyasha on July 15, 2016, 05:12:32 AM
Rumour is that they realized two Tracers (if not more) are just too hard to counter. Before you just jump in with your probably weightless (I'm sorry) opinion, read around a bit about the recent two-Tracers meta in the pro scene.
a large amount of it was probably generally driven by the mass switch/stack teams would do in overtime that also led to the overtime spawn changes and overtime decay rate. mass tracers and lucios and the occasional winston  would just keep brazenly berserking the cap point from spawn in an endless procession of overtime resets.
I still don't like it, but if these are the reasons for it, I can understand it, at least.  I do know that a really good tracer basically has no solid counter except someone that aims incredibly well, and on top of that she does crazy huge damage when she aims well at the right engagement distance.  And I can see using a ton of the fast characters to hold overtime pretty much infinitely.

As for communicating with team in competitive...sure, in theory.  But you can queue up for it in less than a full group, and the reality is that while there might be a little coordination, there's often not enough willingness to change whatever needs to be changed.  It's not ideal, but they do seem to want people to still solo queue for competitive, which means they can't ignore the reality of what it means to be in competitive solo queue.  If they said 'this is for groups only', then fair enough, but as long as solo queue is something they want you to do, they should be considering the reality of it.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on July 15, 2016, 06:13:01 PM
Got myself suspended from Competitive. After the 5th straight loss, fuck this system of always going to the shit side and losing as support because your team sucks.  Started dropping from teams which wouldn't pick a tank or had two Soldier 76 or a Tjborn on Attack. Oh well!


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Samprimary on July 17, 2016, 10:45:22 PM
I also wish people would stop...stop shooting when Reindhardt puts his shield up. No no no, unless you really CAN hit someone else keep shooting that fucking shield because when it breaks he's dead meat.

correct on this. when he is preventing other targets of opportunity from being vulnerable or is otherwise the only available target, blast that shield to bits. certain heroes are just especially dangerous to reinhart shields because it's so large it's going to suck up all the spread: torbjorn shotgun blasts do insane damage, reaper even at longer range hits the whole spread, pharah missiles all count as direct hits (150 damage each), everyone should pile on and eat that shield forever.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Sophismata on July 18, 2016, 12:44:19 AM
One of the things that frustrates me the most is when nobody plays support, so I suck it up and play it. Then everyone on the team runs around individually, doesn't protect me, and no single player is good enough to be worth following around and healing.

Coming from experience, if you're in a game with idiots and no one picks a support, then neither should you. You need a playmaker to carry games like that and relying on supporting a bad team will cause you more frustration than just picking someone you're good with and having at it.

I'm not saying that, in general, you shouldn't fill in roles that aren't populated… just that if it's one of "those games" then you won't really gain anything by biting the bullet, so to speak.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on July 18, 2016, 07:29:50 AM
Yeah, especially as support where you're extra squishy. It's one thing to pick-up a tank slot because no other MFer will, as Support it's just an exercise in running back from spawn.

Had a new one yesterday. Someone bitched at me for switching healer-support 3 times.  Mercy wasn't doing anything because everyone spread-out and hit behind walls.  So I witched to Zen, but they kept oneshotting me because their sniper and solider 76 were decent, so off to Lucio it was.  After the inevitable loss, one of the jackasses blames me for switching three times. Meanwhile he'd played Genjii the whole time and had was at spawn as often as I was.

Yeah.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Sir T on July 18, 2016, 08:01:02 AM
Well dude, it can't be that HE sucks becasue he's fantastic.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on July 18, 2016, 09:01:26 AM
Yeah. I got a laugh from my team when, after losing the second round, he said "You all suck."  My response was, "Yeah, if ONLY there were a system that could rate how much better than us you are.. oh wait!"

He dropped match after that. Worth it.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Falconeer on July 18, 2016, 09:07:33 AM
Same thing happened to me last night. The kick? The guy yelling at everyone else was Rank 34 and... LEVEL 281. I had to tell him: "Do you realize how bad you are, being Rank 34 (lower than pretty much everyone else in the team) after having invested about 400 hours in this game?" It doesn't shut them up, but I know it burns them bad.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Venkman on July 18, 2016, 06:06:16 PM
Hmm, so far I haven't had any bad voice experiences. But I'm playing a match or two a night at most currently.

I'm stalling on the competitive ranking thing because, as usual, I don't have the time to dedicate. At the same time, the quality of Quick Plays has (ironically?) improved for me. Win or lose, I really don't care, as long as it wasn't a steamroll.

And yea, as Sophismata said, if you're in a PUG of loaners, don't invest in support. It won't matter in the end, but it will make you frustrated. Same rules as ever really. PUGs are decades older than this game, but the problem is a social condition not unique to Overwatch :-)


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Falconeer on July 19, 2016, 01:44:12 PM
Ana is live. So are some changes to D.va, and a few other characters.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on July 19, 2016, 01:48:40 PM
How is Anna? I'm tempted to try her but my aim is shit so snipe healing probably won't work. Is it a significant boost or do you need to chain gun people to keep them alive. 


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Soulflame on July 19, 2016, 02:39:02 PM
The game is very forgiving when heal sniping, so keep that in mind.  You just have to have the player in the larger reticle.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Falconeer on July 19, 2016, 02:58:59 PM
Interesting thing about her. She can't do headshots. No matter where she hits, it's the same damage (or heal).


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: MrHat on July 19, 2016, 03:06:24 PM
Interesting thing about her. She can't do headshots. No matter where she hits, it's the same damage (or heal).

Does scope do more damage? Seems like you should just noscope.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Job601 on July 19, 2016, 03:12:44 PM

Does scope do more damage? Seems like you should just noscope.

I haven't played her yet, but noscope is supposed to be a projectile while scope is hitscan, so scope should be easier to hit.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Falconeer on July 19, 2016, 03:15:18 PM
Damage doesn't change. Everything else, like Job said.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Khaldun on July 19, 2016, 03:41:49 PM
I just feel with these games that if I don't jump in right away, there's no point, because even a month later, people are going to be complete assholes if you're not someone who has been playing for a whole month.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Malakili on July 19, 2016, 03:57:54 PM
Heck, I just didn't play much for a couple weeks because I was busy with other things and playing Hex in the time I did have instead and I've already been getting grief even in quick match the last two nights because I'm slightly out of practice.  I think this game is *very* good, but the community has gotten progressively worse since release to the point where I don't really look forward to logging in now.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on July 19, 2016, 04:06:06 PM
Interesting thing about her. She can't do headshots. No matter where she hits, it's the same damage (or heal).

OMG it's like they knew players who suck go for support roles. That's, in all honesty, more than I could have hoped for.  I can't headshot for shit in games. I play at too-high resolution and too-high a mouse speed. I always shoot past the target.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: KallDrexx on July 19, 2016, 05:03:45 PM
I just feel with these games that if I don't jump in right away, there's no point, because even a month later, people are going to be complete assholes if you're not someone who has been playing for a whole month.


Just turn team chat off and ignore textual chat.  Problem solved.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Falconeer on July 19, 2016, 05:51:49 PM
For real. I keep saying this. Why do you care about others?


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Kail on July 20, 2016, 02:48:31 AM
I can't play her for shit, maybe that's just because I suck at snipers in general.  Most healers don't really have to aim, and most snipers don't really have to be picky, but Ana has to pick that one target out of the jumble and then land a shot on them.  Playing her offensively I run in to the problem that teammates can block her shots (even at full health, as far as I can tell) and playing her defensively she's probably the most difficult support in the game right now, at least for me.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Falconeer on July 20, 2016, 03:51:10 AM
I am having a hard time with her so far, but I am confident it's a matter of understanding her timing and her positioning which so far I haven't figured out really. I also agree she's harder than it seems (actually, Kaplan just said in the dev vlog that she is considered really hard to play by design), if anything because without good aiming and timing her heals are negligible, and while she tries to do all that work she is very easy to kill. Her "sleep" is invaluable though being able to stop almost every enemy Ultimate in a split second. But that requires very good aim and reaction time too.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Koyasha on July 20, 2016, 05:09:53 AM
I think she could use at least one simple buff: make her shots ignore full-health allies.  I hate it when someone's running around in front of me and blocks the shot toward the person that really needs healing right now, and they're already full-health so they don't even benefit.

Ultimately, almost all her abilities seem like they require good team coordination to make use of.  People not blocking her from shooting other allies.  People not waking up her sleep targets.  People taking advantage when she fires her ult.  People taking advantage when she uses her grenade to prevent an enemy from healing.  People taking advantage when she uses her healing grenade by popping their own heals if the grenade doesn't full-heal them - and by the way, her grenade plus Soldier 76s biotic field is almost a mini Zenyatta ult, it seems.  There's basically nothing she does that doesn't rely on teammates doing the right thing, though, or at least not doing the wrong thing.

Also, shooting allies that aren't trying to actively avoid me feels weird.  Not quite like shooting enemies.  I feel like I have a harder time predicting where they're going to be because their goal is different.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on July 20, 2016, 11:59:53 AM
Yeah, tried playing once or twice on Defense and Attack and those were the issues I saw. It was by and large easier to have a Lucio and a Newly-Buffed Zenyatta if you didn't want to Mercy it up down in the trenches.

She'll be powerful, but she's got some powerful drawbacks. She's not a character that's going to be worth a damn in PUGs with how disorganized the teams are. Being in back also means being vulnerable and she doesn't have the damaging power and escape abilities of the actual snipers.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Koyasha on July 20, 2016, 12:15:32 PM
Admittedly, that sleep dart is an awesome escape ability, assuming you land it.  Put 'em to sleep for pleeenty long enough to get away.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on July 20, 2016, 02:04:11 PM
I haven't hat it drop anyone for more than a second. Even if I was alone with them, I'd hit them, they'd fall then hop right back up. Is it supposed to last longer? 


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Kail on July 20, 2016, 03:24:39 PM
I think she could use at least one simple buff: make her shots ignore full-health allies.  I hate it when someone's running around in front of me and blocks the shot toward the person that really needs healing right now, and they're already full-health so they don't even benefit.

I'd vote to just make it pass through allies completely, all the time.  Maybe nerf the numbers to keep her balanced, but it is SUPER aggravating trying to land a heal on the tank, in the front, with a sniper rifle from the back, when everyone on the team can block you. 


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Malakili on July 20, 2016, 08:56:07 PM
Sometimes I feel like this game would be better without the ultimates. Huge swingy abilities that you get to use by pressing one button just isn't really doing it for me lately. I think I'm done with this for a while. Shame really, I had very high hopes.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Falconeer on July 21, 2016, 01:28:53 AM
I agree. Ultimates are there to follow Blizzard's mantra which is "Everyone is OP", but a lot of matches boil down to do nothing for a minute, regroup, and then walk in on the objective with all your team Ultimate's charged to unleash them at the same time, knowing that the enemy team is gonna do exactly the same thing. Not that awesome.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Koyasha on July 21, 2016, 02:04:35 AM
I haven't hat it drop anyone for more than a second. Even if I was alone with them, I'd hit them, they'd fall then hop right back up. Is it supposed to last longer? 
If they don't take any damage, it drops them for 5 seconds, I believe it is.  Reinhardt kept chasing me in a game earlier, I'd just duck around the corner, sleep him, and run off to keep fighting, and he would be out of it for several seconds.  Won the game that way in fact; I went in alone because my team hung back when I thought they were going, Reinhardt saw me and came after me cause I was alone, I ducked back around the corner and slept him, and that's about when my team charged in....so we managed to mop up a couple enemies while Reinhardt was sleeping and unable to protect them.  By the time he was up and coming at us again, we severely outnumbered him.

Of course, in a normal fight that doesn't allow me to draw someone off and sleep them out of the line of fire, they'd just hop back up because someone would wake them, unless the team is good at working with Ana.
I think she could use at least one simple buff: make her shots ignore full-health allies.  I hate it when someone's running around in front of me and blocks the shot toward the person that really needs healing right now, and they're already full-health so they don't even benefit.

I'd vote to just make it pass through allies completely, all the time.  Maybe nerf the numbers to keep her balanced, but it is SUPER aggravating trying to land a heal on the tank, in the front, with a sniper rifle from the back, when everyone on the team can block you. 
Umm, it has to hit allies in order to heal them, unless you're suggesting it could pass through allies and heal multiple allies with one shot?  If that was the case, it would be crazy powerful all the time; you could just shoot into big brawls, healing and damaging simultaneously for tons of health swing.  The only way to nerf the numbers and keep that balanced would be to make her effectively useless at healing single targets; she'd have to be firing through two or more allies in order to output decent heals.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Spiff on July 21, 2016, 02:10:23 AM
If there is some way to counter an ult I don't mind quite as much; people rage about Reaper a lot, but there's at least a bunch of counters to it.
Stuff like Zarya + Tracer (or Hanzo), Zenyatta, Reinhart + anything is just an I-win button.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Falconeer on July 21, 2016, 03:20:20 AM
I think Malakili and I are not complaining about single Ults, but at how the game becomes a matter of saving your team 6 Ults for a big final brawl while the opposing team is saving their 6 Ults to counter that*. Sounds reasonable in theory (see MOBAs), but it's not that cool in practice when it becomes a bit of a mandatory pattern.


* it's a bit jarring that in a skill-based game, the most impactful action in the whole game is the one that requires the least skill. Ultimates are usually just a matter of pressing Q, and why the Play of the Games are always shit. I think Blizzard should make it so in order for an action to qualify as PotG there has to be no Ults in it.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: KallDrexx on July 21, 2016, 07:45:10 AM
I think I'm done with the game too, it seems to be very quickly losing the fun of being a hop on/hop off game for me. 


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on July 21, 2016, 10:19:21 AM
The tempation is there to play more than one or two games a night. It must be resisted, because you WILL burn out quickly.

I'm only level 37, Falc is over 100. No surprise you're burnt.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Falconeer on July 21, 2016, 10:42:13 AM
Level 166 now. Oddly, I am not burnt yet. But many of my friends already are. We consume stuff quicker and quicker these days, and this game doesn't have that much content. Sure, MOBAs are usually one map and all, but 22 characters are not all that much content when you are nearing the 200 hours /played mark. So, it could hit me tomorrow for all I know.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Malakili on July 21, 2016, 10:47:02 AM
I'm also not really burnt out. I still really enjoy the moment-to-moment gameplay for the most part. In that respect I think it's still the best shooter in quite a while. The problems I have are more to do with the design around ultimates and, increasingly, the community.  I don't think content is too big an issue, although I think a couple more maps in the rotation would be nice (especially the control point maps, which I like the most).

If I'm really in the mood for a shooter, this is probably the one that I will play in spite of the fact that I seem to end every play session frustrated. But that's more a function of how far the genre has fallen than anything.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Samprimary on July 21, 2016, 11:46:31 AM
Playing in competitive level 60, ana's awesome, but she cannot — cannot — be the main healer. She must be paired with a mercy or lucio.

It's between her and a newly resurgent zenyatta in a contest for best off-heal support.

Symmetra eats bags of dicks daily and is rarely used other than defense on objective point A capture ONLY. once the first point goes down, she is shuffled back into the storage closet (the one zenyatta was sitting in until this patch) to gather dust.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on July 21, 2016, 12:02:57 PM
A good assessment of Symm in general, but only at that level and map type.  Her portal is useless on capture nodes at B at all levels, I agree, but there's enough ignorant and bad players down in the slums that setting-up Turrets on the escort car works on both attack and defense pretty often.

So, bad players are bad players.

Not coincidentally, nobody down here can fucking aim for shit. So all of the powerful offense characters like 76, Tracer and McCree get picked less because you have to be accurate. Doesn't matter how powerful a punch you have if you're always hitting air. Rate of fire and splash matter more, so Reaper and Pharah get picked most commonly with Junkrat ALWAYS getting picked, regardless of Map Type or team position.

To me - this is where the game fails. You're going to be forced to provide a midlife somewhere for the rules set. Excellent players will be buffed too much while bad players will be aided not at all. Adjustments for tiers of players make more sense, similar to how playing T-ball, to underhand pitch, to High School to AAA ball has rules changes because of the skill ceilings of the individuals at each tier.  However  it's not going to happen.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Malakili on July 21, 2016, 08:58:11 PM
Or you can be like me and be so inconsistent that no rule set could properly hit it right all the time anyway. I have a lot of experience playing competitive shooters, but I'm so out of practice now that I've lost all consistency. Last night I was playing Tracer like death shot out of a cannon, warping around the map and picking people off. Then the very next map I couldn't stay alive with her for 5 seconds.

Which ruleset do I get?


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Falconeer on July 22, 2016, 03:04:32 AM
Last night I was playing Tracer like death shot out of a cannon, warping around the map and picking people off. Then the very next map I couldn't stay alive with her for 5 seconds.

Which ruleset do I get?

Mmm that's my personal experience too. And the level of the random opponents play a huge role in that swing too, of course, but it's impossible to measure the actual quality of your absolutely unknown and always changing enemy players (unlike, say, in professional sports where you know from a variety of sources the skill level of the Pittsburgh Penguins or this year's Maple Leafs, or everyone of their players) and what am I left with is the strong feeling that I am inconsistent as hell, or not skilled enough to be consistent.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on July 22, 2016, 05:52:48 AM
The o e for your average level bracket as indicated by rank. As I implied earlier. But that kind of balance is too labor intensive so instead we'll get useless heroes at certain tiers as we're seeing.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Falconeer on July 27, 2016, 02:32:30 AM
Ana buffed a bit with yesterday's patch. 20% higher rate of fire, and 10 bullets in the clip, up from 8. Also, waking up from her sleep dart after being hit takes 0.5 second now instead of being instant.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: calapine on July 27, 2016, 03:59:19 AM
Drive-By-Posting

You can perma sleep with ANA and force people to get kicked for afk .... no joke (https://www.reddit.com/r/Overwatch/comments/4uk6f6/you_can_perma_sleep_with_ana_and_force_people_to/)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxIPPFX4Z28


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on July 27, 2016, 07:10:51 AM
I feel like Bastion was pretty heavily nerfed. I've been playing tanks lately (and seeing wins because of it.) and Reinhardt actually has a greater than 50% chance of killing him now.  I can take a lot of hits to the shield, get within Charge range and not die on the charge.

Conversely, my teams have been losing defense pretty often because Bastion requires teammates to focus Reinhardt as you'll be the only guy shooting that fucking Phara floating everywhere because Solider 76 apparently has been nerfed so he can't look up. (Only when on my team, tho.)

TankLyfe, yo.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Falconeer on July 27, 2016, 12:11:22 PM
Nerf to Bastion are good for the long term health of the game. Also, what nerf? I think Bastion only got his Ultimate charge time nerfed (by 10%, which is nothing). Am I forgetting anything? Damage, rate of fire, ammo, reload time and self heal are unchanged. They buffed characters that can hurt it, sure, like McCree, Diva and Ana, but they weakened one of its natural counters (Widowmaker) and I really don't remember them nerfing Bastion at all.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on July 27, 2016, 03:33:05 PM
Hmm.. odd. Must just be bad Bastions then. I used to get chewed to ribbons, but I can charge and not die now then take the bastard out with one good swing, maybe two.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: EWSpider on July 27, 2016, 08:03:18 PM
derp


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: EWSpider on July 27, 2016, 08:06:49 PM
All heroes that can self heal like Bastion had the recharge on their Ultimate increased because they made a global change to allow self-healing to charge your Ultimate.  So Bastion had his Ultimate recharge nerfed, but it's really a wash if you heal yourself at all.  So technically there has been no Bastion nerf.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: KallDrexx on July 27, 2016, 08:53:27 PM
Did Road hog's gun get slowed down at some point?  I haven't played in a good week or two but jesus that did not feel right.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Falconeer on July 28, 2016, 02:08:29 AM
No, Roadhog hasn't been touched.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Samprimary on July 28, 2016, 07:05:08 PM
at a certain level of organized gameplay bastion is rarely more than a surprise check on overextending and a real quick test on if your team can be organized or not.

beyond that he just gets slaughtered by any group of people who are getting into team level 55 competitive or up. i mean slaughtered.

at tournament level of play, it's even worse for him, as the current favored team comp is not at all in favor of defense heroes, and is loaded with hero comps that murder bastions with ease.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Evildrider on July 28, 2016, 09:43:11 PM
Speaking of Roadhog:

(http://i.imgur.com/cRRrvjV.jpg)


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on July 28, 2016, 11:32:25 PM
at a certain level of organized gameplay bastion is rarely more than a surprise check on overextending and a real quick test on if your team can be organized or not.

beyond that he just gets slaughtered by any group of people who are getting into team level 55 competitive or up. i mean slaughtered.

at tournament level of play, it's even worse for him, as the current favored team comp is not at all in favor of defense heroes, and is loaded with hero comps that murder bastions with ease.

I'll let you know when tournament play or level 55+ matters one bit to me. ;)  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Falconeer on July 29, 2016, 02:51:09 AM
For real. The problem with Torbjorn and Bastion is that they slaughter at:

a) low skill level matches
b) casual groups of randoms who can't be organized due to their nature.

Turrets get the Molten Core bullshit too often and too easily. And don't get me started on turrets on moving platforms.
Bastion gets a dedicated Reinhardt to shield them and it butchers everything until the shiled goes down but HELLO BASTION HAS ITS ULTIMATE READY.

We all agree that they aren't OP characters, in fact they are full of flaws. No one ever picks them at a decent level of play.
They just ruin so many casual low level matches and I find them anti-fun.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on July 29, 2016, 11:53:12 AM
I've found that even if I'm the sole tank/ support char *I* have to be the guy switching to a sniper to take out Tjborn's turret. Even saying in chat "Get Hanzo/ Widow/ Ana and snipe the turret it will be dead quick" the idiots still run inside of turret range to shoot it.  WTF.

Which is why I was pleasantly surprised to find Reinhardt can survive Bastion long enough to charge and not die. (Unless I get surrounded)

I've also found that yelling, "you can shoot from behind the shield <character>" *IS* having an effect. Won a game earlier this week with 20k damage blocked because I told my team this and they - shockingly - listened to me. I was stunned, but more stunned that people apparently don't know this fact.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Samprimary on July 31, 2016, 11:09:07 PM
I'll let you know when tournament play or level 55+ matters one bit to me. ;)  :why_so_serious:

i'm the first person to admit that high level play is the most irrelevant to discussing why bastion sucks shit. the real reason why he sucks shit is because he makes the game unfun for the vast majority of pug players, especially at lower skill levels. you can't buff him at all because making him even remotely useful for organized play means severely amping up his murderous funsucking powers on the low to medium end

he's just a fun vampire and a character design that should have never been implemented. compare this to other heroes like symmetra, who is presently the worst hero in the game by far but isn't essentially unfixable in the same way.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: KallDrexx on August 02, 2016, 08:16:08 PM
Blizzard released (releasing? haven't logged in yet) the Summer games (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpcOD9tJM4k), which includes some ok olympic themed lootbox goodies and a Lucio only rocket league gametype!


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Samprimary on August 02, 2016, 08:25:08 PM
followed immediately by a blizzard-wide ddos


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: KallDrexx on August 02, 2016, 08:29:53 PM
Yeah it's released and Luciobol is fucking terrible.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Ginaz on August 02, 2016, 09:15:12 PM
followed immediately by a blizzard-wide ddos

Probably because Blizzard just did a big ban wave in Overwatch for people using cheats and the script kiddies are getting their revenge. :awesome_for_real:

http://massivelyop.com/2016/08/01/overwatch-banwave-crashes-into-cheaters/


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Venkman on August 02, 2016, 09:27:57 PM
Eh, I'm ok with price. I think I paid that much to get the pre-Alpha invite to EQ Landmark. I enjoyed the shit out that for however look it took before they fucked up the experience. And previously I consistently spent that on hoping this MMO would finally be "the one".

Also, totally agree time-spent and person-hours worked is not corrolary to price point.

But perceived value is. If they think it's a AAA quality experience with that level of playability, well, that's what they're selling. And they're launching before $60 becomes an issue for a procedurally generated indie game up against the juggernauts drives the price down.

I'll be camping when this launches, so by the time I return, I'll know from the day oner's if it's worth it :-)


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Kail on August 02, 2016, 09:47:48 PM
Blizzard released (releasing? haven't logged in yet) the Summer games (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpcOD9tJM4k), which includes some ok olympic themed lootbox goodies and a Lucio only rocket league gametype!

Fuck this game's loot system right in it's dribbling, puckered sphincter.  "Hey, were you tired of getting sprays and voice lines and boring crap like that instead of that one skin you wanted?  Well, we decided to make an entire holiday event based around that concept.  Have fun grinding fifty million fucking levels in three weeks in the hopes that you'll get that one skin before it's gone!  Also, no cheating by buying the items with credits, or even a defined amount of real money for that matter, you HAVE to do this stupid gambling shit to get anything!"


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: KallDrexx on August 02, 2016, 09:50:49 PM
Eh, I'm ok with price. I think I paid that much to get the pre-Alpha invite to EQ Landmark. I enjoyed the shit out that for however look it took before they fucked up the experience. And previously I consistently spent that on hoping this MMO would finally be "the one".

Also, totally agree time-spent and person-hours worked is not corrolary to price point.

But perceived value is. If they think it's a AAA quality experience with that level of playability, well, that's what they're selling. And they're launching before $60 becomes an issue for a procedurally generated indie game up against the juggernauts drives the price down.

I'll be camping when this launches, so by the time I return, I'll know from the day oner's if it's worth it :-)

I'm assuming you meant to put this in the NMS thread?


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Falconeer on August 03, 2016, 03:26:15 PM
Blizzard released (releasing? haven't logged in yet) the Summer games (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpcOD9tJM4k), which includes some ok olympic themed lootbox goodies and a Lucio only rocket league gametype!

Fuck this game's loot system right in it's dribbling, puckered sphincter.  "Hey, were you tired of getting sprays and voice lines and boring crap like that instead of that one skin you wanted?  Well, we decided to make an entire holiday event based around that concept.  Have fun grinding fifty million fucking levels in three weeks in the hopes that you'll get that one skin before it's gone!  Also, no cheating by buying the items with credits, or even a defined amount of real money for that matter, you HAVE to do this stupid gambling shit to get anything!"

You can't buy boxes with credits, right? Only real money. Right?


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on August 03, 2016, 08:30:09 PM
Right. Credits only do unlocks not boxes. So if the skins are box only it's grind or pay up.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Falconeer on August 04, 2016, 12:50:00 PM
Mh, the thing is paying up does not even guarantee you of anything anyway, which is probably an added reason why so many kids seems to hate this update. The notion that they can't get EVERY PIECE OF NEW LOOT eats them alive.
Personally, I find those obsessed with "collecting everything or bust!" to the point they rage on forums incredibly obnoxious people. If one finds a way to grind in Overwatch instead of playing simply because they are enjoying the game, gods help them.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: KallDrexx on August 04, 2016, 01:00:46 PM
It's funny reading people complain because they paid $60 in loot boxes and didn't get any of the items they want. 



Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Kail on August 04, 2016, 06:25:26 PM
Personally, I find those obsessed with "collecting everything or bust!" to the point they rage on forums incredibly obnoxious people. If one finds a way to grind in Overwatch instead of playing simply because they are enjoying the game, gods help them.

Except it also fucks over the people who only want one or two pieces because they also have to grind.  Assuming an equal drop chance, for you to have a ~75% chance of getting the one thing you want, you'll have to level up about 140 times in 20 days.  Anyone who is interested in something from this set is in for a serious grind, the only people who aren't likely to be negatively impacted are the ones who don't care about any of it, which seems like that might be kind of an indicator that the update is sort of lame.

And complaining about people grinding for rewards specifically added to make people grind for them seems overly defensive.  That's the whole point of the system.  If you want people to play for the love of the game, then don't dangle carrots in front of them the whole time.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Venkman on August 04, 2016, 07:46:13 PM
Playing for [only] the love of the game nowadays means the company left money on the table.

It doesn't bother me that I won't get some useless decorative. What does bother me is the sense of entitlement that is as old as MMOs: the idea that content from a patch must be for everyone.

It's not. Oh technically it is possible to grind your way through the RNG. But they know most will give up on that at some point. So they're just monetizing the completionists that don't want to grind. And they're seeing how far they can push into online casino like behavior. I'm sure there'll be a patch at some point and then within a few months you'll just be able to outright buy the thing you want.

But why do that out of the gate when you know you can monetize the rubes along the way? To prevent players from being pissed off? Please. One of the main rules of online game is no matter what you do, someone is going to be pissed off about something. Fool's errand to prioritize 100% pissed-off-free audience.

Yet another feature that jumped from MMOs without the downsides of MMOs.

Eh, I'm ok with price. I think I paid that much to get the pre-Alpha invite to EQ Landmark. I enjoyed the shit out that for however look it took before they fucked up the experience. And previously I consistently spent that on hoping this MMO would finally be "the one".

Also, totally agree time-spent and person-hours worked is not corrolary to price point.

But perceived value is. If they think it's a AAA quality experience with that level of playability, well, that's what they're selling. And they're launching before $60 becomes an issue for a procedurally generated indie game up against the juggernauts drives the price down.

I'll be camping when this launches, so by the time I return, I'll know from the day oner's if it's worth it :-)

That's where this post went! I got logged out right as I was posting, so it defaulted to starting a new thread, so I copy/pasted that back into the thread I thought I was in. Heh.
I'm assuming you meant to put this in the NMS thread?


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Kail on August 04, 2016, 09:28:52 PM
What does bother me is the sense of entitlement that is as old as MMOs: the idea that content from a patch must be for everyone.
[snip...]
But why do that out of the gate when you know you can monetize the rubes along the way? To prevent players from being pissed off? Please. One of the main rules of online game is no matter what you do, someone is going to be pissed off about something. Fool's errand to prioritize 100% pissed-off-free audience.

Jumping from "someone somewhere will always find some flaw in whatever you do" to "fuck customer feedback, just do whatever you feel like you can get away with" is kind of a risky step.  Clearly, Blizzard thinks that pissing off the people who would spend $10 for a skin but not $50 for fifty pulls of the lever is worth the tradeoff from the whales on the other side, but nevertheless those people are still pissed off and aren't going to be quiet about it.  You can't say "fuck everyone but the 1%" and then wonder why all these damn casuals feel the "entitlement" to complain about your decisions.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Furiously on August 05, 2016, 12:42:39 AM
Personally, I find those obsessed with "collecting everything or bust!" to the point they rage on forums incredibly obnoxious people. If one finds a way to grind in Overwatch instead of playing simply because they are enjoying the game, gods help them.

Except it also fucks over the people who only want one or two pieces because they also have to grind.  Assuming an equal drop chance, for you to have a ~75% chance of getting the one thing you want, you'll have to level up about 140 times in 20 days.  Anyone who is interested in something from this set is in for a serious grind, the only people who aren't likely to be negatively impacted are the ones who don't care about any of it, which seems like that might be kind of an indicator that the update is sort of lame.

And complaining about people grinding for rewards specifically added to make people grind for them seems overly defensive.  That's the whole point of the system.  If you want people to play for the love of the game, then don't dangle carrots in front of them the whole time.

As a casual user it definitely sends a message.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Falconeer on August 05, 2016, 03:27:16 AM
Personally, I find those obsessed with "collecting everything or bust!" to the point they rage on forums incredibly obnoxious people. If one finds a way to grind in Overwatch instead of playing simply because they are enjoying the game, gods help them.

Except it also fucks over the people who only want one or two pieces because they also have to grind.  Assuming an equal drop chance, for you to have a ~75% chance of getting the one thing you want, you'll have to level up about 140 times in 20 days.  Anyone who is interested in something from this set is in for a serious grind, the only people who aren't likely to be negatively impacted are the ones who don't care about any of it, which seems like that might be kind of an indicator that the update is sort of lame.

Nah. That's not a carrot. The game is about shooting people and scoring objectives. As an added fun thing to keep track of -that has become necessary these days otherwise people get bored in a minute- there are cosmetic items that can get obtained for free over time. Wanting them ALL is your problem.

Also, this is not the first MOBA-like game to do this, they often have you pay for a chance at unique skins only available on certain times of the year not to mention even more unique skins that are handed out at conventions or other exclusive events that basically no one will ever have. I say fuck customer feedback especially considering that this is probably a perfect example of "loud minority" being pissed because reasons.

Quote
And complaining about people grinding for rewards specifically added to make people grind for them seems overly defensive.  That's the whole point of the system.  If you want people to play for the love of the game, then don't dangle carrots in front of them the whole time.

No, the point of the system is not to grind, not at all. The point of the game is to have fun while playing pew pew, while the point of the "Reward System" is to make the user feel that their matches matter. That even though they start to feel all the same over the weeks and months you play, your account is not always the same, it 'evolves'. Getting cosmetic skins and colours or having a level number grow infinitely is just to reinforce that effect, but the point is not to grind. Or would you say that the point of the system is to get to level 999 (or maybe 9999) too? "If it's there, it must be the goal and I want it", right?


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Malakili on August 05, 2016, 07:40:26 AM
Haven't we all internalized that this stuff is all basically just psychological trickery to get you to play a game you've otherwise gotten bored of?  If you are only playing ANY game to grind some random thing while sitting there miserable - stop playing and do something else. That's all there is to it.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on August 05, 2016, 09:40:55 AM
They don't expect anyone to actually grind for this shit. You all are crazy mo fos trapped in your old way of thinking about games. This is pure monetization.

You are expected to spend money and gamble on the chance. $10 buys you 11 boxes. It's so easy. It's right there, just a click away. Just do it, that's 11 whole chances, guys! You're sure to get something, even if it's not what you REALLY want.

It's so easy. It's so cheap. $10 it's not a lot of money.

Just do it.

Really.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Soulflame on August 05, 2016, 10:33:21 AM
I realize I am a cheap bastard, but $10 is a lot of money for me to blow on gambling I will get a digital nothing that will be worthless the second I stop using that particular shiny decoration, or I stop playing.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Falconeer on August 05, 2016, 10:45:34 AM
They don't expect anyone to actually grind for this shit. You all are crazy mo fos trapped in your old way of thinking about games. This is pure monetization.

You are expected to spend money and gamble on the chance. $10 buys you 11 boxes. It's so easy. It's right there, just a click away. Just do it, that's 11 whole chances, guys! You're sure to get something, even if it's not what you REALLY want.

It's so easy. It's so cheap. $10 it's not a lot of money.

Just do it.

Really.

Exactly. This stuff is "vanity" stuff. It's useless, it's just about wanting to feel cooler than other people even though you really aren't. I dislike monetization tactics but this is really a mild one considering you have plenty of chances to get that stuff by playing the game normally anyway. And if you become obsessed by the fact that you can't have it all, well that's on you. I really really want the Zarya Olympic skin as I really really wanted the Chang'e Lunar Tango exclusiive skin in Smite. But what can I say? It is so not the point of the game that, gee, whatever. At least here, as long as I am still enjoying the gameplay, there's a chance I'll get it. In other games, you either pay up or you are out of luck.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on August 05, 2016, 11:17:30 AM
Funny, I got both of Zariya's skins - Champion and Weightlifter - last night hoping for a new Reinhardt or Mei skin. If there were trades I'd probably give you one.

I realize I am a cheap bastard, but $10 is a lot of money for me to blow on gambling I will get a digital nothing that will be worthless the second I stop using that particular shiny decoration, or I stop playing.

Yeah, but that's the method of things these days. We've moved past worthless physical goods and swag into worthless digital goods. They're more environmentally friendly.  :awesome_for_real:

I try not to think about the cash I've blown on worthless things. It'd drive me up a wall. Almost NOTHING you've ever spent money on has been necessary at the level you've spent.

Did I need that coffee? No, I have free stuff at work.
Did I need to pick-up a new grill? No, the old one was fine, it just needed more work than I was willing to put into it.
I sure as hell don't need any more souvenirs, swag, logo-shirts or pretty cool desk accouterments.
I don't need to buy Cracker Barrel cheese instead of store-brand generic.
Did I need the deluxe edition of any game I've ever played? Fuck no, it was a totally worthless expenditure. Hell, the game itself was when it comes down to it. I could have waited a year or two and spent 75% to 95% less.

Yet it gets done. It's consumption and consumerism, and spins waaaaay off into a different discussion when you think about it. This is just a new tier.



Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Rasix on August 05, 2016, 12:04:51 PM
Funny, I got both of Zariya's skins - Champion and Weightlifter - last night hoping for a new Reinhardt or Mei skin. If there were trades I'd probably give you one.

I realize I am a cheap bastard, but $10 is a lot of money for me to blow on gambling I will get a digital nothing that will be worthless the second I stop using that particular shiny decoration, or I stop playing.

Yeah, but that's the method of things these days. We've moved past worthless physical goods and swag into worthless digital goods. They're more environmentally friendly.  :awesome_for_real:

I try not to think about the cash I've blown on worthless things. It'd drive me up a wall. Almost NOTHING you've ever spent money on has been necessary at the level you've spent.

Did I need that coffee? No, I have free stuff at work.
Did I need to pick-up a new grill? No, the old one was fine, it just needed more work than I was willing to put into it.
I sure as hell don't need any more souvenirs, swag, logo-shirts or pretty cool desk accouterments.
I don't need to buy Cracker Barrel cheese instead of store-brand generic.
Did I need the deluxe edition of any game I've ever played? Fuck no, it was a totally worthless expenditure. Hell, the game itself was when it comes down to it. I could have waited a year or two and spent 75% to 95% less.

Yet it gets done. It's consumption and consumerism, and spins waaaaay off into a different discussion when you think about it. This is just a new tier.



Money spent on better cheese is never wasted.  Although I'd get Tilamook over Cracker Barrel.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Falconeer on August 05, 2016, 12:08:46 PM
Funny, I got both of Zariya's skins - Champion and Weightlifter - last night hoping for a new Reinhardt or Mei skin. If there were trades I'd probably give you one.

Thanks! Sadly, that would kill their monetizaton scheme so it's never gonna happen  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Soulflame on August 05, 2016, 02:47:34 PM
Tilamook is good stuff.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on August 05, 2016, 02:53:12 PM
Never heard of it. Now I must try it.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Kail on August 05, 2016, 05:21:42 PM
Quote
And complaining about people grinding for rewards specifically added to make people grind for them seems overly defensive.  That's the whole point of the system.

No, the point of the system is not to grind, not at all. The point of the game is to have fun while playing pew pew, while the point of the "Reward System" is to make the user feel that their matches matter. That even though they start to feel all the same over the weeks and months you play, your account is not always the same, it 'evolves'. Getting cosmetic skins and colours or having a level number grow infinitely is just to reinforce that effect, but the point is not to grind. Or would you say that the point of the system is to get to level 999 (or maybe 9999) too? "If it's there, it must be the goal and I want it", right?

I meant the point of the loot system specifically, not the game as a whole.  Maybe "grind" is too loaded of a word, but the point of the system is definitely to make the players keep playing past the point that the gameplay itself is mechanically engaging.

The point of the leveling system is definitely to level up, but since there's no definite cap (as far as I know), then there's no "I must level to 999 and THEN the real game begins" the way there is in WoW or even Heroes of the Storm.  The loot system is different because it offers discrete awards.  Nobody cares about being level 37 because there's no functional difference between it and level 36 or level 38 or any other level (leaving aside piddly stuff like portrait borders which okay, whatever), but having a specific piece of loot versus a different one IS relevant because it changes the way your character looks and some people are going to like some of the alternate skins better than the default ones.

There's plenty of systems that are there that aren't goals.  My character has a death counter and I don't think I, or most other people, have really felt the compulsive need to bump that counter up to 999 because it's a number and I get off on big numbers (secretly it's just because I suck).  But leveling up is a pretty explicit win state in this game, it's definitely presented as a goal that you're working towards, not a loss state that you should try to avoid.  Heck, just calling it a "level" makes it seem like you want to increase it, it's always good to be on a "higher level" than a lower level (outside of really defined topics like computer languages).

But anyways, I was finally able to log in today and got the skin I wanted in the freebie box they give to the first login so now I think the system is perfect and should never be changed.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Soulflame on August 05, 2016, 05:25:05 PM
Perhaps Overwatch needs an auction house.

 :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Trippy on August 05, 2016, 05:44:08 PM
:rimshot:


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Malakili on August 05, 2016, 09:55:55 PM
Remember when companies used to release a game, and then you owned the game, and that was it?


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 06, 2016, 12:29:07 AM
Remember when companies used to release a game, and then you owned the game, and that was it?

I get it, I do.  For $40 however I find overwatch without any transaction to be more than worth it.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Falconeer on August 06, 2016, 09:42:53 AM
Seriously. It's light on content but there is nothing you need to spend extra money for, or even want to unless you have a gambling addiction of some sort. I think this is pretty OK so far in that sense.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Rendakor on August 06, 2016, 10:35:45 AM
Remember when companies used to release a game, and then you owned the game, and that was it?
Cosmetic unlocks available in-game are not new. There are no paid extra characters, stages, modes, etc.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: rk47 on August 06, 2016, 11:14:58 AM
Unlike you all, I hate paying for my games.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Malakili on August 06, 2016, 11:43:30 AM
Remember when companies used to release a game, and then you owned the game, and that was it?
Cosmetic unlocks available in-game are not new. There are no paid extra characters, stages, modes, etc.

Yep, and I'm glad that they went that route instead of the LoL model. I almost certainly would not have played an FPS with that model.

Nonetheless, I think my main point is this: If you are playing a game at any point for the main reason that you want to unlock something rather than because you are enjoying the moment to moment gameplay. Stop playing. They've become a way to artificially get people to keep playing and/or spend money when they would have put the game down before. It's a business trick, not a game design element.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Rendakor on August 06, 2016, 12:39:05 PM
I agree with you entirely. I hate LoL for it's business model, and wouldn't have bought this if they had gone that route.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Kail on August 06, 2016, 12:46:49 PM
I don't mind LoL so much because at least it's free.  It's the "have your cake and eat it too" model where you pay upfront AND get nickel and dimed for "unlocks" that bugs me.  Overwatch is at the tame end of that spectrum but it's still one of those things that bugs me about it.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Samprimary on August 06, 2016, 05:18:34 PM
i'm just still incredibly thankful that they decided to go the box purchase route. with every hero. for everyone. with a guarantee of no non-cosmetic options ever requiring the payment of more money. everyone is equally powerful from the very, very start. nobody's team composition gets fucked because someone's all like "but all I own is genji" or "i don't have any main heals on rotation this month"

everyone can play everything, end of story.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Venkman on August 06, 2016, 07:10:38 PM
Remember when companies used to release a game, and then you owned the game, and that was it?

Yep. Back when they were all offline single player games and I had to install it from ten 3 1/2" disks that I burned out somehow so had to buy Ultima IV again :-) Or Skyrim.

Not all games need to be paymium. But there's a market for people who want to pay more, so why shouldn't companies try?

I think Overwatch does a great job, for what Samprimary noted.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Samprimary on August 08, 2016, 07:07:22 AM
The only thing I think they need to do is switch up how limited time skins and things can be acquired.  Presently, with the threat of a gift box deadline looming for the Rio Olympics event,  it becomes a slap in the face to labor through a level just to get another four voice lines and sprays.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Kail on August 08, 2016, 05:48:13 PM
The only thing I think they need to do is switch up how limited time skins and things can be acquired.  Presently, with the threat of a gift box deadline looming for the Rio Olympics event,  it becomes a slap in the face to labor through a level just to get another four voice lines and sprays.

That would be nice, I really do hope they don't use this model for future events.  Though given how many people are posting "I paid $50 for loot boxes and got nothing good" I suspect they made a fair bit and we won't see much change until that stops.

One suggestion for the loot system that sounded really good to me was to give people credits in every loot box (or just a few credits for each game, the way games like LoL and Heroes of the Storm handle it).  Right now credit income is really inconsistent for newbies because the drop rates for currency are low and the only other way to get it is to get duplicates which doesn't happen much when you're starting out.  But if you could get a guaranteed currency income then you'd at least be able to feel like you're making progress towards that one item you want, rather than just another identical roll of the dice which may or may not turn out any better than the last one.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on August 08, 2016, 06:42:38 PM
 If you haven't gotten a SINGLE Olympic thing in $50 of boxes then something's fucked.  "Nothing good"  more likely means, "I didn't get the skin/ intro/ victory pose I *REALLY* wanted!!"

I spent $10 when I got those two Zarya skins. I also got the Mei and Zariya medal poses and a bunch of bullshit like sprays that are all Olympic themed. I have yet to see a Mei skin from leveling or purchase of boxes, so the RNG gods *can* be unkind. Just not unkind to that level.

Of course, I'm also someone who opens 2-3 boxes, goes and plays a game then comes back to open 2-3 more. I know computers are *supposed* to be random, but Blizzard's RNG system has always sucked across all their games. Whatever it uses for seeds is hinky and creates wild feast-and-famine situations across small to mid-sized batches. Always has, but they look at the "Big data" and declare it A-ok.

Anyway: I'm getting much better at this game now that I'm playing tanks.

https://youtu.be/kBxU6uka8SQ

https://youtu.be/lvgurEf_0bM


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: MrHat on August 08, 2016, 07:08:28 PM
If you haven't gotten a SINGLE Olympic thing in $50 of boxes then something's fucked.  "Nothing good"  more likely means, "I didn't get the skin/ intro/ victory pose I *REALLY* wanted!!"

I spent $10 when I got those two Zarya skins. I also got the Mei and Zariya medal poses and a bunch of bullshit like sprays that are all Olympic themed. I have yet to see a Mei skin from leveling or purchase of boxes, so the RNG gods *can* be unkind. Just not unkind to that level.

Of course, I'm also someone who opens 2-3 boxes, goes and plays a game then comes back to open 2-3 more. I know computers are *supposed* to be random, but Blizzard's RNG system has always sucked across all their games. Whatever it uses for seeds is hinky and creates wild feast-and-famine situations across small to mid-sized batches. Always has, but they look at the "Big data" and declare it A-ok.

Anyway: I'm getting much better at this game now that I'm playing tanks.

https://youtu.be/kBxU6uka8SQ

https://youtu.be/lvgurEf_0bM

Nice clips!



Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: ezrast on August 08, 2016, 09:10:45 PM
I know computers are *supposed* to be random, but Blizzard's RNG system has always sucked across all their games. Whatever it uses for seeds is hinky and creates wild feast-and-famine situations across small to mid-sized batches. Always has, but they look at the "Big data" and declare it A-ok.
I find it bizarre that people still think this and I will bet basically any amount of money that this is not the case, at least not the way you mean it. The devs could be intentionally fudging the numbers (this is known to be the case in Hearthstone; legendary cards become more common once you open 40+ consecutive packs without one), and they could theoretically be misusing the RNG's output (When I played Warframe, survival missions would sometimes offer the same supposedly-random reward after every wave because the game would traverse the loot table in a stupid way), but for something like this the RNG could probably output sequential numbers and nobody would notice because of the entropy naturally generated by thousands of players all interacting with the server at once (you don't have your own personal RNG that saves its state just for you). "Blizzard's RNG system" is, if anything, probably just a wrapper around the C standard library's "rand()" function or some other well-known implementation. Random number generation of a quality high enough for video games is a really fundamental programming operation and the idea that they have managed to unintentionally screw it up in a consistent manner across multiple independent projects is basically unthinkable.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Fabricated on August 08, 2016, 10:36:48 PM
The way they're handling the limited time boxes is pretty scummy because you can't just buy the skins with the booby prize currency.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on August 09, 2016, 02:20:35 PM
Nice clips!

Thanks! The best are the games where the opposite team say things like, "Good Reinhardt!" or you get friend requests because you were doing well. I'll take those.

I got these 4 plays yesterday. I failed on the last one, see if you notice how.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-8-_o3mLUk&feature=youtu.be

As for the RNG.. C's Rand() function is known to be buggy. Even I know that and I'm not a programmer. It was known as far back as the Mudding days. If they're relying on that then yeah there's a problem.

Also, just because big sets play-out it doesn't mean small sets do. If you have a randomizer where you get 1,1,1,1,1,1 and then 0,0,0,0,0 then 0,1,0 but only look at the large set you think you're on target.  There have been MULTIPLE accounts over the years from enough folks regarding wonky streaks to question the methodology of their functions.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Strazos on August 09, 2016, 03:48:04 PM
Played it at a buddy's house. Shooting mechanics are solid, though I dislike the emphasis on audio cues. Also, too much emphasis on needing to counter certain characters with specific other characters.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: ezrast on August 09, 2016, 05:46:41 PM
As for the RNG.. C's Rand() function is known to be buggy. Even I know that and I'm not a programmer. It was known as far back as the Mudding days. If they're relying on that then yeah there's a problem.
I will admit that some (all?) implementations of rand() are actually lower-quality than I thought.

You would argue, then, that if I post a million numbers generated by rand() (as implemented by whatever version of glibc is on my system right now) and another million numbers generated by some other high-quality RNG of your choice, you could, given sufficient time and motivation, tell me which list comes from which generator without performing any computer-assisted statistical analysis?


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Samprimary on August 09, 2016, 08:00:42 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/1WLnmqf.jpg)


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on August 20, 2016, 11:32:54 AM
People in this game are weird. Everyone was just running around deathmatching and generally being shitty, leaving me as the Tank the only person contesting the cargo. So after the third time of running up and dying to the swarm of characters escorting, I said "fuck this" and switched to Junkrat.

Note this is after I'd already said, "Hey, you know you can stand behind the shield and shoot through it instead of running up and dying."  I got an "Oh.. sorry" response from the McCree I'd witnessed. Also our healer decided to be Ana and couldn't actually shoot anything. Plus felt that the grenade was the only viable healing method and left folks to die when it was on CD and she tried to widow it up.. badly.

Clearly we're getting our ass handed to us when I switched. I was frustrated and just wanted to kill some shit. Which I wound up doing. Halted their advance - briefly - as the cargo made the final turn up the ramp. Of course right at the end, in the final 1m someone says, "Hey where's our tank.. "  So I tersely (but not shouting or yelling) stated, "If you all are going to deathmatch and not play the point, why should I? I want to kill shit too and we clearly didn't care about winning. If you wanted a tank, play one"

response: "He mad." "LOL it's only quick play" "chill"

Yeah, ok. Then why get pissed I wasn't a tank? *hands up*


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Spiff on September 02, 2016, 11:48:56 AM
Major patch hit today btw (if anyone still playing this);
'Competitive' season 2 started and the first new map was added, plus a bunch of balancing.

- Changes to competitive look good at first sight, no more bs sudden death at the end of a draw match, supposedly more fine-tuned ranking (I'm still placing).

- The new map I'm not so wild about. I've only played it 3 times so far and not a single game went beyond the second point, actually only 1 went beyond the first point. There is a tiny bottleneck to get to that first point and half a dozen points do defend it from, it's like the Ancient Egypt map but worse.
Looks like they wanted to play some more with vertical levels further down the map as well, which is fine I guess, for the 3,5 heroes that can actually move vertically.

So not a great impression for the first map they added since launch, which is a shame since new and better maps is really what the game needs most.
I'm still fine playing my 5/6 games a week for the moment anyhow.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on September 02, 2016, 12:39:07 PM
I've been playing off and on and following. When Season 1 ended I just couldn't go back to Quick Play. Too many idiots, too much fucking around. The story up above was actually one of the "better" games in the week or so I did quick play regularly without a group. Fuck that.

The ranking fine-tuning was meant to be on the support side. They were getting fucked in ranks because the game (unsurprisingly when you look at the cards at end of matches) weighs kills, time on point, and damage dealt too highly vs. Healing or Mitigation. So as a DPS, you get good marks on two of those points you're doing great. Playing a double support match? You're fucked as you're splitting healing numbers AND aren't doing any damage unless you're Zen or Lucio. 

It's apparently still not working well as during the testing people were still reporting that teams were getting different rankings at the end. Support was always ranked 3-6 ranks lower than any DPS or Tank. (insert long-winded dissertation about why ranks should ONLY be win/ loss for this reason."ELO hell" is a thing only because you're a stubborn ass who hasn't adapted to your team.)

The maps are meant to have chokes. It's a team game and you've got to have a strat to counter things. All the Chokes have one or two ways around for certain chars to disrupt things on a push. They work great for good teams and make "trickle hell" players/ teams lives miserable, I agree. Just another illustration of how Blizzard develops concerned only with the Elite and lets the plebes figure shit out for themselves.

Best thing about the patch is Genji got several nerfs. Worst thing about the patch is Hanzo's projectile box and speed were increased. So yes, he's even dumber than before and even more players are refusing to switch off.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Falconeer on September 02, 2016, 02:09:02 PM
Honestly, as someone who only plays competitive because fuck multiple Torbjorns in a match, I am glad if I get LESS skill rating from a win than if I get MORE. Sure, I should strive to be in a better league than Bronze, but the reality is that the more I grow the harder things get for me. So I am happy with staying in a lower tier if that means more balanced match from my limited personal perspective. In short, Skill Rating isn't a reward so it shouldn't matter if it grows correctly or not unless you think you are really good. The catch? You get a heap of "Competitive Coins" as a reward at the end of the season and that is based on your highest Skill Rating placement, so it pretty much contradicts everything I said. Heh.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Kail on September 02, 2016, 06:40:08 PM
Honestly, as someone who only plays competitive because fuck multiple Torbjorns in a match, I am glad if I get LESS skill rating from a win than if I get MORE. Sure, I should strive to be in a better league than Bronze, but the reality is that the more I grow the harder things get for me. So I am happy with staying in a lower tier if that means more balanced match from my limited personal perspective. In short, Skill Rating isn't a reward so it shouldn't matter if it grows correctly or not unless you think you are really good. The catch? You get a heap of "Competitive Coins" as a reward at the end of the season and that is based on your highest Skill Rating placement, so it pretty much contradicts everything I said. Heh.

Meanwhile, as someone who doesn't touch competitive, I'm feeling more and more like the unwanted bastard child here.  News is all about ranked mode.  Special rewards for ranked mode.  Balance changes based on the top one percent of all players in ranked mode.  Casual players?  Huh?  Do they still exist?

Siiiiigh. It's not like it really kills the game or anything, but sometimes I wish Blizzard would drop this "ALL GAMES MUST BE E-SPORTS" shit and just let us play without ranking us or paying us in imaginary dollars for daring to be in the top 73% of all Bastions or whatever.  Overwatch is not a particularly great competitive game, it's more fun to play than to watch, but Starcraft used to be a thing so let's keep chasing that I guess.  Fifth time's the charm or whatever.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Soulflame on September 02, 2016, 10:39:58 PM
Are you sure it's even the top 1%?  I'd wager it's an even smaller percentage than that.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Spiff on September 03, 2016, 12:30:55 AM
They make a big deal about the 'top 500' themselves, so unless only 50000 people are playing this it probably is a lot less.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on September 03, 2016, 12:06:04 PM
Yes. Blizzard aims things at those playing pro competitive. You're probably actually talking about 100-300 people max. The game is also one of the best-selling games this year and Blizzard claims over 7 million players.

That weapon being for 500 people? Is their version of throwing largesse to the plebes. 500 people also represents You know, the upper .00071%.





Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Soulflame on September 03, 2016, 12:54:03 PM
I see that my best path to victory is to play Mercy.

 :oh_i_see:

At least I like healing.

I need to remember how to play Zen again.  I did try him for 30 seconds before I realized it'd probably be a couple of games before I'd get the hang of him again.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on September 04, 2016, 01:58:12 PM
Getting 300 ranked wins fir a golden gun is nit some "elite reward" its literally the consolation prize, thanks for playing so much here's a cosmetic.  You coukd have a 1/100 winrate and still eventually get it


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: apocrypha on September 04, 2016, 02:33:45 PM
Decided to pick this up finally. It's fun, I'm a total newb and am perfectly okay with remaining that way. Tried a few different characters out, seem to be having the most fun with... um... the healer dude on skates who does the heal or speed song... shit... he's a bard. I'm playing the fucking bard again aren't I?


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on September 04, 2016, 05:00:50 PM
I see that my best path to victory is to play Mercy.

 :oh_i_see:

At least I like healing.

I need to remember how to play Zen again.  I did try him for 30 seconds before I realized it'd probably be a couple of games before I'd get the hang of him again.

Zen is really good, however the best path to victory is usually a tank. Playing a healer on a group that doesn't group up and trickle-feeds ults is just an exercise in frustration.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Soulflame on September 04, 2016, 05:47:11 PM
That's true, the one time I felt I really made a difference was with a team that actually stuck together on an attack point map.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: apocrypha on September 06, 2016, 03:42:44 AM
I see that this suffers greatly from the curse of prime time. Playing at my usual 'everyone else is at work or in bed' hours the games are mostly ok, good natured and balanced. 7pm rolls around and it's 3 Meis on a team and none of them will change, bitching and bullshit in chat, little to no group cohesion (not that there's much in Quick Play games any time, but it's noticably worse in the evening) and the games seem far more likely to be a staemroller one way or another.

Same as it ever was.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Azazel on September 10, 2016, 09:30:30 PM
Trying this out with the free console weekend, I enjoyed the first couple of games where my team facerolled the others, and then ended up playing healer in quite a few, mostly with good success. Played a couple of other characters and found the gameplay to be, well... boring and (to me) shallow. I get it that the depth comes from character selection and countering this one and their super with that one, but to me it just felt like TF2 crossed with spammy CoD-combat crossed with a random bunch of personality-less characters that I don't care about. I mean, the graphics are lovely in that Blizzard style, and I can see the appeal for those who enjoy that superfast style of (what I think of as) spammy combat (though I prefer the old UT myself I think), but I certainly don't see the value of it as a full price+ game (AU$100? lol), or the reasons for all of the BEST GAME EVAR. Costumes in microtrans-loot boxes is a shitty touch as well.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: apocrypha on September 15, 2016, 03:55:17 AM
I'm also getting tired of this.

Time after time nobody chooses tank or healer and I feel forced into playing one or the other. I also seem to repeatedly get put into games replacing someone who's dropped out because their team is losing badly and get a 1-2 minute game and a defeat. Nobody, I mean nobody uses voice comms outside of their premades. I keep trying only to be met with stony silence and the occasional German swear word.

The matchmaking is terrible. I am level 15 and am usually thrown into games full of level 60+ people. Regularly the opposing team is composed to 2 three-man groups and my team is all solo. Why not mix that up a bit eh? If there's supposedly 7 million people playing this then why can't the matchmaker do a better job?

Costumes in microtrans-loot boxes is a shitty touch as well.

That doesn't bother me at all though. I mean, it's all entirely optional cosmetic fluff. I don't care what they do with that shit, it doesn't interest me in the slightest.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: ezrast on September 20, 2016, 07:12:19 PM
Time after time nobody chooses tank or healer and I feel forced into playing one or the other.
If only Blizzard had some body of experience to draw upon that would have let them predict this problem.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: apocrypha on September 21, 2016, 12:41:41 AM
Falconeer has assured me that things get better in competetive mode, so I'm carrying on trying to reach level 25. Been having some fun playing D.Va.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Falconeer on September 21, 2016, 02:05:34 PM
Well, better or worse depends on personal preference. I can testify that to me Competitive and Quick Play now almost feel like two completely different games. The former, I still play it every night and I have put more than 200 hours in. The latter, which is basically the unchanged vanilla game as it launched in May, is something I have no desire at all to go back to.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on September 21, 2016, 03:40:39 PM
I do quick play when I don't want the stress of performing. Since I only solo-queue my rating is terrible and down at 2000-2100 nobody uses mics or talks. Awesome.

Quick Play can still be entertaining. Like last night our team did 6 Symmetras. You wouldn't think it'd work, but we destroyed the other team. Even after we lost our choke point of inevitable doom.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: KallDrexx on September 27, 2016, 10:59:10 AM
https://gfycat.com/BowedBoringGalapagoshawk

 :drill:


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: apocrypha on September 27, 2016, 01:58:34 PM
Haha brilliant  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on September 27, 2016, 02:17:28 PM
I am gratified to see an idea I had executed so well, even knowing there's no way I hell I will ever be in a group that could execute it.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Teleku on September 27, 2016, 02:27:19 PM
Just requires you and one other friend on team speak dude.   :-P


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on September 27, 2016, 05:22:28 PM
As I said...

I solo queue 99% of the time. The other 1% those guys don't have mics or talk.

It's obnoxious how few people talk on PC. There's no middle ground between Console 12-year-olds who don't shut up and PC wasteland of "Hello?" (silence).


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: KallDrexx on September 27, 2016, 06:07:24 PM
It's obnoxious how few people talk on PC. There's no middle ground between Console 12-year-olds who don't shut up and PC wasteland of "Hello?" (silence).

Sure but since there are the 12 year olds I keep my non-group voice comms always muted because I don't feel like wasting time determining if my team are 12 year olds or people who are actually good at communicating.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Soulflame on September 28, 2016, 02:23:05 PM
I don't even have a mic.

I don't think I've ever heard anyone talk anyway, but of course I still haven't made it out of Quick Play.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Yegolev on October 11, 2016, 12:47:51 PM
This game has some really enjoyable cosplay.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on October 11, 2016, 07:09:56 PM
The fact that Mercy is the login avatar for everyone doesn't sell more costumes at all. Nope.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: apocrypha on October 12, 2016, 12:50:26 AM
I have a different character showing every time I log in. They're cycling through the halloween costume ones now, for sure, but it's not Mercy every time. I'm normally immune to such things, but I have to say that this set of costumes are very nice. But there's no way I'm paying a penny for loot boxes to get them.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on October 12, 2016, 07:54:07 AM
I got Junkrat after my 6th game of the night.  Two separate logins and 5  games prior it was Mercy.  No complaints.

You don't have to drop cash. All levels between now and the 1st drop Halloween boxes. If you REALLY want any of the drops they're also unlockable with coin this time around.  Skins are 3k though, and the rest are normal cost from what I checked.  (250 Intro, 75 spray, etc).

Im st 850 coin and got Pharah from my free box and Junkrat from a level box last night. Might see if I can save up enough for Mercy by the end of the event, though I never play her anymore.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: apocrypha on October 12, 2016, 09:41:21 AM
Cool. I'm level 28 now but I don't level very fast. I only manage 2-3 games a night, but honestly I'm not overly bothered about the cosmetics. They're fun to get but they're not why I play :)


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on October 12, 2016, 11:08:02 AM
I'm only 85, but exp comes faster if I'm willing to tank my seasonal rating. Those games give more Xp than quick play.  I play 5-6 matches a night in quick play and manage a level or two every day that way.  That's 10-14 boxes, I figure, depending on how well I do.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: apocrypha on October 12, 2016, 04:35:03 PM
Well I've been trying competitive but it's sooooooo toxic. Every single match has people bitching and moaning and calling others retards and noobs. I don't understand how this is supposed to be better than quick play? Honestly, it's fucking vile.

In fact it's put me right off the game, I'm not interested in hearing abuse and profanity from 12 year olds.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on October 12, 2016, 04:47:07 PM
Console? Yeah, I can see that.

PC I get nobody talking 90% of the time. I'm also in the basement with a 1799 rating now. It seems only the upper golds and diamond are toxic according to the boards.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: KallDrexx on October 12, 2016, 05:04:05 PM
Console? Yeah, I can see that.

PC I get nobody talking 90% of the time. I'm also in the basement with a 1799 rating now. It seems only the upper golds and diamond are toxic according to the boards.

I saw an article a while ago that was talking about how the middle tier is the most fun in competitive.  The lowest tier is filled with 12 year olds who are convinced they are the most amazing player ever but only are low because of shitty teammates (and thus take every match super serious and can't stand losing) and the highest tier are people who don't want to risk their ranking and thus are also super serious and can be assholish. 


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on October 12, 2016, 05:26:16 PM
Yeah, low tier can get shitty. You can usually shut them up by reminding them their rating is also shit, therefore, they're terrible too.

Bonus points if they're in a group so you can point out at no time did they have any synergy going there, so it's not because they're queuing solo and stuck in ELO hell.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: apocrypha on October 13, 2016, 12:52:26 AM
I saw an article a while ago that was talking about how the middle tier is the most fun in competitive.  The lowest tier is filled with 12 year olds who are convinced they are the most amazing player ever but only are low because of shitty teammates (and thus take every match super serious and can't stand losing) and the highest tier are people who don't want to risk their ranking and thus are also super serious and can be assholish. 

That seems to be where I am. I suck, I know it, I'm 2500. What I don't need is lots of other people also telling me that I suck, when they're in the same tier I am.

And no, not console, PC. Anyway, discovered you can turn chat off. Turning chat off now.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: apocrypha on October 13, 2016, 10:53:43 AM
Turned 'Auto join team voice chat' off and found the shortcut to toggle the text chat (ctrl-shift-c). Much better!

The PVE brawl is interesting. Fun way to learn unfamiliar characters, I'd never really played any of the 4 in this one before. Can't see me wanting to play it more than a few times though, but it'll be interesting to see if they make any more like this in the future. 


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on October 13, 2016, 07:45:44 PM
Played it once.. McCree ran off and died alone 6 times then blamed us for failing because he couldn't aim any better than I can. (he got POTG with a max-zombie ult and so I got to see his 'skills' just before it)

Somehow it was more annoying than quickplay. Probably because I was forced to be Ana.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Kail on October 13, 2016, 11:02:54 PM
Played it once.. McCree ran off and died alone 6 times then blamed us for failing because he couldn't aim any better than I can. (he got POTG with a max-zombie ult and so I got to see his 'skills' just before it)

Somehow it was more annoying than quickplay. Probably because I was forced to be Ana.

I played it three times so far.  Every time, I was last pick Ana (not that I mind, I like Ana but can never pick her without my team getting the vapors), McCree ran up the battlements on the left hand side and spent the match spamming "need heals" and got Play of the Game from hitting Q, and Hanzo and S76 spent the match hanging around the door tanking the elites.  Every single match.  It's weird.

I think this is the only time I've typed the phrase "Battleborn does this way better than Overwatch," but there you go.  Still, it's not like it's bad and I like that it adds some variety.  I'm liking this event a lot more than their Olympics one.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Spiff on October 14, 2016, 01:30:54 AM
the Halloween PvE thing is odd in that you'd expect something like that to be a light, fun, easy thing, but it requires some decent tactics and teamwork (on hard anyway).
Ana especially is integral in the boss fights, 'cause she basically has to put the boss to sleep, ult cree (their combined ults take bosses to about 20% health) and make sure no one dies in the chaos.
Like most of the game though it's fun for a few times, but you quickly see how superficial and repetitive it is.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Fabricated on October 17, 2016, 12:19:02 PM
I have happily not played a single round of competitive overwatch ever and I'm going to stick with that strategy. People get salty enough about quick play.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Samwise on October 31, 2016, 01:33:07 PM
I still haven't managed to finish Mann vs Machine Junkenstein's Revenge on hard.  On a few occasions I've managed to get a team who all understands the basic strategy, but it's still easy for a bit of bad luck or a missed shot to blow the whole thing.  When you get someone who jumped straight from "easy" to "hard" it's infuriating.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Sir T on November 05, 2016, 12:17:24 AM
Just spreading the word; this streamer is doing a 24 hour charity stream, with overwatch and a few other games, so check it out if you are feeling charitable. https://www.twitch.tv/myuurin


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Soulflame on December 08, 2016, 11:51:49 AM
The Overwatch Christmas event will start 13th of December, if you are interested in lewtz.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on December 08, 2016, 11:53:29 AM
Nice.

Still trying to decide if I'm going to bother with competitive this season. I dropped out after hitting 1650 last season because if you don't have a group it's useless queuing.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Rendakor on January 28, 2017, 11:10:36 AM
There's a Chinese New Year event going on now; the game mode is CTF.

Has the matchmaking always been so shitty or has it gotten worse? I haven't played since launch really, but finding a game has been rough today. I'll sit at the menu, then get thrown into a skirmish thing while it looks for more players, then kicked back to the menu, back to skirmish, etc. After doing that 3-4 times it eventually puts me in a match but it takes a while and has more loading and transitions than it ought to.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Hawkbit on January 28, 2017, 12:41:31 PM
I keep wanting to buy this because I'm bored with my other games. Instead though, I log onto twitch and watch people play for 15 minutes. The people remind me why I really shouldn't buy it.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Soulflame on January 29, 2017, 02:03:41 AM
Unless you have a solid group and will play consistently at platinum or higher, I dunno that I'd recommend this.

I'm stuck in bronze (so bad!) and the matches can be so goddamn annoying.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Kail on January 29, 2017, 03:05:17 AM
Unless you have a solid group and will play consistently at platinum or higher, I dunno that I'd recommend this.

I'm stuck in bronze (so bad!) and the matches can be so goddamn annoying.

I have pretty much the opposite opinion.  I'd only recommend this as a game for people who aren't really worried about e-sports.  It's like Smash Bros or something, it's a lot of fun, but I think it loses something when you start taking it too seriously.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Rendakor on January 29, 2017, 09:58:26 AM
I'm with Kail; maybe I'm just too old for try-harding, but I just do quickplay or whatever the holiday event game is and mute anyone who gets annoying in voice chat.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on January 29, 2017, 12:21:47 PM
It's the only way to have fun. I tried competitive the first two seasons and only wound up angry every time I played.   Now I just QP or arcade and the game remains fun.

Dropping after the first round clusterfuck may get me a 30mi. Boot but it doesn't force me to sit there wondering how the fuck my "competitive" team thinks me as the sole tank and zero healers is goi g to score a win.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Soulflame on January 31, 2017, 02:49:35 PM
Those games are the best.  I usually just pick Sombra and run around hacking health packs for myself when I'm the last pick and there's no tanks/heals picked yet.

Amusingly enough, I'm at a low enough level of play that those teams still manage to sometimes pull off a win.   :awesome_for_real:

Tried competitive this season, got up to almost 1400, then plummeted to around 1100, got back to 1350, then said to hell with it.

Mystery Heroes for the free loot boxes, otherwise Quick Play.  I like Mystery Heroes, but I've seen too many times where someone gets their main on the other side, and that's pretty much it for my team.  Especially if it's a good Pharah.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on January 31, 2017, 03:24:04 PM
Yeah. So many players don't know how to look up, or like me they do but just can't aim for shit.

I've started learning how to swipe them with DVa on the charge. Maps where they can get out of my range were just fucked on.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Soulflame on January 31, 2017, 03:37:42 PM
Roadhog is my current preferred Symmetra counter.  I haven't found anything else that "works".  Maybe Reinhardt if she doesn't focus you first.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Soulflame on January 31, 2017, 03:39:19 PM
Yeah. So many players don't know how to look up, or like me they do but just can't aim for shit.

I've started learning how to swipe them with DVa on the charge. Maps where they can get out of my range were just fucked on.

It's pretty much a problem of how she can move in three dimensions.  Widowmaker is probably the best direct counter to Pharah, but even she can have problems against a decent player.

I do look for Pharahs, but for myself, she is very difficult to hit unless she's on the ground or ulting.   :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on February 01, 2017, 07:49:29 AM
If she's good and juking about up Dow left and right I agree.  However in my shitty tier she pops up, hovers in place and still wipes groups. Which is why I can smack her with DVas charge at all.

When I'm home again I'll get a recording. 


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Samwise on February 01, 2017, 11:00:45 AM
I've discovered I get a lot of satisfaction from going into competitive matches and playing Torb on offense.  Partly because I enjoy the impotent rage of e-sports bros reporting me for my choice of character (lol) and partly because more often than not it actually works (I'm at silver).


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on February 02, 2017, 07:41:36 AM
Yeah, same problem as Phara at that level. (I was low silver in Comp.)  While Torb isn't a slouch, taking his turret out isn't a problem if you've got a group with a brain and any aiming skills so they nab Hanzo or Widow and take out the turret then Torb. Or use D. Va to eat the turret while someone else kills it.

Most folks at that level lack one or the other and just pick tracer or somebody else equally poor as a counter, then charge in like the Turret's not an aimbot that never misses.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Samwise on April 14, 2017, 02:01:30 PM
Is it me or is the new PvE mode a lot harder than the Junkenstein one?  Having trouble even beating it on Hard.  Tracer + Rein is sort of a weird combo.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: apocrypha on April 14, 2017, 02:51:41 PM
It's easy if people are sensible, i.e. have the vaguest idea of which mobs are the priority targets and to stay slightly near the objectives. Hard does seem harder than Junkenstein was on Hard, for sure, but I think that's because the areas are a bit more spread out so it gives idiots more room to roam and make it impossible for the healer.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Rendakor on April 14, 2017, 05:20:05 PM
Did it for the first time on Normal, didn't seem too rough. Do the harder modes give more XP/loot boxes or are they just for the challenge of it?


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: apocrypha on April 15, 2017, 03:59:48 AM
I don't know, I've not paid attention to that. You get achievements, but that's all I know.

Something that makes me laugh/roll my eyes: in the pre-game chat one of the characters actually says, every single time, "Don't run off on your own Reinhart". And yet they do. Every single time. So many times Tracer dies because they're off miles away doing I don't know what the fuck. Spamming "I need healing" usually. Well DUH, come to the fucking objective where the healer, the Tjorborn turret and the thing we have to stand on to win are.   :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Samwise on April 15, 2017, 06:31:16 PM
The temptation to stray from the group as Tracer is so you can get behind the eliminators and the bastions to hit them in the vulnerable spot.  Trouble is it's pretty easy to get dropped when you do that.  I guess the idea is to blink over there, take your shot, and then recall back?


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: apocrypha on April 16, 2017, 03:18:01 AM
Yeah I get that, but when the Tracer player is away somewhere shooting completely different mob packs than everyone else and just getting themselves downed over and over again I think it's more to do with them being fucking idiots.  :awesome_for_real:

Also, surprisingly few people seem to know about the orange spot.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Samwise on April 17, 2017, 03:39:56 PM
Finally managed to beat it on Hard, but I don't think I'll even bother going for one of the tougher levels, because wow.

Main predictor of failure seems to be Rein wandering away from the rest of the group (i.e. not being in LOS of the objective and/or turret at all times).  He basically dictates the pace since everyone needs to be pretty close to him, and if he charges ahead faster than Torb and Mercy can follow (especially in that very last room) it's all over pretty quick.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: apocrypha on April 18, 2017, 03:14:15 AM
Yeah, anything other than the easiest difficulty seems to need everyone to have at least some awareness of how to do it. Prioritising exploders & bastions on the first bits and the last room is, as you say, the crux of it. The bastions really have to come down first and then the orisa's can be drawn out of the room one at a time and then it's easy.

I've actually really enjoyed it, I'd love if they had a decent roster of these kind of PvE maps up permanently. I'd happily play 9 of them a week for the 3 free loot boxes and rarely bother with the PvP again.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on April 18, 2017, 11:43:47 AM
Nearly failed on easy because Rein thought he should be wandering whereverthefuck he wanted to go, just like Tracer so there I was as Mercy trying to keep Tjborn alive and buffed with nobody else around moving the payload. No way I'm trying Hard.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Fabricated on June 02, 2017, 01:40:33 PM
lol, the "rate this match" feature provided Blizzard with this valuable data:

Quote
    We had high hopes for this feature but after a year of the game being live and an extended period in beta, all we learned from the feature was:

    -New players used the Rate This Match feature more than existing players

    -Players enjoy winning

    -Players do not enjoy losing


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on June 02, 2017, 02:19:07 PM
It was the most worthless feature ever. No feedback outside of 1, 2, 3 score.

I rated several wins as 1 because the other team lost players or we simply steamrolled and that wasn't fun.  I rated losses 3 when it was a close competition and matchmaking seemed to have hit this glorious sweet spot where everyone was the same skill level. However, there was ZERO method for telling why I scored a match the way I did.

A shitty loss where my team swaps out 3 times in the first 30 seconds? A 1.  A great win where it's been a hard fight? A 3.  No relationship beyond that 1 or 3, though, so it's easy to say the majority were indeed not-rated to anything but a loss to a 1 and a win to a 3.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Kail on June 03, 2017, 11:48:36 AM
It was the most worthless feature ever. No feedback outside of 1, 2, 3 score.

Yep.  Not really clear on what the rating was supposed to be, was it about the quality of the matchmaker, the attitude of your teammates, the balance of the characters, how much you like that specific map, how much you like Overwatch as a whole, how are we supposed to be rating this?  Seemed more like a pointless data point for the suits to me  "See, we made this change and 'fun' increased by 6.3%!"

The fact that new players used the system a lot and old players didn't, by itself, should have suggested that there were some issues with it.  That's a pattern that happens a lot when people want to give feedback but don't get any feedback themselves from doing so: it starts to feel like shouting at clouds.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Druzil on July 03, 2017, 09:59:42 AM
I've gotten back into this over the last week.   Really loving Orisa, she might be one of my favorite picks now.  Her alt fire is a thing of greatness.

I think one nice surprise is that 1v1 mode is actually kinda fun, I was expecting to hate it.  It actually helped me figure out what characters that I'm actually better at and which ones I need to work on.  It also let me practice on some characters I don't pick too often and to learn a few counter picks.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Samprimary on October 11, 2017, 12:53:38 PM
Damn you, halloween skins


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Samwise on October 11, 2017, 05:22:20 PM
I saved up my coins so I could buy the Mercy skin once it became available again.   :pedobear:


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Rendakor on October 15, 2017, 07:18:44 PM
Came back for the Halloween event, but I really don't like the limited classes thing they do with these. :uhrr: Mei doesn't have a good skin either, so I'm not sure I'm going to play it any more than the 3 games I did tonight.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Samwise on October 15, 2017, 08:10:33 PM
Oh man, that new Zenyatta skin.  Need.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Soulflame on October 15, 2017, 08:14:04 PM
I wouldn't mind playing this again, but the fucking battlenet app will not install on my laptop.

It's absolutely infuriating.  It appears the only way to install the damn thing is to use their bootstrapper, but if the bootstrapper fails, then you're shit out of luck.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Trippy on October 15, 2017, 08:38:21 PM
Check if you have a firewall blocking access. Also for some inexplicible reason any time a game patches you have to reauthorize things.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Samprimary on October 16, 2017, 11:44:46 AM
hey have you watched that infamous internet video '3 greys 1 blue"

cause that's all of halloween so far


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on October 16, 2017, 01:39:03 PM
Buy your greys and whites out with coins. So many people still buying the legendaries and epics instead.  With the loot box system having changed to "don't drop duplicate items" you're going to get a shit ton of greys out of loot boxes.

Unintended consequences of the change to that system.  If you've bought all but 3 legendary skins but still have 400 grey/ common items, guess what you're getting.

ed: Wait; is this the 3 grey 1 rare video? Because he got that combo on the 3rd box doing exactly the above. Hah.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piWUW4rqaU8



Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Samwise on October 16, 2017, 04:54:23 PM
Buy your greys and whites out with coins. So many people still buying the legendaries and epics instead.  With the loot box system having changed to "don't drop duplicate items" you're going to get a shit ton of greys out of loot boxes.

Ooooooooooo is that why I'm not getting duplicate items for cash now?   Good tip, thanks.  And yeah, kinda dumb system for that reason -- they should be maintaining the proportion of drop rarity but it sounds like they're not.  Derp.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Samprimary on October 16, 2017, 06:59:33 PM
Buy your greys and whites out with coins. So many people still buying the legendaries and epics instead.  With the loot box system having changed to "don't drop duplicate items" you're going to get a shit ton of greys out of loot boxes.

Unintended consequences of the change to that system.  If you've bought all but 3 legendary skins but still have 400 grey/ common items, guess what you're getting.

ed: Wait; is this the 3 grey 1 rare video? Because he got that combo on the 3rd box doing exactly the above. Hah.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piWUW4rqaU8



I'm .. about to do this. this better be a good idea.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Samprimary on October 17, 2017, 09:39:07 AM
I guess that doesn't work. Rarities are determined independent of existing stock in your inventory; remaining selections within that range of rarities you got dropped are THEN weighted in favor of non-duplicates.

So as long as I'm not getting legendaries in the first place, nothing matters ;_;


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Merusk on October 17, 2017, 09:48:15 AM
Ahh, well then that makes more sense over-all but blows at the same time.  At least then very rare time you get a Leg/ Epic you'll know it's not a dupe.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Samprimary on October 17, 2017, 11:23:11 AM
On the plus side, I have 5 or 6 arcade boxes waiting for me with the week rolling over.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: TheWalrus on October 17, 2017, 11:52:29 AM
Bought a fuckton of voice lines, immediately picked up reaper skin. YMMV


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Samwise on October 17, 2017, 02:46:14 PM
The UI is not at all friendly to buying shittons of greys.  Glad to hear it might not actually work, because I ran out of patience and stopped doing it.   :uhrr:

Got the Zarya 80s skin last night and I am very pleased about that.  Still planning to buy the Mercy witch skin if it doesn't drop for me before Halloween.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Samwise on October 20, 2017, 02:15:31 PM
I guess that doesn't work. Rarities are determined independent of existing stock in your inventory; remaining selections within that range of rarities you got dropped are THEN weighted in favor of non-duplicates.

Realized the other day that if this theory is true AND it's broken out by rarity rather than value, buying golds that cost 1000 is a good investment since it makes you more likely to receive golds that cost 3000.

It wouldn't surprise me if the 3K golds are actually a different tier, but I went ahead and bought that 1K Mercy witch skin anyway.   :drill:  Cmon Cthulhu-Zen and Viking-Torb!


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Samprimary on October 20, 2017, 02:27:29 PM
Realized the other day that if this theory is true AND it's broken out by rarity rather than value, buying golds that cost 1000 is a good investment since it makes you more likely to receive golds that cost 3000.

This one's true as of that last lootbox mechanic change.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Samwise on December 12, 2017, 11:32:33 PM
Okay, I don't hate this yeti hunter mode.  It doesn't drag on nearly as long as most of the event modes do.

Also apparently nobody wants to play the yeti, so I've just had three games straight as yeti, and won every one.  Smacking Meis all over the map is  :drill: :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: TheWalrus on December 13, 2017, 04:32:09 PM
The new Roadhog skin is fucking awesome. My only bitch is that he still holds dynamite in his victory pose. Should be fish.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Samwise on December 13, 2017, 07:47:43 PM
Had just enough gold to buy the last couple of legendary skins from last year, so the boxes have no excuse not to give me the shiny new ones now.   :grin:


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: Rendakor on December 21, 2017, 06:16:17 PM
Okay, I don't hate this yeti hunter mode.  It doesn't drag on nearly as long as most of the event modes do.

Also apparently nobody wants to play the yeti, so I've just had three games straight as yeti, and won every one.  Smacking Meis all over the map is  :drill: :why_so_serious:
It's pretty fun but the XP is terrible. The first 9 wins for 3 loot boxes are worth it but after that the progression seems nonexistent.


Title: Re: Overwatch
Post by: TheWalrus on January 27, 2018, 02:49:09 PM
New skins are pretty great, and I'm likin Blizzard World even tho it seems like a defense heavy map.