Faster Pace Genuinely Good, But Too Much

General Discussion
1

First of all, I love that the devs are letting us experiment with their ideas. I’ve seen some hate that “they’re taking away my quick play!” which I think is an understandable complaint but one that ultimately makes little sense. It’s only for quick play, it shakes the game up for a weekend, it gives them feedback, it increases the pool of players testing the changes. It’s honestly great.

Now, let’s get into my analysis, which is… less than great. I’m more positive than not. The faster-paced games feel really good, but they are too fast. In pace, and in length.

Respawn Times:
It feels really good to respawn faster. It doesn’t feel good to wipe a team over ten seconds, and as you kill the last person their Reinhardt and Lucio charge back in.

[Definite Solution:] strike a middle ground. Add a few seconds back to the respawn timer in all cases.
[Potentially Suplementative Solution:] Increase spawn times when the objective is close to spawn. If push bots in the middle of the map, fast respawns allow for more separate fights. If push bots at the end of the map, fast respawns allow for one long stall fight that’s very frustrating for the pushing team.

Objective Capture Rates:
Again, I like the faster-paced games. It feels good to go fast and fight a lot. But, are faster objective captures necessary to that goal?

Yes, but only to prevent fatigue.

The respawn times are most of what make the game FEEL fast paced with lots of fights. They allow me to actually play more Overwatch, without standing around. In my opinion, a slightly faster objective capture rate helps to make the game feel all the more exciting. In my opinion, it also helps to prevent burn-out. I really loved lots of fighting. Would I love lots of fighting in a comp game that lasts 30 minutes? Probably not. Therefore, a faster game time is necessary.

With that said, the objective capture rate universally is TOO fast. I played an Antarctica game as Bap where we capped 0-100, and me and most of my team did not build their ultimates. That should not happen. The push bots feel too fast. The carts feel too fast. Flashpoint is too fast. KOTH is WAY too fast, because unlike Flashpoint the game resets between objectives.

[Definite Solution:] much like respawn times, strike a middle ground. Only, this time it’s more of a quarter-of-the-way ground. Game times should be a bit faster, but not nearly to the degree that they are. Let us fight, let us build ultimates.

Conclusion:
I really like the idea. It felt fresh, it felt exciting. Faster respawns allowing for more separated (not 3 minute stall) fights in a game is great. Slightly shorter games are good, but not drastically shorter gametimes. Really good concept, but it needs to be toned back if its shipped as a permanent change.

[EDIT]
I’d like to expand on my conclusion, I have summarized what I like and what I didn’t. I mentioned that it needs to be toned back, but I didn’t really give a goal I would have in mind when doing so. Let me correct this, in case any devs are reading.

For tuning, find a middle ground and slow down the respawn times/pace of the game - how much fighting is occurring. But, when deciding on capture time/game length, I want more total fights over slightly less time.

Let’s say that the average quickplay game has 10 fights over 10 minutes (totally arbitrary). Find the tune that allows for 12 fights over 8.5 minutes (again, totally arbitrary). More fights, but only slightly less time. That’s what I would go for.

Would love to hear community thoughts and feedback.

To the team, much love <3

10 Likes
2

I feel as if you are correct; however, to counter this argument… Too slow, too slow, too slow (too many messages).

I want it to be F A S T E R.

1 Like
3

To prove it “ultimately makes little sense”, you lead off with the argument of “It’s only for quick play” against “they’re taking away my quick play”? Yeah something definitely makes little sense here but its not the people complaining.

We didn’t want it shaken up.

We don’t care about giving them feedback for a mode we didn’t ask for.

You know what also increases the pool of players? If the mode is good, people will naturally go play it. The fact that they had to replace the first/second most popular mode to get people to play it speaks volumes about what they thought about it internally. Besides that, Blizzard shouldn’t treat their customers as free labor to test their stupid ideas.

These changes should have been put onto their own separate game mode just like how the experimental card always worked. That way people could CHOOSE to play it if they WANTED TO. Seems to be a big trend in the gaming industry currently for devs to do whatever they want instead of what the players want and I’m sick of it.

3 Likes
4

I feel like 5 seconds is definitely too fast for respawn. It’s currently 10 in normal quick play and comp, so if they wanna speed it up I think 8 seconds could be a good middle ground

The capture rates however are WAY too fast, especially on Koth/Control maps. Like the point will be caught in 2 team fights, it’s absurd. Again, the devs could speed it up a little if they want, but I feel the way it is now is way too fast

As for Payload maps, I feel like the Payload should move BACK at the same speed it moves forward. Like if the attackers don’t touch it for 10 seconds.

And finally Push, I feel like Push games are a lot more fast paced and fun, but it’s also just Chaotic. Yet again they could strike some sort of middle ground

2 Likes
5

People that care about this game want to be included in development.

1 Like
6

The way to test enjoyment and psychology is to put a card next to the quick play card called quicker play and then A/B test player psychology to see how many switch back to the normal quick play card. A/B testing is industry standard and what they’ve done here is collect garbage data from players who don’t want to play. I’m literally over here playing 2CP assault on arcade because I’m not waiting around 10+ minute queue times to play a 2 minute game.

3 Likes
7

The argument that because something has a line of logic means it’s the correct line of logic is a completely false one. Yes, they modified quickplay for the eternity of three whole days. No, it does not make sense to get mad that your for-fun game mode is being experimented with. If you don’t like it, you don’t have to play it. Every other mode (and every other game aside from Overwatch) is untouched, ready for you to play for the weekend.

Overwatch is a dying game. The community has been asking for months to shake the game up. Now, they’re trying to do it, and they’re getting the playerbase involved. Maybe you think that this experiment is a swing and a miss. That’s ok. But to say that it’s a terrible idea to do this and that they should never do anything like it again, that ultimately makes little sense. They need to keep doing this, or the game won’t survive.

The feedback on this mode has been overwhelming and clear: It’s not something the playerbase wants as it is. It’s too fast. If they were to only collect feedback from people who went out of their way to play a fast gamemode, it might be very different. Even if the changes weren’t a success, the experiment worked.

8

Oh so I can just go play normal quickplay then? Wait I can’t? That’s the problem. Can you explain why you think taking away choice is a good thing? You’ll get bonus points if you can explain how it benefits the players and not just the developers. And its not just 3 days for the people that play only on weekends, its actually 7 days.

Its survived for almost 8 years now without doing this. You can rightly claim that OW2 itself is just a gigantic form of this but I and many others would argue that the game is in a worse state now because of it. Regardless of that, before OW2 it was still doing just fine with PTR and later the experimental card. There is therefore no demonstratable “need” to do this. They already have the experimental card system and should be using that to test radical changes rather than interrupting other game modes.

2 Likes
9

Blizzard has been very open about the fact that players do not try experimental snapshots. No one played PTR, and after a while people stopped playing new Experimentals. Players don’t play them. They were not useful.

You admit that it’s good for developers. What is it doing that’s good for them? It’s helping them make informed decisions that improve the game long term. Long term health of the game is good for players.

10

You deserve more likes my guy.

2 Likes
11

Long term health of the game is good for Blizzard, not the players. What is good for players is for the game to be good right now or at least as good as it can be. Yes the long term good eventually does become the present good, but there is absolutely no guarantee that the long term will actually end up good. You’re saying that sacrificing the current quality of the game for many players for only a chance that it will help the long term quality of the game is worth it.

If this was the only way to collect this data and make the game better you may have an actual point, but its absolutely not. Internal testing and focus groups exist for this reason. You can get the same quality of feedback from that as you can live testing it on the entire player base and even better in most cases because you can control bias and outliers. Every single company, including Blizzard until right now for some reason, uses this strategy to avoid subjecting customers to bad ideas and harming their brand. Going that route however costs money and I guess poor indie company Blizzard can’t afford it anymore even with their $30 skins.

Its obvious this one was a complete bomb and hated by the majority of players as you’ve said. How many more of these forced changes is acceptable to you then? 5, 10, as many as it takes? What if they’re all bombs? People will not continue playing a game that is constantly in a bad state. You won’t have a player base left to enter this glorious “good” Overwatch future you claim is what this is all for. Hence why most companies aren’t stupid enough to subject their flights of fancy onto their customers.

12

This is so off base it’s not worth responding to. Have a good night.

1 Like
13

Spare me the unwarranted condescension. If you’re done then just don’t reply any more. If you’d actually read the reply you’d see why I said that. People don’t pay for a good future product, they pay for a good one right now. Unless you’re an investor, which honestly from all the Blizzard boot licking you’re doing you definitely sound like one.

14

I like the faster respawns, but like the point capture feels too fast?
Like not red team claims it, but the speed it ticks up under ownership.
I feel like had that been left default we would’ve had a nice get back to the fight faster and play more fights balance but since the progress is sped up too you get like the same number of or less fights despite the respawn timer being halved.

On the cart maps I both notice and didn’t notice the cart moving faster, so I think on those types (Push as well) the added speed might need tuning but is over-all not unwelcome.

I do wish I could play normal QP just to see if that speed up really feels better comparatively. It’s a lot harder to say, yea this feels good (exception for Push, gamemode was a slog) when I’m relying entirely on memory which isn’t the most reliable thing.

2 Likes
15

Definitely. Fast pace feels good (even if it needs tuning), but it needs to last longer.

Of all the capture times, payloads were the ones I was most ok with. I’d still like them to be slower, but it wasn’t bad.

There was one game I played on Esperanca, we passed the bot under the bridge and it felt like I looked away for a second to go contest their Rein and we capped the forward spawn. Definitely too fast there, BUT I did greatly enjoy not having the game mode feel like a slog.

That’s fair. Idk, I’ve play so many games I play matches in dreams, the speed of things is practically ingrained in me. Didn’t really think about people needing a point of comparison.

16

~sigh~ yes this is the problem…

Y’all want changes (speaking broadly) but don’t want to put any effort into the process or repercussions of change.

It’s why we have changes like Role Lock, the cosmetic store, 5v5, and now QuickerPlay. PTR and Experimental doesn’t work for anything outside of balance, it needs to encompass the widest range of players for feedback and perspective to be had.

Y’all want, but can’t collectively articulate how or why and then whine about it when a golden opportunity for actually testing the consequences of your own unconstructive criticism of the game and broad generalized solutions to it.

This is what leavers asked for when complaining about broadly about wanting “unfair” matches to end quicker.

6 Likes
17

I commented much the same in another thread but agree with your points. I think there is a nice middle ground to be had, because QP takes too long for being so casual and unbalanced but QerP is definitely just a little too fast.

I like the thought of the devs to mix things up and try making improvements rather than keep the game stagnant.

1 Like
18

Put effort into the process? I’m a consumer, not a Blizzard employee. You think its normal that a customer, after paying money, also now needs to perform free research and development for the company? I’m supposed to get all of that without any effort. That was the entire point of giving them money. You guys are insane.

20

You certainly put effort into unconstructively voicing your disapproval of the mode Mr. Consumer.

Considering that you didn’t have to pay anything for this game and you did spend money, that someone who has invested time and money into a product suggests they have some kind reason to be involved in the products future continued development.

“Live service” buzzwords aside, yes if you have the time to complain (something you assume isn’t “normal” for customers to do, but are assisting in development regardless) then you can also be constructive and articulate about it.

False, which is why you’re now complaining, acting subconsciously in a way that you intend feedback to be heard.

Feeding a product money suggests to the company they’re doing the right thing.

Positive feedback on negative actions.

Tsk tsk.

1 Like
21

If the game goes off the rails in the next year or two, stagnation in gameplay is what will kill it. They have work to do on the engagement side, with modes, skins/cosmetics, collabs, events, out-of-game features, but it is serviceable and improving. The actual game, the matches, are deteriorating in enjoyability for most players. This isn’t because they’re significantly worse than they were at the start of OW2, but because they are stale. Blizzard MUST make changes to the core game, or they won’t have a game.

Quickerplay is a decent first step that could turn into a good first step, but it is not going to be enough. I hope that they keep going.

1 Like