I think if you combine the best 2 out of 3 idea from the Gamer Maths video, making the barricades move backwards slowly like payloads like someone in the comments suggested, and reduce the overall time of each round, then this mode could feel a lot better. You could make the bot zoom or just reduce the time, but I think the best way would be to lean into the spawn advantage that’s already part of the mode. Right now a lot of push matches will go the full timer unnecessarily because the losing team has a spawn advantage while defending the final point. The winning team’s forward spawn helps them get the bot all the way to the last area, basically guaranteeing the win, but it doesn’t help them as much to clinch out the final few meters and seal the deal. Instead we get a pointless back-and-forth for 5 more minutes. They should introduce a spawn timer penalty if the bot is near your final point, much like they did for 2CP.
It’s ironic that the OW team canned 2CP for being unfun and introduced a new gamemode with the exact same problem, without any of the solutions they eventually came up with for 2CP. Also, the spawn penalty could give some much-needed context for the gamemode if they do some extra visual work. One of my least-favorite things about Push is how nonsensical the premise is compared to payload and hybrid maps. Every payload has a unique visual and lore reason for why it’s being delivered. Even 2CP maps were easy to suspend your disbelief for since you’re capturing obviously-key locations for operation. Meanwhile Push has copy-pasted barriers that do… what, exactly? They’re tiny, what useful purpose could they serve? Are they sealing the doors on the enemy spawn? If so, maybe this could justify the 2 out of 3 rework (or a 3 out of 5 if you can make the rounds really fast) and starting a round with one of your doors blocked off would be a cool visual and gameplay detail. However, you could also justify a dynamic spawn penalty if the barriers get a field device the bot powers that “suppresses” the enemy spawn through classic Overwatch tech-magic.
You could make the losing team push the bot faster to get rid of the first fight advantage, but the snowball seems to be the point of this mode. OW has always been snowball-heavy because of ult economy and this mode just adds more advantage on top of it. I don’t think that’s necessarily a problem, but the part that makes it so rough is how long the match goes for after it’s already been all but decided.
I had a good idea to help with push and no one was interested in contributing to it but they will chomp at the bit for hating on the game mode. ¯_(ツ)_/¯
Game maths video is biased as hell.
BO3 won’t change the grief of “first win decides the game”. The grief basically says “just do one teamfight and stop the game”. So what the BO3 would add to that ? You could just play Elimination mode at this point.
Tbh I don’t see spawn adv as a main problem. You have adv spawn in Escort and what ? You don’t have the same problem…
If the bot is near final point, its closer to the defenders spawn. Walking to the point creates the “timer” you mention : defender have 2s of walking to the bot, the pushing team has 10+ seconds.
Again, Push has to be seen as “teamfights”. Winning a teamfight grants time. The defender needs to regroup and offer a whole Teamfight ; exactly like in Control and exactly how it should be in Escort.
If you take Push as “won teamfights”, it is getting very close to a sport game : you win once, you score once. In sports, getting the 1st goal gives you an advantage : the opponent has to get 2 goals to win.
Problem : players give up and think its “unfair” to have to do “more”. Its like a football team giving up cause they’re being behind after the 1st goal…
About the “ult economy”… For what I understand, people are thinking the winning team has advantage of having more ult charge than the defenders… Well you got the exact same problem in Control mode.
So why people are giving up Push and don’t complain about the other modes. Cause Push asks you to win the most teamfights, no matter time of the game. All the teamfights are important.
In control and Escort, you can lose a lot of teamfights and still win the game cause the modes aren’t about “how many times you win teamfights” its about “when can you win a teamfight”.
Push is fairer and asks players to do their best from first second to the last. You can win Control even if both teams are tied to number of teamfights won ; just by nuking the last fight when the 99-99 situation.
Push is though, less spectacular and less fun cause yeah, if you lose 3 teamfights in a row, it doesn’t feel good at all… But it happens to meet better players than you…
I’m sorry, but you must be playing devil’s advocate for fun or something because you have some really, really bad counterpoints.
First off, how is the Gamer Math video biased, at all? It’s literally math. Getting a lead in Push gives a better advantage than in any other game mode. It’s objectively more snowball-y.
Second, you didn’t understand what I was saying about the 2 out of 3, snowball-iness and the spawn advantage at all. I suggested leaning into the snowball-y nature of Push by giving the pushers more advantage at the final point so that the game doesn’t last 5 minutes without a comeback as often. The Bo3 would allow multiple chances at that all-important first fight, creating an equitable avenue for comebacks. I don’t see how that isn’t obvious.
3rd and most important, your point about team fights is objectively wrong. I’m not sure if you understand the difference between a “lead” and an “advantage”. In a points-based game, both teams start at 0, on completely even footing. When one team scores a point, the other team also only has to score 1 point to get back to even. If they succeed just as well as the opponent has so far, they don’t lose. Both teams will always have to score the same number of points as the opponent plus 1 in order to win.
In contrast, Push is like if every time your opponent scores a point your next point’s value is reduced by 0.1. Alternatively if we want to think of it as team fights instead of distance pushed, it’s like if your next point gets a +10% chance of not counting. The imbalance comes from the fact that every time your opponent wins a team fight, you have a good chance of having to win two team fights just to get back to even. You can succeed just as much as your opponent has but still lose.
That’s a part of Overwatch. Ult economy is a first-fight advantage in every game mode, not just Push or Control. All the team fights are important in every mode, both to control the objective and to build Ult for the next fight.
Winning the last fight in a 99-99 on control is not unfair and it doesn’t invalidate all the other fights. Barring stall tactics (which is a part of objective-based games) you had to win the same number of team fights to get to 99-99. Yes the last fight matters more because there’s no more chances after it, but the game has to end at some point. A last fight decision does not create an imbalance in the way a first fight advantage does.
Do you proofread your own reply/posts and go, “yup, that sounds logical”?
If you lookt at gamer maths video, it takes as examples litteral stomps. When you have a 100m-0m score, its a stomp ! Again, if you pay attention of the number of teamfights counts, you’ll see 100m-0m is like losing 6 teamfights in a row…
Take it as a soccer match : 6-0 and you’d complain the losing team can’t win anymore ?
And that’s what video game maths shows : if you’re losing 6-0, you have to win 7 fights in a row to take the lead. Yeah its hard, but its fair. What wouldn’t be fair would be to take the lead with less fights.
So it will makes the first fights even more important. You can’t complain about the game “being decided” too soon and ask to have less chance to comeback in the same time…
When the barricade goes to your spawn, if you think comback is impossible, why do you fight ? Why not let them push ? And the game won’t last 5 minutes unless you indeed can stop them, meaning you’ve still a chance to comeback… Its just you mentally give up but keep playing because you wanna play ?
That’s not true. And video game maths kindly avoided to show you a balanced game for that.
There. Like a soccer match, you need to have more goals than the opponent to win, not the same number, you need one more.
That’s not true.
Lets say you got a teamfight each 40s (~20% of capture)
1-0 → 20-0
2-1-> 20-20
3-2-> 60-60
4-3 → 80-80
5-4 → 99-80
5-5 → can end in a loss 99-100, or it would be 6-4. So yeah, in Control you can win with a “teamfight” score of 5-5.
How’s that fair?
The exact same can be seen in Escort. As a defender you can lose all the first fights you want, if you win the fight just before the checkpoint you can win even if it took you one or 2 teamfights to victory, especially in a tight game; How’s that is fair ?
In both examples he used, particularly the second one, the streamer’s team won just as many team fights as the enemy. In the second example they actually controlled the objective for more time than the winning team. That is not a stomp, that is a very even game. You could even assert the streamer’s team did better than the winning team because they had to overturn the enemy’s first-fight advantage to get as far as they did. They were fighting an uphill battle for more of the match than the winning team was, still won just as many team fights, and they still lost.
Edit: Another way I think I can explain this: the streamer’s team got stomped at the beginning of the game. In order to turn it around and get back to even footing, they would have to stomp the enemy team harder than they had been. Not to win, but simply to get back to more or less even ground. Winning is out of the question until they get to that point. The video’s second game is an example of them doing that and then losing afterwards. They got stomped, then they stomped the enemy all the way back, and then they still happened to lose because they lost that last fight in overtime. The last fight isn’t the frustrating part, it’s looking back and realizing that you had already done more work than enemy team and still needed to win one more fight.
Yes, exactly. That is why the Bo3 is a necessary part of the solution: it is a more equitable opportunity for a comeback than pushing the bot through all the ground your enemy has already covered and then the same amount on the other side.
I fight even when I’m at a disadvantage because it’s more fun than giving up and being toxic. It’s also super fun to make a comeback when the odds are stacked against you. That’s why I think it’s sort of okay to have first fight advantage. In order to be balanced at all though, there needs to be a Bo3 because the first fight can end up being essentially a coin flip. My suggestion of making comebacks even harder within a round is a time-saving measure, so that a Bo3 Push game doesn’t take forever.
You can’t just say something’s not true because you refuse to comprehend it. I mean, you can, but like… are you really okay with being that guy? I don’t know how to explain it to you in a way I and the video haven’t already. Try drawing a picture or something, I think a visual aid could really help you out here.
Again, you don’t understand the difference between a lead and an advantage. You are missing vital information to even participate in this discussion.
While your proposed situation of a 5-5 loss is valid and does happen, it ignores a crucial aspect. If you lost 5-5, 99-99, it’s because you didn’t get back to the objective in time to contest for an 11th fight and the enemy got their 100%. The enemy lost 5 fights but still managed to contest for a 6th fight. You may have done a poor job staggering their deaths, they may have been better at stalling, or faster at grouping and pushing. All of these things are part of objective-based game modes. At the end of the game, the objective is your score, not the team fights.
The same holds true for Escort maps, but these apply even less to your argument because in competitive the teams switch sides. Escort is an asymmetrical game mode! The attackers have the advantage due to spawns for most of the map.
I’m not going to spend any more time trying to explain core game concepts to you. While I don’t expect everybody to be fully up to speed before they debate on the forums, I recommend you practice some proofreading and self-driven research in the future.
I’ve won push when were losing at first several times. It is by no means impossible. People pretending it is over after the first fight feel really whiny to me. Like seriously?
I agree it is by no means impossible, which is why I’m willing to lean into the idea of keeping the first-fight advantage and even making it worse in order to save time. It’s thrilling to win when the odds are stacked against you, but what’s fun is not always balanced and vice versa. That’s why a Bo3 is necessary, at least in competitive.
That’s where the game maths got it wrong. Its not about time. In the game on New Queen Street, yeah they controlled it for 18 extra seconds… And so what ? You can lose Control games even if you control the point longer…
Without the whole replay, its impossible to know from where those numbers come from…
The video mixes “controlling” and “pushing”. Both teams have “pushed” for 6m12s while 9minutes elapsed in the game. What happened for 3 minutes ?
The other problem is, in this example, the video tells the leading team “has pushed for 2m57s”. But when the man does the math : 115.76 / 1.04 = 111s, so less than 2 minutes ?!
Man, the video just throws numbers randomly I swear… And some people are “understanding” this ???
That’s why thinking about time makes no sense… That’s why this mode is about setting proper teamfights and winning them rather then “controlling for longer time”. Controlling the bot is useless if it doesn’t move…
If you can’t regroup, you’ll give your enemy a bigger opportunity to push for longer;
If you just step back and avoid wipe, the barricade will barely move.
And this is where the 18s are probably coming from : the Super team has just been struggling to clear the fights, their barricade then, moved slower. And the video just takes it as “pushing time” instead of “contesting time”. Then he brings the numbers do random maths, tells how “unfair” it is just because Super just legit got crushed for the first half.
BO3 won’t fix the feeling of “first fight decides”. If you do think its all about first fight (which is not but whatever), making BO3 would just make it more coins flipping… I don’t get how it would be better… Control is in BO3 because of the 99-99 situation that can lead to stupid deciding one fight, so yeah it makes sense. In Push, if you let the enemy push for 115m in a row, you deserve to lose or to be insanely good to comeback. That’s how many sports work : if you let the opponent golas 6 times, prepare to cry or get your insane comeback out.
Escort isn’t balanced by switching for 2 reasons. The first one is when a team doesn’t reach the 3rd goal. The second team will have basically more time to win or if you prefer, less distance within the same given time.
The other reason is overtime. In escort, you can still win or reach the final point with extra time the other team might not have.
I’m glad you keep repeating it without explaining it. lol. So tell me, what’s the advantage of the first fight beside the one being in the lead and making the losing team to do better than you to win ?
not true, you can win more fights and control the bot for significantly longer than your opponents and still lose. just because you lost 1 or two fights in the beginning. that plus stalling the bot being a rewarding tactic makes the game frustrating.
yes, but if in the entire round you controlled the point for 18 seconds longer uncontested you would win. and this is true for every other game mode.
he actually explains it and fast forwards through the replay so you can see. while both teams push about the same distance. the losing team had uncontested control, or pushed, for longer. the other 3 minutes are where the robot was contested and as such neither team was pushing.
say you are pushing the bot and the enemy team staggers and slows you down, while you might count it as being in control and pushing you lose space. not to mention that you need to recover any space lost due to enemy team controlling the bot.
your thinking is flawed, while teamfights are important, winning teamfights is how you control the bot, and time controlling the bot, like time controlling the objective is what matters.
no
the 18 s comes from pushing the bot while making no progress on their barricade. 18 s of just taking it to their barrocade. 18 s wasted. all of which is at a spawn disadvantage due to the rules of the game.
the issue is imagine if KOTH (control) maps required you to drain the opponents percentage to make progress on yours and you have push. that is the game mode.
first the come back required for this in push is 2 times harder than control. second why require an insane comeback to win. why not just a comeback. if i play worse after pushing 115m i should lose. i dont have to be basically throwing for my opponents to win.
NO!!
if the first team pushes the payload only to before the first point the second team has the same amount of time to do the same. if they push it to mid second or mid third, they dont get additional time, they get they same time.
your confusion comes from this fact. team a pushes payload to mid point 2. then team b gets checkpoint 1 faster than team a, the clock shows more time for team b than team a had, but the total time is the same.
if both teams reach the final goals in escort and one team has time and the other doesnt 1minute will be added for both teams.
my duded you dont even know the basic rules of the game.
let me explain it. a lead puts you ahead without any interaction with your opponents, while an advantage puts you ahead while disadvantaging your opponents.
think of it as a race. you can gain a lead when you both start from the same point and you are faster and make a gap. you lead didnt come from anything not related to you and your performance. if you start running slower your opponent can catch up. an advantage is you starting 200 meters ahead of your opponent. now you dont have to run faster than your opponent to win, just as fast as he runs. you are not winning based on your performance.
Not sure how much stalling is rewarding. Imo, its riskier as the Robot will be nearer the enemy barricade.
I guess in the last minute or when you stall the bot in the middle in a 100-90m situation could work.
uncontested yes. But the video doesn’t say “uncontested”… And its not true for Control at your % keeps increasing even if the point is contested.
He explains Super team goofed around and concludes the final push is “unfair”… The video starts New Queen Street game when 1min40 is left. I don’t see any fast forward replay of it.
So, the bot has been contested for 3 minutes ; how do you explain the difference between the 2min of “pushing” and the 111s necessary for 115,76m ? They’ve made the bot running for 3 other minutes ?
And this is where the 18s make no sense anymore. The only way to get those 18s is to consider you have like 100m advantage as the video shows afterwards. That means, you’ve been losing a lot… And it would be fair to take back the lead with less fights ?
Again, if you’re losing your ping-pong game 6-0, the game wants you to score 7 points in a row to take the lead… But how anobody could say it’d be unfair.
So imo, focusing on the time doesn’t matter.
Winning a fight grants you time. If time would matter in Push, we’d get the Lucio or Ball turning around just to waste enemy time. Tbh, I’ve never seen this trick succeed on Push whereas it does in Control cause you still win % as long as you stay on the captured point.
In push, you’d make people lose time, you’d die and you’d let your team in 4v5 for next fight, so you potentially offer more time to your enemy. Its a bad move.
Again, if you control the bot but its not moving, its not making you win. (Unless you’re stalling it)
Sorry, I don’t see that as an issue actually. My biggest issue with Control is 99-99 situation. If we could drain enemy %, 99-99 situation would never occur and the team winning would have won more fights and that’s fair to me.
I guess the 18s could come from pushing the bot without the barricade. Yet, the video is unclear as it mixes “controlled” and “pushed”. Cause yeah, control is not pushing, pushing is not making the bot running…
And here the video negligates 2 things : if Super team would have taken the lead, the requiring extra time woud have switched side. It also means Super team have been letting the enemy team pushing something like 90m in a row. Again, if you translate it as number of teamfights ; its a huge stomp or Super team couldn’t set proper actual teamfights (failed to regroup, solo divers, etc… which are mistakes)
If point A is at 100m and you get 2minutes to get there. First team captures 90m but fails.
Team B would have 2 minutes to 90m, not 100m which set the minimal time per meter at 1.33s/m instead of 1.2s/m. Thats how you can tell you have more time. (And we’re not taking overtime in this case cause pretty sure that as long as 2nd team would have someone around, they could push but I’m not 100% sure about that)
And thats what I see as unfair.
And you’re not getting my point. If team A captures 3 points in 2minutes, without overtime, team B can still capture 3 points in 4minutes, because of overtime… Yes, they won’t have more than 1m for round 3 and 4, but it resets everything. It gives the slower team a 2nd chance even if the span between both times is over a minute. The faster team can still lose even if they did better…
And if you wanna go that road, Hybrid is even worse cause if you have no time, you’d still play round 3 to make the game a tie… You know you’ve been slower (so doing worse) and the game still gives you the chance to get a tie…
Okay but the thing is… in push both start at the same point and the advantage has to be taken… You don’t start with it.
If you start running faster and increase the distance between you and your opponent, its fair that your opponent must run quicker then to catch up, no matter how fast you’re running after your sprint…
So again, if the opponent lets you going faster for 200m, he can’t complain he wouldn’t catch you up in the final 200meters…
In Push, if you take the maths with numbers granted by the video and you play the scenario where you lose 1st fight, you win 2nd, you’ll see the 3rd fight would decide who gonna lead. And you can keep going on and on, every fight would matter until 50m-50m.
Where I’d agree, is that in case of 100m-100m, winning just one fight is irrevelant. Yet, you must have been losing a lot to let the barricade come/go to 100m from center ; as beyond 50m-50m you’d need to win 2 consecutive fights to push barricades again (or let one team pushing isntead of fighting).
I think it’s mainly number team fights won after which everything else comes into play. This includes staggers, not playing objective, slow engages. It’s about time in the sense of winning a fight gives you uncontested time to push so you want to avoid wasting that time or giving your opponents more of that time.
In the video, he uses the Super game which is 0-132 with 6:30 left on the clock and how it’s unfair that he is destined to lose this because he needs to control for longer. But is that really true? Let’s say the opposing team won 5 fights in a row then Supers team finally win and take control. Let’s call this an x-fight because it sounds cool (stored in brackets). They get it to the neutral ground. After which Super’s team wins 5 fights. They are now at that same position as the enemy team. Fights won at that point is 5-5 (1-0). Now comes the next fight but this fight has already happened before on the other side. It’s the x-fight. The fight starts at 132-131 because the enemy doesn’t want to give up the lead. Now if Super wins, they win the game with fights going 5-5 (2-0). If Super loses, they enemy pushes them back to neutral ground with fights going 5-5 (1-1).
That sounds very similar to something in Escort and Hybrid. Can’t think of the real term but I’ll call it defenders advantage. Both teams push the payload the same distance but the team defending last can stop it just short of their distance. This way they were both stopped at the same spot but the second defenders win because of that faction of a meter that was insignificant in the first round. This is why these games that start off very one-sided aren’t unfair for the team making a comeback. Or they are, but then so is Hybrid and Escort since someone has to start on defense.
That only applies to games that start of extremely one-sided (~130 meters of distance) and defenders winning the x-fight gets the robot into the neutral. How about one with smaller gaps. If two teams start trading fights in an even game, the first fight is the tie breaker and if ine team manages to win 2 fights in a row they will be winning. But even this get thrown out the window when you consider choke points which in progress sense rounds everything from 20-25 to 25 since why would you defend 5 meter before a choke point. In essence, the it’s about team fight wins.
The 18 seconds:
That 18 seconds is just the product of where the game ended (+the difference in progress). If it had played out for longer and the bot returned to the neutral, Super’s team would have had less time. How you calculate the control time is this:
((b-a)(x_1-x_2)+ay)/(ab)
In which:
a = pushing speed
b = running speed
x_1 = your progress (barricade)
x_2 = opponent progress (barricade)
y = robot position at the end (positive if on the opponent’s side / negative if on your side)
If we assume Super’s opponents push the robot for a second after winning the team fight that would give the time advantage to Super by 18 seconds. Then considering that if the defensive team wins a fight they can get the robot close to neutral area. At that point the team with more progress will have more time spent pushing the robot. In the Super example, if we allow the game to go on until the opponents push the robot back to the middle, Super’s team has 2.3 seconds less control time.
I’m not trying to bring down Gamer Maths but just because someone has the word “maths” in their name doesn’t mean their maths are right.
if you lose a teamfight and the enemy needs to get to their barricade stalling there is worth every second you can get.
the robot will not move if it is contested and will only push when uncontested. so push and uncontested are interchangeable.
the thing is that you say you win the fight at the checkpoint and retake the bot, you have to now win 3 more fights to get to your checkpoint. the reason is any delay of the bot post fight means you are not getting the center checkpoint to reset their spawn. that is 1 fight to take the bot 1 to deny forward spawn 2 fights to get to your checkpoint. this is 4 fights v 2 fights the enemy had to win. this is not just oh you need 1 more fight you need significantly more fights, and due to the speed of the bot pushing without a barricade any lost fight means twice the lost ground. this does not add up.
i have lost games due to ball, mei, reaper, lucio just wasting time. pepoel have not yet realized how powerfull just stalling is.
imagine if standing on the point in control stop the timer ticking up % outside of overtime.
your team does not need to win waiting for you to come back. just stall the fight long enough and let the bot push the least untill you got back.
say your opponent has 90% and you win and now you need to win 1 fight to start making progress on your capture (draining their capture).
if you control the bot you push the bot, how is that confusing. if no one is on the bot no one controls the bot. if both teams are near the bot the bot is contested. how is this hard?
this annoys me Neglects
does not matter. and an issue as well. see OWL championship point match, Shock won the fight in OT and still died shortly after despite being in control due to the fact of exit kills. and an insurmountable spawn difference. the maps are designed badly for OT and balance.
the point is this the team that hold the objective the longest and by winning more fights should win. but in push this is not the case. you can win two fights and lose 1 and lose all the progress you made.
if team As progress was 90m in 2min team B just needs 91m in 2min. dont see the issue. the rate of distance per time is irrelavent as the total distance and time matters. who cares how fast you did it.
overtime is there because the ball is still in play, so to speak. we dont count it because it is not certain there would be any. and most of the time it is not relevant.
no the faster team in the first rounds has to play worse than the slower team in those rounds. overtime in push is very punishing and 1 ult or good play can deny the slower teams ability to make progress.
again no. you both achieved the same amount you both pushed the objective all the way to the end. that is a tie. the overtime round is to see if it should have been a tie or if one team was in fact better.
true, but i was trying to be clear not be relevant to the argument. however once you have said advantage, taken or otherwise the game is not longer a balanced game like the other game modes where you can take a lead, but not an advantage.
this would be true if the bot had 1 speed, but as it has two this isnt, which is why i was trying to explain the difference not to make a point about the argument.
if i lose 3 fights i should not have to win 6 to tie.
Not sure what you mean by “barricade stalling”. I can see the point of stalling the robot, but the barricade ? And even on that, I’ve explained imo its not the best option.
Yes. That’s why I go so much with the soccer/football analogy.
To reach a score of 100m-0m, the leading team had to won a lot of fights, like 5 in a row. When I wrote "1 more fight’ I meant it “one more fight than them”. So to win this game, you’d need to win at least 6 fights in a row.
Maybe. But I see stalling as an endgame option. I mean, were they stalling right away from the start ?
If not, well it means endgame has an impact and its not all about 1st fight.
If yes, well you have 10 minutes to catch back their initial push and you’re guaranteed to be in 4v5 or 1v5 most of the time…
Bot can run, bot can push, bot can stand near a barricade. Its not hard, but the video mixes it all. When the video say “team has been pushing” it mixes time where bot’s running and where Barricade’s moving. And it writes “controlled” which not define uncontested or contested.
Sorry, I should have checked a dictionary, english isn’t my main language =S
The only case I would consider it possible, would imply you let too much time pass after the loss. Have you have more details to help me figure out an other case ?
If you put regularly teamfights, I don’t see how you could lose progress done in a 2-1 situation.
Also be careful about what progress we’re talking about. You don’t lose progress cause barricades don’t slide back. If you mean the bot running, well its not scoring progress. It is progress, and your teamfights are still important. But if you’re led by 4-0, it doesn’t matter if you score only 2 then lose.
In whatever situation, if we go by counting teamfights with X and Y being the scores, and Z the difference (Z = X- Y), you would still need Z+1 won teamfights to win the match. The more fights you lose, the more fights you need to win, to win the game. I don’t see the problem with that.
The faster you go, the more time you have in case of extra rounds… The less you’d get robbed at the end of round 4.
Yes, faster team need to be worse in round 3. My point is, its still one more opportunity to fail, even if you’re already considered as the fastest. The slower team though, has one more opportunity to win, even if they screwed up in first rounds. I don’t feel its fair. Especially cause in OT round 3 and 4, as you mention it, it might take just one ult to cut it.
Okay. I see. In my opinion, as I think Push as scoring teamfights, “taking the lead” will automatically give the “score advantage”. If you win once, the enemy has to win twice to beat you. The more you win, the more it takes to make you lose. This, in my mind, is an advantage. 2-0 will make you closer to win at the end than 1-0. I didn’t mean as “Overwatch in-game logics” advantage.
If you lose 3-0, you’d need 4 fights to win. Pretty sure you can’t tie in Push unless you force it.
At this point, I feel I’d need to setup a whole table to make my point.
But here’s an example on the 3 firsts fights :
Lets say, you lose first fight, you win 2nd.
lets consider 20s between fights (respawn time+time to walk). That lets a lead of ~20m.
You win 2nd fight. You’ll need 24s to take the lead but the team will be back after 20s (according to game maths video). So 3rd fight will decide if you keep pushing and take advantage or losing the Robot and the enemy team would keep pushing for fewer meters.
To be more precise and revelant beyond 3 teamfights, we must consider that the time to walk to the bot decreases and has an impact on how much you can push between 2 teamfights.
Something that the Game maths video totally ignores too.
And here’s my definitive thoughts about Push : imo its fair ; its probably the fairest mode of OW2 right now.
But it is different : it asks people to play the best they can everytime. You do need to regroup properly, you do need to make every teamfight the most perfect you can.
In other modes, you have situations where you can be messy, some fights are more important than others (99-99 in control is the best example)
And I get Push is not fun when you start losing by a lot.
But here what pisses me off. People are trying to blame the gamemode. The more I think about it, the more I feel Push is actually fair, especially when maths are brought into the question. So, why change the gamemode if the problem is how people are playing the mode ?
“if you lose a teamfight and the enemy needs to get to their barricade. stalling there is worth every second you can get.”
but in push you have to win more than = + 1 fights, as i said in my example where you they won 2 you now need to win 4 to tie. and specifically 4 in a row as losing on the 4th fight resets the last 2.
to paraphrase a chess master, if you dont play for the endgame from the beginning you wont reach it.
every second of stall counts. that was the point of the video.
the first part is not relevant. the second is assuming that you have pro play. and even then if they get one pick it is back to 4v4 so either you have to act fast to push the 4v5 which in pro play can easily go wrong or you still lose the 4v5 because they had ults. it is too easy to lose a 4v5.
you push the bot, both when he runs and when he pushes the barricade. plus there are visual and context clues are to the specific meaning.
i know, and i generally dont criticize or correct, but that one got me.
ok let me clarify then, ground will be the bot’s relative position on the map while progress would be the barricade location.
you can win 2 fights making progress then lose 1 fight and lose twice the ground you made up as well as spawn advantage.
if you lose the first two fights you need to win 4 to tie. but lets run it like this.
you lose 2 from the start, they get checkpoint, you win 3 reset the spawn, but never get forward spawn, then lose 2 and they get forward spawn again, you win the next 2 and reset their spawn again but lose on the barricade after getting the forward spawn yourself.
the score in fights now is 5-5.
the bot now is about to rest your forward spawn, and while both of the teams hit the checkpoint you are losing, despite having a higher fights won streak. you can now lose one fight and win 2 only to have the bot make no progress in either direction. this is the issue with this game mode.
basically the 3 fights you won are worth less than the 2 they did, but because you had to spend 2 of those just to reset the ground and spawn captured. and every time you lose now you lose more ground than you gain when winning. meaning that you dont just have to win =+1 you have to win =+ more than one. how is this a competitive game mode.
again we dont care how fast you did it. we care about time uncontested on the objective. the game is who can push the payload the furtherst or who can capture the most of a point, not who can do it the fastest.
so you are against the actual better team winning. you want that F you got in kindergarten to deny you the CEO Job when you are 30. that is what is sound like.
what you are describing here is a lead not an advantage. there are such a thing as insurmountable leads. i once had 6 min to cap point A after the enemy barely capped point B in OT on round 1. but we could have still been tied. i have actually done that too.
if you get an advantage that requires me to do twice the work you did to tie with you, many people would just give up. how often after losing 3 fights in the start of push. most of the losing team leaves in QP. just about 60% of the time at least.
i meant in progress made not in the match as a whole.
you know i stopped playing LOL in 2014 because it was a “fair” mode. that rewarded getting and early lead, and then cruising to victory. push is like that you think it is fair because you dont understand the unfairness it has.
for the sake of argument, (not actual numbers) for every fight you lose when starting in the beginning of the match the opponents get 20s of progress that you need 24s to tie. that is losing 5 fights in a row in the beginning would require 6 fights for you to be on equal ground but not even close to equal progress. how is this a balanced mode. you win 5 i win 6 but i now still have to win 2 more fights so 8-5 to tie you on progress.
this is of course exaggerated, but still accurate in concept.
and yet all the changes made to CP to adjust how it works to account for how people are playing it made the game mode better.
and there is a fundamental issue with the game mode. as previously stated if control required you to drain your opponents progress before making any your own it would be awful, instead it is the equivalent to the bot teleporting to your barricade when you take control of it.
the whole point of the video was how your opponents progress directly affects your progress. where this is not true in any other game mode. if the opponent got 99% and you have 0 all you need is 99% to tie. in Push you need 142% to tie that is asking for a lot.
and yes this is accurate numbers as the bot runs 3 times as fast as it pushes the barricade.
would you not blame the mode when a lead is insurmountable due to the fact that you need to do 33% more work than your opponent.
Lets consider a map of 110m length with the bot at the center.
Bot is at 55m from each spawn.
Heroes run at 5.5m/s according to wiki.
Barricade moves at 1.04m/s. Bot runs at 5,28m/s (video numbers)
Respawn times is 10s.
Walking time and when fights happen :
Respawn time + Xs. X is calculated when (X x 5.5) > (55-barricade distance+X*1.04)
To calculate the distance pushed between 2 fights :
(10+X)*barricade speed
Time to reach barricade :
(barricade distance + 6 (neutral ground)) (3 if its the first push of the game) / bot running speed
1-0 → A wins by 19m The 2nd fight happens 16s after the first.
2-0 → A win by 33.56m. 3rd fight happens 13s after the 2nd.
2-1 → Bot runs to Barricade B in 7.49s. 4th fight happens 19s after the 3rd. Team B pushes 11.97m (note team B has more time before A can come contest)
2-2 → B is at 27.57m. 5th fight happens 15s after the 4th.
2-3 → B is at 41.09m. 6th fight happens 13s afther the 5th.
There, you dont need to win 4 times to comeback from a 2-0.
Here are the closest maths I can get. I have no idea from where your thought it would be 2-4 come, I have no idea how you can drop “142%”.
Of course, it suppose the team are capable to regroup and fight as soon as they meet the Robot.
I suppose also when a fight is won, the whole losing team either retreat to regroup or wipe at the same time. I don’t consider teamfights duration cause if you sum it up, 3-2 can be achieved in very few time compared to the 10minutes the gamemode gives you. The time between fights is mentionned to help understand from where the distance come.
Also, I considered there was no other way from spawn to bot other than the barricade way. On maps we have, Barricades ways are actually longer but pretty sure the distance spawn-robot is inferior.
I also give the formula and the numbers. If you think about a situation the maths show how “unfair” it is, feel free to make the maths.
By the way, it comes a distance between Barricades where teams would need to win consecutive fights to push the barricade. So keep that in mind if you take a big distance between barricades.
So once again, maths tend to prove the gamemode is actually fair. So when someone complains about it, they’re just finding excuses cause they can’t play well.
Controlling the point in Control basicaly puts a clock on your opponent’s head. They have less and less opportunities to win. You’ll have more opportunities to capture back, the later they succeed to capture.
In Escort, I won’t come on this again. Team A winning 3-0 makes team B scoring 3 to tie, otherwise its a loss. Its not the same pressure if team A gets no capture.
So yeah,in escort, its fair if team A win 3-0, you have to win 3 points. When it comes to push, where you need to win 3 fights when you have lost 2, its unfair. lol.
you forgot to account to the forward spawn when hitting the halfway point at 27.5
so we are 3-2 but the distance pushed after 2 fights won in a row for team A is 33.56m and for team B it is 27.57.
for ease of math say bot pushes at 1m/s that is despite there being a tie team B is 6s behind Team A. i have lost games on less than a second. and you want me to be 6s behind and not be frustrated.
you are right i had it wrong it is 120% of the effort20% to return to starting ground + 100% of the opponents completion.
your own math doesnt. not only did it not account for the forward spawn, it showed that winning the same amount of fights still puts you behind your opponents if you lost the first fight.
yes but it doesnt make it slower for them to gain progress after they got control of the point. less opportunity to win is not the same as less ability to win.
how is the preassure to succeed in any way relevant.
yes, it is not like you werent there for them pushing it. you failed to fully defend now you need to fully complete the payload. you have the same amount of time and distance to cover it.
Actual maps are longer than 110m. I took 110m cause I wanted to make spawn-center 20s of hero run, arbitrary. I thougt it was easier to apprehend rather than a 15.6s something.
I can tell on Esperança Spawn-center is actually shorter cause we could stop the Barricade around 15m in some games.
To take adv spawn in consideration you’d need to make sure what’s the distance adv spawn-checkpoint. For that, the easiest (but I’m too lazy for it) would be to take actual maps values.
You wanna claim that point, I’ll wait some maths and actual infos. I proved my point about fairness and “first fight” problem.
If adv spawn is a problem, its more a level design problem rather than a game mode problem.
In a 2-2 situation, yes, team A has still the lead. But lets be honest. No game would have exactly 50% teamfights winrate for 10 min straight. And you have to be better to win, not as good as your opponents… Again, do you win a soccer match with a 2-2 score ?
And again, ppl complain about “first fight” and “snowbally effect”. Here you have an example you can turn the tables even after a 2-0, and it doesn’t require 4 won fights as you mentionned before…
You forget Overtime. If you control the robot, you won’t lose by 1s as overtime will grant you more time. If you won a Teamfight, you’ll get something between 12 and 20s of free push. If you have to push 6m, it will let you between 6 and 14s of robot running : 31.68m and 73.5m (The time depends onthe bot position, the closer to your spawn, the more time you’ll have).
I’m not sure why “20%”. You can’t compare times and distances cause you don’t fight for any second or any meter. Winning a teamfight grants you “free” time and therefore distance. If you struggle for each meter, that means the teamfight is still going or you got some 3v3 situation or sthg.
The robot runs 5 times faster than it pushes. When you stop the enemy barricade, the game offers you at least 50m of robots running. So as long as those “20%” are under 50m, it’d still require you one fight. For 50m being 20%, it means the barricade has been pushed for 250m, which is way bigger than actual maps ask for (and tbh if you lose by 250m, man its not a stomp anymore, its a burial).
I never said it would take a tie to take the lead.I’ve always said you need +1 won teamfight.
Push has very low chance to be 50-50 for 10 minutes. And its not the situations that people are complaining about. Again, the video game maths takes litteral stomps and people agrees with it. Now my maths are showing you can comeback after 2-0 and you object about a insanely close game ? At this point, I hope we can agree that game maths video is garbage and shouldn’t be quoted anymore.
And I’m not sure Game Maths takes advanced spawn in consideration, there are no mention of it. The video just ignores everything regarding respawn and time to walk.
Again, that’s what Push is compared to other modes. Push asks people to win most teamfights in a 10 min game.
Other modes are more about “winning at the right time”. That doesn’t make Push unfair, that makes it different and maybe, for some ppl, less fun.