All players who tell others what to do/how to play should be able only to play against each other. Imagine amount of whining about others performance, complaining about suboptimal comps, demands to play this or that and rage when they can’t get what they want. I would happily pay to watch that.
If you’re playing the objective and are not being constantly shut down I don’t care. But if you’re all the way in back taking potshots at people and leaving the team 5v6 or constantly getting dived and killed, I’ll ask you to switch. If you respond “It’s just QP who cares”, I’m reporting.
I’m not reporting you for playing Hanzo, or playing badly. I’m reporting you for not playing the objective and blowing off your team.
(Although, if our team is Widow/Hanzo/Genji on attack, I am calling you out at the start of the match)
1 Like
Widow, Hanzo and Genji are not that bad to be fair.
On attack snipers are more consistent and reliable. Plus especially in QP, this comp usually works, unless some crybaby decides to play DPS Ana and refuses to cooperate due to “bad picks”.
The only times I’ve ever won with those three getting autolocked is when the other team was getting steamrolled and losing 3-4v6.
Losing is part of game. When there’s a winner, there’s a loser.
I don’t understand why some people expect to win every match and get mad for losing.Just have fun, even if match is going to result in a loss.
1 Like
funny joke
No it doesn’t. It falls under “poor game play” - oh wait, that’s not a reportable category…
2 Likes
Common misconception in these kinds of discussions.
We don’t expect to win every match. We expect our teammates to not sabotage our matches.
A won match because the enemy team had an ignorant anti-teamplayer is just as bad as a lost match because our team had an ignorant anti-teamplayer.
You don’t say, Sherlock.
Let me rephrase my statement:
It’s not like we want to handcuff everybody. It’s just like we need some MORE rules if people just act selfishly at the expense of others.
So? Insults are subjective. What one deems an insult, another may not.
Declaring an incident subjective does not strip you from your very own responsibility to behave yourself amongst others.
I answered to him according to what I think his intended sentiment was. I’m sure he can answer by himself if he feels misunderstood.
I don’t really mind what you think his intended sentiment here was or what you think my intended sentiment here was regarding a response towards another person.
I have no problem if you don’t try your very best. I have a problem if you don’t try. Handicapping yourself at the expense of others is clearly the opposite of trying.
Being too literal can sometimes deter you from understanding the actual point.
Which was that BearPit tried to justify poor behavior by money he put in, disregarding the fact that his teammates also put money in.
You see my point but you stand by a statement that disregards or even contradicts that point?
It was both.
Disregarding and thereby sabotaging (reportable offense, btw) your team in any teamgame is poor teamwork. It doesn’t become better teamplay or less sabotage by the fact that it was ALSO poor game play.
How does your hypothetical example matter when it is way more realistic that she won’t have all the gold medals and actually is a detriment to their team?
There seem to be a few things mixed up here. So let me try and clarify the terms as well as my stance here:
- A handicap is ANY disadvantage that makes success more difficult.
- There is no implification about whether success is accomplished or not. You can be successful with a handicap and you can be unsuccessful with a handicap. It is still less likely to be successful with a handicap than without a handicap.
- There is no implification about how or if people perceive an increase in difficulty. You or others may not notice at all that there was a handicap involved. But you or others may as well notice that a handicap was involved and they may suffer from the unvoluntary increase of difficulty you posed on them.
(Let me know if/how you disagree on any of these bullet points or if anything about them seems unclear or arguable. The following conclusions expect that the above bullet points are the premises. It would be a waste of time to argue about them before finding an agreement towards the premises.)
Statement 1:
By this statement a handicap cannot be declared as subjective. Either you do have a disadvantage or not.
So if you have two different tools A and B that have their applications in different situations (i.e. there is a set P of situations where tool A is more suitable than tool B and a set Q of situations where tool B is more suitable than tool A) then restricting yourself to only using either tool A OR tool B exclusively will inevitably lead you to having a disadvantage when facing a situation of set Q resp. situation of set P.
So factually a BattleMercy player poses themself at a disadvantage that makes it more difficult to win, thus handicaps themself.
Statement 2:
A godlike BattleMercy does not “undo” the handicap they posed on themself by being successful. It doesn’t matter if they are the best on their team even with their handicap. They still have a handicap because they still only use either tool A or tool B exclusively. No matter the match outcome.
If you say “they aren’t the handicap to themselves or the team” it seems like you use the word handicap rather with the meaning of “scapegoat” or maybe “bottleneck”. Then sure, a person who manages to carry despite their handicap is obviously not the bottleneck or the mechanically worst player of the team. And sure, in colloquial speech you may say: “This player was clearly not handicapped/not our team’s handicap because they contributed so much to the team. They literally carried us.”. Still doesn’t change a single bit about the fact that there was a handicap involved that made success more difficult to achieve. You may point to another player who turned out to contribute less eliminations and say he is the real handicap or bottleneck of the team. Guess what, still doesn’t change that the BattleMercy handicapped themself and thereby posed a handicap on their team. Doesn’t mean it has to be the only handicap or that some of their teammates didn’t bring their own handicaps. But handicap remains handicap, no matter if they carry or not.
Statement 3:
This is where subjectivity begins to matter:
People may not notice at all that BattleMercy handicapped themself. Their teammates may not even notice that the match was more difficult. They may not even think about a handicap being involved. In this case, yes, the perceived handicap is subjectively non existent. Perfect situation for everyone - nobody would even think about reporting. Because why would they, if they don’t suffer from another player’s inflexibility/stubbornness.
On the other hand, the team may as well notice a dramatic increase in difficulty. They may suffer from their teammate Mercy handicapping themself to a degree where they can neither reasonable fulfill a healer nor a dps role in their team, which can be just as impactful as a teammate being afk in spawn.
However, you can’t deny the factual handicap in either situation (see Statement 1).
It may not feel like a handicap to yourself.
It may not feel like a handicap to your teammates.
But it may as well feel like a handicap to your teammates.
And if you are a little self-aware it may also feel like a handicap to yourself.
Nope.
What I report is game sabotage, which is a reportable offense.
Regardless of match outcome - yes.
Regardless of performance - no. To me, performance includes teamwork. If it works with the team in the very situation, it’s good performance/teamplay (why would I report good teamplay?). If it doesn’t work with the team while it is clear that something else would work better, it’s clearly sabotage due to stubbornness/ignorance/whatever (why wouldn’t I report game sabotage?).
Again… carry != no handicap involved. You can theoretically handicap yourself and still carry. I hope my above statements clarified that. If not, please refer to what statement you don’t agree with.
For extra clarification: Any Battle Mercy (i.e. only dps, no healing) poses a handicap onherself. I never stated or implied that a Battle Mercy carrying wasn’t a handicap.
Alright, but if both of them are at the same skill level, I don’t see how one only dpsing would be considered better than the other one shooting AND healing. (See my conclusions about Statement 1.)
If your comparison implies that one is tilted and the other not, sure, you would assume that the non-tilted player usually performs better. But if you compare a non-tilted BattleMercy with a non-tilted Mercy at the same skilllevel and a tilted BattleMercy with a titled Merce at the same skilllevel, there is no reason to prefer the handicapped BattleMercy.
It is. As my examples are an attempt at finding out what your stance exactly is on the matter and as the school kid’s behavior is just a means to turn a blind eye to responsibilities.
If you say “it is NO MORE childish” it seems like you agree though that it is actually childish to escape into that bubble and try to counter my point by turning it into an ad hominem as opposed to disproving it…
There is no made up rule here.
Just as you can sabotage yourself by pretending you really tried to do your homework while playing Overwatch without breaking any rule. As long as you only sabotage yourself/your future life, I don’t care.
But as soon as you sabotage me/my team, I’m afraid you can’t continue staying in your bubble insisting that everything within the rules means you did good teamwork or “actually tried to win”.
Wow. You sure told me. Tough guy.
Still feel punked whenever someone tries to hoax me with the same reoccurring fallacies. What’ya gonna do…?
You are free to concentrate on the numerous facts and arguments I provided as opposed to “debunking” each feeling or impression I have as “non factual” and “irrelevant to the matter”. Thanks very much, but I don’t need to be told that my feelings are subjective.
This is a discussion about how the rules should be. Not about how they currently are. Look at the name of the topic.
Following some arbitrary rules doesn’t automatically make everything right that is not covered by them. Hence the objection towards the current rules.
By the amount of times you quoted that one sentence of me one should think you would have read it by now.
“when your hero choice doesn’t allow you to TRY to complete map objectives”
I seriously don’t know if you’re just trolling at this point or if you really missed the word “try” in my sentence. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I beg to differ regarding “trying is irrelevant in a statement about trying”.
Let’s be brutally honest here, quick play is exactly the way it is titled. A quick matchup to play the objective and have fun. Competitive is also easily defined by the title.
So at what point in the title do you see “you must play this comp, or this layout, or move this way to play here because winning is everything”. Sadly, thats not the case, sure people like to win at QP, but that doesn’t mean anyone has any say over how they should play their game in a “quick matchup to play the game and have fun” situation.
You’re also arguing that in a game mode where matchmaking is completely substandard and not really reliable. There is no room for elitist attitudes and toxic behavior because someone wants to win. You automatically assume people are not trying to win because they aren’t doing what YOU think or want them to do. Please, get over that hurdle on your own and have fun in the game.
2 Likes
sabotage.verb
deliberately destroy, damage, or obstruct (something), especially for political or military advantage.
There, now that that is out of the way, I’ll begin my response.
I see you have taken the petty route. Doesn’t surprise me.
Disagree.
Choosing a 5th or 6th DPS isn’t misbehaving. It’s their chosen hero in a casual gaming atmosphere. The one that they want to try and win with. Don’t like it? Tough. You’re free to fill whatever void you feel is created.
Anytime you play a hero that you are less than intimate with, you are then “handicapping” yourself at the expense of others, correct? Guess we need to all play our most played heroes in QP less we handicap our team by playing someone else?
Makes zero sense in what you quoted this to
I addressed this further down in my post when I stated “quasi-concede”. Read the whole post before replying.
No, it was solely poor game play unless you were deliberately trying to feed. See above definition of “sabotage”.
The same way your asinine examples happen on a probably scale of similar.
She could have made success more difficult by healing a DPS unable to hit the broad side of a barn rather than just kill the enemy herself. Thus, healing would’ve been the handicap…
See above statement.
See above.
See above
See above, but I’m tired of typing that, so I’ll use this time to clarify a moment. The amount of time healing, in this case, is time not spent DPSing. Thus, the act of healing is handicapping your team’s success chances because it is time that you aren’t “carrying the team”. Healing a worthless DPS is worthless time spent.
See above definition of sabotage. Specifically the qualifying word “deliberate”.
But didn’t you say that they are handicapping your team? So, even though they performed well, according to you and your examples, they were still a handicap. Didn’t you define handicapping your team as poor teamwork worthy of a report? Seems like you just want to report people when you lose because that’s the type of person you are… the type that has to lay blame somewhere other than self.
But you won’t report them for being successful. You and your team sucked, and were carried by a Battle Mercy who “handicapped” the team by being a Battle Mercy. But, because you won, you’re happy to move on with your life. Sad
See my example above for time spent healing vs dps’ing to a battle mercy…
But that’s what you want. People to not play what they want in order to fill the role that you left void. You want your extra tanks and healers to be tilted b/c that is clearly the role/hero they don’t want to play based on their initial selection that you didn’t conform to, either.
Is not.
I addressed all your asinine examples. I did oppose them. I also addressed your bubble issue.
Again, I’ve been addressing your statement of hero selection pretty much this whole time. The hero someone chooses is not a deliberate act to sabotage your game. However, the grief that you likely give them in chat for taking that 5th or 6th DPS spot instead of switching yourself IS deliberately trying to sabotage their mental state, thus their level of play, thus the team as a whole. Just fill the void yourself and move on… geez, stop being so selfish…
Really? Where did this come from? Because I don’t care about your feelings? I’m sorry… would you like a hug?
Offer you a hug.
Then stop bringing your feelings into the discussion. I, nor anyone else in life except your momma care about them. I will still offer you that hug, though.
This is a discussion about how you made a statement about hero selection inhibiting completion of an objective… to which you still have not provided an example.
Yes, again, please… PLEASE give me an example where the hero choice doesn’t allow you to TRY and complete map objective. I’m begging you at this point to give me JUST ONE example of where the hero choice doesn’t allow you to TRY and complete the map objectives… JUST ONE. I don’t know how you missed my question. When the HERO choice doesn’t allow you to try… (hint: all hero choices regardless of current comp or opponent comp can try).
Still offering you that hug…
I make good pics in comp. I don’t want to have to be the guide in QP, too. Buy a mic for like $20 if you want the comp experience. I try to win in QP, but I don’t want to have to be the guy that always has to play support or tanks in QP.
Instead of writing essays about irrelevant stuff, how about just having fun?
Instead of declaring essays you didn’t read or understand irrelevant and twisting peoples’ words so they seem like people who can’t handle a defeat, how about you either grapple with the discussion or go and have fun somewhere else (e.g. Arcade/Deathmatch)?
Interesting that you of all people it’s you who says that.
Considering that I said “we need some rules to prevent X” and you got nothing better to respond than a petty "we already do have rules, however I disregard the fact that they don’t cover X, so it seems like I still have something relevant to bring to the table.
Textbook example of projection.
So you are fine with people acting selfishly at the expense of others or do you have another method than rules to conquer selfish behavior?
It is not in every situation. But it can be.
Do us all the favor and don’t take the petty route. Just when something can’t be called misbehavior in every single situation it doesn’t mean it’s ok to do it in the situation where it actually is misbehavior.
Or the one they want to try and throw with.
Depends on the situation, so not “anytime”.
Situation A: Your favorite hero is hardcountered to the point where you can’t do (barely) anything, your less played hero is not hardcountered, you could do something.
Situation B: Your favorite hero is not countered, your less played hero would either be hardcountered or not hardcountered but less viable in the situation.
Obviously you’re not handicapping anyone by switching to a hero you can do more with in situation A.
Why did I expect you to get this when you didn’t get my point towards BearPit’s post in the first place…
What I was saying: When you concentrate on the petty route and on how some expressions are subjective when you look at their literal meaning, you can deter you from understanding what the actual point was. Just as you did.
See, I don’t know what you mean by “quasi-condede”. Do you concede or disagree? Or neither?
My Tracer example showed you how someone with 4 gold medals can be perceived as productive, however was in fact detrimental to their team. You see that point but deny that the same could have happened with a BattleMercy situation. Why?
Just stating that she had key gold metrics doesn’t save your statement from my refutal, as my Tracer example showed me having key gold metrics despite being the opposite of a productive/viable team member.
I was deliberately ignoring my team. How can you consider that good or any teamwork at all?
You have to let it go, kiddo.
I was using asinine examples to find out which level of asinine behavior you still consider teamwork.
You are using asinine examples to prove that a Battle mercy couldn’t possibly be considered a handicap.
So I see you agree that a handicap is ANY disadvantage (whether it’s healing in a situation where you should kill OR killing in a situation where you should heal) that makes success more difficult? Did I understand that correctly?
Wait a second. In your above statement you declared that the handicap in that specific situation was healing rather than using the gun. This doesn’t contradict my statement that “It is still less likely to be successful with a handicap than without a handicap”. Did I understand that correctly or do you disagree?
What about the rest of statement 2 considering that “handicap” doesn’t imply anthing about success? Do you agree or disagree?
Come on…I know it’s satisfying to quote a few sentences and just repeat “see above”. But please look closely.
Your above statement doesn’t contradict or verify my statement that “you or others may as well notice that a handicap was involved and they may suffer from the unvoluntary increase of difficulty you posed on them.”
In fact your statement is completely unrelated, as it doesn’t even touch the matter of how people perceive a handicap. It just refers to my statement 1. So please tell me if you agree or disagree with my statement 3.
We’re getting closer…
Price question: How do you as a player know if an action of someone else in your team or in the enemy team was deliberate?
Yes, they are handicapping my team.
Why or how would I report them if I don’t perceive it as handicap?
It’s weird that you would think that when I just told you this:
Please refrain from ad hominem stuff here unless you want to imply that you ran out of actual, relevant arguments. It’s not helping at all. Neither the argument nor your credibility.
Please also refrain from telling me what I want. You obviously don’t know anything about that.
You gotta come up with something more than just negating what I said without grappling with the reason/actual argument I added after it.
You addressed the bubble, yes. You addressed it by calling it “no more childish than the asinine examples you have littered our conversation with”, thereby unvoluntarily(?) agreeing that it is childish to escape into that bubble (“no more childish” = still childish).
You addressed it with “there is no bubble because you made up rules”, which is wrong as there are no made up rules in this discussion. So do you want to make a serious attempt at disproving the bubble without ad hominem?
I don’t know. From the bottom of your angry gut? From your ad hominem dictionary?
Oh, I can live with you telling me my feelings are subjective or that you don’t care about them. It’s just that it doesn’t bring anything to the table. So regard it as a hint for you to not continue wasting your and my time by repeating that over and over again.
You didn’t try to disprove my quote, so I take that as a “yes, I understand that this is a discussion about how the rules should be. Not about how they currently are.”, which makes all points you’re trying to make about “but I followed the rules” invalid.
I take that as a “yes, trying is actually relevant to what you stated”.
So, what exactly about this part don’t you understand?
Rules do cover “X” - and you abuse the rules by reporting “Y”. “Y” which is defined as a non-reportable problem. Text book example of “Waaaa - they didn’t play the hero/role I wanted them to, but I didn’t fill it either and we lost, so ‘Waaa’”
I don’t think that people choosing a hero/role they want to play is selfish. I think you attempting to dictate they play said hero/role or risk your report “if we lose” as selfish.
You make me laugh. You already went there…
Re-read that sentence to yourself aloud and then try not to laugh at how stupid it sounds. You really are grasping at straws.
We already agreed that throwing is reportable. And it is also hero-independent. You can’t gauge “throwing” by whom they choose, only the actions they perform. Stay on task - the only reason I’m even wasting my time on you is because you said… oh, well, you know what you said, I’ve quoted it in almost every reply.
So pick a hero that counters my counter and let me work. You selfish .
But I don’t know how to play that hero at all. Or on a level way below my skill level of Situation A. Maybe my main is a low mechanical skill hero and my hero B requires mechanical skill that I don’t have. So, 0 of A = 0 of B. Why not just stay on A where I can potentially do great things if it opens up. In fact, why don’t you switch to something that opens up room for my hero A and let me do my work.
You do realize you have replied to my replies to other people, too… right? What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
Which seems to be your style…
Make a statement then that is not a hyperbole, and you won’t encounter this issue. Rules (or the proposal there of) aren’t going to be written in hyperboles. They are going to be literal. Which, when making an argument or a case for something, is a tactic you should actually try to do… just as you haven’t.
It means in some cases you may have a point, but in our hypothetical situation, it was not. But on a whole, I could see situations that you were right… just not this one. Ergo, I “quasi-concede” (but still stand by my statement, as my statement wasn’t one of the times I agreed).
Do to bad game play. My Battle Mercy situation won the game. Your Tracer example lost the game. See the difference now?
You were deliberately trying to carry out your role as a flanker. You just sucked at it do to poor game (sense/play). Unless you were deliberately trying to feed? Did you consciously say “I’m going to go in and feed the enemy ults”? If you did, then you should be reported for game sabotage. If not, then you just had poor game sense/play and shouldn’t be reported. You don’t strike me as the person to deliberately feed, but we all have times that our game sense/play isn’t our strongest (which is why it isn’t reportable).
One, not a “kiddo” - likely significantly older than you.
Two, your use of asinine examples set the tone as someone to not really be taken seriously. And again, I only engaged you because of your use of verbiage where you state that the hero prevents you from being able to try and complete map objectives. Throwing is a given. Hero choice is not. Still waiting for that example, btw.
No, I was taking your point and arguing against it while using it. Common debate tactic; does not equate to agreeing. Just using your own position against you. So no, you did not understand that correctly.
See above statement
I already addressed the “handicap” issue for a Battle Mercy. You are stating there is a handicap based on lack of full use of kit. I took your side and showed that healing, in and of itself, is the handicap. Therefor, they did “undo” the handicap that you posed on them. Do you understand why I emphasized the word “you” in the preceding statement? Do you understand why my position is that all “handicaps” are perceived, and thus subjective? You are simply projecting your opinions on how a hero should be played… nothing more, nothing less.
Agreed
this statement. Almost sums up everything I’ve been saying.
Went back and re-read just the first sentence and can conclude that I disagree based on perception of handicap - see below:
Because she didn’t handicap herself. You project your opinion that she did.
There are acts of blatantness (sic - but for emphasis). A Symm tele off a cliff - obvious trolling/throwing. Jumping off a cliff all game. Running into the enemy waving “hello”. I mean, I really don’t have the time to list them all, but you see the point. If it isn’t blatant, then you are assuming negative intent. That’s a crappy life to live, especially in a video game. You may live a happier life if you “always assume positive intent”. Your Tracer example of yourself, you weren’t trying to throw the game or trying to feed. You thought, at the time, you were playing hard and trying to win. If I’m wrong, then you should’ve been reported for throwing. But again, you don’t seem like the type of person that was intentionally throwing the game. Your intent wasn’t malicious (I hope), just misguided.
My mistake. But, either way, the Battle Mercy is getting reported, right? Per you, they are handicapping themselves by not using their full kit or abilities. Regardless of performance, you won’t report them, but win or lose, you will report them… I mean, per you didn’t they make it harder to win whether you perceived it or not (see your own quote about perception - what was it… Statement 3 above?)
No, just still waiting for you to provide a proof for your theorem regarding hero choice and how it can cause you to not try to complete and objective… it gets frustrating. Doesn’t mean I can’t make assumptions about what type of person you are because of it. Actually, the correct word for me there is “presumption” since I’m making that guess based off statements you have made in these posts.
You want people to “not be selfish” in choosing their hero and instead to choose the hero based on what you perceive the current need is. Right? Isn’t that this whole debate? So yes, I stand by my statement unless you can clarify otherwise (you know, by something along the lines of providing that example I’m still waiting for).
It was for humor. Obviously over your head… my bad, I’ll tone it down a notch for you.
Incorrect. Actually “No more childish” means “My Statement” <= “Your statement” in childishness - just means that it can’t exceed it in childishness, but doesn’t specify it can’t be less than.
Really, “Sherlock”, “Kiddo”, the “asinine examples to…” - you really are a funny person.
Neither does you bringing your feelings to the table…
No, this (meaning the interaction between you and I) only exists because I asked for clarity into a scenario in which (I know you’ve been waiting for it… so here it is!..)
to which I’m still waiting for you to provide what that situation is in which the choice of hero doesn’t allow you to try…
I understand it completely as a tactic for you to use in which you don’t have to provide the scenario that you know you can’t. I can’t make it any simpler for you. Use any definition of “trying” you want, and tell me, how the choice prohibits you from trying. My definition of “trying” is irrelevant. I gave you full reign to provide the scenario that exists (though likely doesn’t) in which the CHOICE prevents you from TRYING.
You want that hug? I feel like you need that hug…
2 Likes
QP is for playing the game as it is supposed to be; using team comps that have good synergy between heroes, playing for objectives, contestin, counterpicking and switching when you are countered.
Comp is to take it to the next level, but it doesn’t mean that QP is meant to goof around. You have Arcade or Custom Games for that.
How people don’t get this, is beyond me.
2 Likes
Alright well let’s see here.
And what do you mean by that? That we should report based on hero pick? It’s almost as if they said that HERO CHOICE ISN’T REPORTABLE
If you mean that you want a tank or healer, go that yourself. There are plenty of tanks and healers that can function on their own if you are so deadset on having a tank.
You know the saying “You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink”? That’s essentially what’s going on here, you can recommend they play at least 1 tank or healer, but no matter what you can’t FORCE them to play a character they don’t want to play.
They already do that. Just because it’s with a 5 DPS comp doesn’t mean that they aren’t playing the objective. There are also plenty of reason that could make them not be on the point but still playing the objective, such as a tracer diving the backline or maybe Widow staying back and sniping. So what exactly do you mean by “playing the objective” technically, them trying to eliminate the enemy team is them “playing the objective” because you need to eliminate the other team before you can take the point.
Don’t now what this means, but as I explained above there are plenty of reasons to NOT be on the point while still trying to take it. If someone forgets to contest in OT then that’s just bad play, which is NOT reportable.
I hate this idea. Yes, counterpicking does exist, but that doesn’t mean just picking them will result in a win or you doing better.
Let’s say I’m playing Genji and the enemy team has a winston. By the counterpicking logic, I should be able to go Reaper and beat up the Winston, but wait now I’m being countered by the enemy Widow, so I have to go back to Genji, but then they have a Moira etc. etc.
It’s never ending cycle, characters have multiple counters, and most of the time the enemy team is bound to have one. Also how are you ever going to get better at character if you just wuss out every single time someone picks a character? One of my friends pays Bastion in QP, and he got better by learning how to outplay Genji’s and Tracers without someone babysitting him. YOU CAN LEARN TO OUTPLAY YOUR COUNTERS.
Comp. is for trying to try your absolute hardest to win and nothing else. QP is for people who want to have a more casual experience without having to deal with team mates trying to dictate their every move.
Custom Games and arcade are for when you want to play “Overwatch, with a twist!”. What if they just want to play Overwatch, with standard rules, but playing the character thet want? You think anyone is going to join that custom game? The answer is no.
How people like you get so worked up over quick play is beyond me.
3 Likes
have you ever heard of comp?
Then go practice in it if you don’t care.
I literally report anyone that says ‘It is just QP’ under poor teamwork.
2 Likes
I can’t count the number of times I ended up playing a tank/heal for the sake of a decent comp and in hopes someone would want to heal/tank too. DPS pretty much always insta locks, so I’m gonna have to say: Congrats on your ability to ignore META group comp and play what you want, I wish I could.
I do enjoy Tanking and Zen/Moira Healing/DPSing, but how else am I really going to practice unless I play something else in non-arcade PVP?
Also, in my experience, when I hear “It’s just QP”, it’s mostly in response to some aggressive behavior starting to pop out, like: Calm down, it’s just QP.
Everyone should know better and never tell a aggravated person to calm down in that manner though 
1 Like
It’s almost as if you didn’t read the thread title:.
It’s “It’s just QP” SHOULD be punishable.
not
“It’s just QP” IS punishable.
Even if we assume “rules do cover X, rules do not cover Y” and I say “we need rules to cover Y”, your response “we do have rules that cover X” makes no sense and lies in the realm of petty.
By the way, I don’t know where the idea comes from that all people who strive for a good teamcomp don’t “fill either”. It’s not true. And those black sheep who actually don’t fill either don’t defy the purpose of this argument.
People neglecting teamwork in a teamgame is selfish.
So are you fine with people acting selfishly at the expense of others or not?
Yes or no? (Note that this question is solely about whether you are fine with selfish people acting seflishly at the expense of others being unpunished not about what you perceive selfish.)
Doesn’t mean you can’t do more with that hero than the nothingness you can do with your hardcountered one-trick hero. Bonus: When you switch more often to that hero, you will quickly learn to be effective with him as well.
Maybe it’s the other way around.
Maybe your hero B requires mechanical skill that you don’t have but hero C requires not as much mechanical skill for you to be more viable in the current situation.
Because your potential is futile whenever the situation counters your potential to a point where it never “opens up”.
Heros in Overwatch are balanced in a rock-paper-scissors-way for a reason. Counterpicking IS a thing in this game. This isn’t CS or CoD.
I do. But when I notice that I switched for the 3rd time in the match and you still fail to bring anything to the table while being too smug to even try another hero, it becomes apparent that the situation requires more than 5 people working around one pighead, i.e. a full team working together.
I see a difference that doesn’t justify calling one a productive teammember and the other not. Already told you that the outcome (won the game vs. lost the game) is irrelevant. Both had poor teamwork (which is more than poor play, i.e. having bad aim).
I conciously said: “I’m going in now and don’t wait for my team to catch up.”. This is not my “role as a flanker”, nor was it good or any teamwork.
In other words you did not agree to my statement 1.
However, you didn’t say anything that contradicts my statement that “A handicap is ANY disadvantage that makes success more difficult.”.
So the question remains: Do you agree with that statement or not? And if you disagree, for what reasons?
Alright, so you didn’t agree to my statement 2 either.
Since you wrote no statement that even tried to contradict my statement 2, the question still remains: Do you agree with that statement or not? And if you disagree, for what reasons?
That was not the question.
The question was if you agree about my statement that the term “handicap” doesn’t imply anthing about success. Just that! Not if a handicap can be defined as “lack of full use of kit”, not if “in situation X, healing is the handicap”. Just if you agree that “handicap” doesn’t imply anything about success. Yes or no? And if no, for what reasons?
No, because you didn’t take an actual stance on my statements 1-3 yet, which could possibly tell me why your position is that way.
Alright, so the first sentence of my statement 3 would be:
“There is no implification about how or if people perceive an increase in difficulty.”
So you disagree with that for what reasons? How does the term “handicap” imply how or if people perceive an increase in difficulty? Please elaborate.
Alright, so you only know if an action of someone else in your team or in the enemy team was deliberate if it is an extreme action you consider blatant? Did I understand that correctly?
Yes. But why or how should I report them if I don’t perceive it?
You can make assumptions all day as long as you keep them to yourself. Being frustrated is no excuse to turn an argument ad hominem.
Thanks, appreciate it.
You notice though that you’re posting in a topic that’s called ““It’s just QP” should be punishable” and that by that you’re responding within a discussion about how the rules should be and not how the rules currently are?
And you notice that abiding by rules because they have been defined by the developers of the game has no value in this discussion?
That was not the question.
The question was what about my quote you don’t understand. Not what else you impute me.