"OW2 less strategic and deathmatchy"

I don’t have to be critical of something that’s better which OW2 is, it’s very obvious that you don’t have what it takes to understand OW2 let alone OW1.

1 Like

Nah because you drink all the koolaid Blizzard gives you and anything they do is the best thing ever.

It’s why you’re gushing over OW2, it’s absolutely perfect in your eyes.

It’s okay though, you’re an intern, so I understand.

Are you really that incapable of comprehending that people can have opinions that you disagree with?

1 Like

holy smokes man that is so accurate. this is the only reason I still play rein in OW1 because people do crap like this
have you seen brigs run their face into a rein before? because I have

1 Like

They do though, atleast in EU. QP matches of OW1 people often combo ultimates and work together. It’s not every match but it’s sure enough to give it it’s own feel.

OW2 in my 20-30 or so hours in the 2 BETAs, there hasn’t been a single bit of teamwork period outside of 1 match where I followed my Rein on Mei so I could actually get value on her.
It always ends up just being a frag fest and reminded me of the way I would play a COD match. Dead silence VoIP only interrupted by people flaming focusing on nothing but fragging and the enemy was the same. The most teamwork you’d see is a nano-blade or someone using the “group up” button. Never was there proper combo’d ults, enemies didn’t engage together, teammates didn’t engage together, no shields blocking abilities to keep teammates alive or anything I’ve come to love from OW.

Just a zen in the back yeeting orbs, a sniper somewhere playing Quake and a Soldier/Sojourn on highground #456 or hyper mobility hero spamming into whoever they could see. It honestly felt like pre-role lock OW in a silver/gold lobby.

6 Likes

If I could frame this statement, I would.

This distinction between tactics and strategy (goals, strategy, tactics) is a commonly understood paradigm in the business world, and it definitely can also apply to your gaming experiences.

It’s fair to say that 5v5 is more tactical, with the ability to individually carry being more prevalent. In a competitive setting tactical excellence is important, but the team with the better overall strategy will win when tactical excellence (individual game sense/skill) is relatively even

70 Likes

Looking at Sym and Thinking of parallels to the business world

2 Likes

Yes same. I would frame the statement, “We will give D.Va an actual buff, and not a band-aid fix” :heart_eyes: :heart_eyes: :heart_eyes: :heart_eyes:

plz buff matrix length :face_holding_back_tears:

6 Likes

You can frame that statement.

Make supports fun the beta was not good

2 Likes

Another simple way to see the distinction is, strategy is what approach to do overall, tactics are the way(s) you get there.

1 Like

I applaud you for trying to have this discussion, but nobody ever seems to be on the same page about what does and does not qualify as strategy (or tactics). So it always ends up with people talking past each other.

I do think that OW2 rewards tactical skill more, by which I mean mechanics, movement, use of the environment, and micro-scale decision-making. (Or, maybe it’s more that it’s less forgiving of poor tactics.) I think that’s what people perceive as “deathmatch-y”, and honestly that’s not totally inaccurate. Deathmatch modes do place a lot more emphasis on tactical skill, since the whole strategic layer of objective-management is just absent, so it makes sense that players feel a similar vibe.

But, the fact that tactical skill is more important doesn’t mean that there is no strategy. Strategy and tactics aren’t opposites, they just operate on different scales. It always takes both to win, even if the strategic choices weren’t consciously made as such, and even if your team’s “better strategy” amounts to “made fewer egregious strategic errors than the other team”.

I think what people mean when they complain about 5v5 and the push mode (and the loss of 2CP) being less “strategic” is just that they’re less static. Map control is more dynamic, so you can’t just memorize some rules about which parts of the map should belong to your team and which positions are “good”. Neither can you memorize simple rules about when a fight is functionally won or lost, especially on push where the spawn distances are so long. Simply trying to “play the objective”, by which people usually seem to mean prioritizing standing on the objective, rather than playing to maximize objective value, is also more punishable in 5v5 generally and especially on push. Playing in these ways would only get you so far in OW1 already, but adaptability seems to be even more important in OW2.


As an aside, I want to point out that the deathmatch modes are not strategy-free. Your choice of hero, which areas of the map you choose to contest/hold, which enemies you choose to engage on and which you choose to avoid, all of those are strategic choices. If you pick Junkrat on Chateaux Guillard and play around the jump pad, you’re making a strategic error because Junkrat doesn’t function so well in open spaces. Likewise, if you picking Widowmaker and try to play in the basement, you’re gonna have a bad time. Cassidy is perennially a popular pick in deathmatch modes because landing a flashbang is usually a guaranteed kill, and it’s easier to get the drop on enemies when they have to worry about threats from all directions. Heroes with self-heal are always popular in FFA because it allows them to opt out of the competition for healthpacks, and heroes with mobility can more readily make use of those healthpacks and maybe even tactically steal them to win duels. TDM has a whole other strategic layer because every death gives a net +1 to the enemy team, even self-inflicted deaths (which give -1 to your team).

And, of course, there are the “cheese” strats that everyone hates but are effective because they take strategic advantage of the game mode rules. In FFA, only final blows count, so heroes like Sym, Torb, and Moira who can easily and quite safely let other players do most of the work in softening up targets and then swoop in to get the final blow can be quite successful. In TDM, the team that is ahead can turtle and wait out the clock. Are these strategies fun to play against? Not for most. But they are strategies.

2 Likes

I usually frame it as

Goals = Why
Strategy = How
Tactics = What

but I can see your take as well

19 Likes

Even better - I could see in beta 1 and 2 towards the end as people adjusted, more tactics starting to emerge, I think that’s most of the issue - its a different game style and a lot of people were figuring out how to do things… this happened in OW 1 too.

1 Like

So I guess the goal is Sym should always be in a Taxi (not an ambulance) and do less damage then a DPS?

Honestly still seeing the whole thing “as a lightning rod” as the recent Parallels.

But that’s just me guessing why.

(:grimacing: in a rush and I know you likely can’t answer but man…)

That’s nice.

It’s fair to say OW2 is a deathmatch emphasized game where less teamwork is needed, full stop.

Damage control all you like, but that’s the game you created in OW1’s place.

20 Likes

The team that has better teamwork is still going to win in OW2. Nothing has changed about that.

5 Likes

Teamwork is definitely less important now.

Tank combos and synergy are all gone. Completely wiped out.

Aim is way more emphasized. And Widow and hitscan can control a map by themselves much more easily than before.

And the game has more of a snowball effect now with only 5 players on a team. One death, especially from your tank, can wipe out your team more easily now.

9 Likes

I agree its very wise to say.

Btw what new game actually takes your mmr from the old one and carries it over to the new one?

A very wise answer would be nice.

1 Like

Tell everyone something we don’t already know. OW 1 was unbalanced on many ranks. With no change to OW 2 that is going to continue the mess.

1 Like