Dumbest thing ever. Literally play better and lose every time the enemy gets OT, they get 2+ more minutes than us of time. How is that fair?
5 Likes
Overtime needs to be removed in general…
19 Likes
It rewards poor game play. It’s literally the dumbest mechanic ever.
16 Likes
Some of my favourite most intense moments in overwatch have been in overtime, completing an entire map in overtime feels so good imo, i love the rush
62 Likes
Yeah I think there should be a maximum distance the payload can go during OT or something along those lines.
2 Likes
That could be a cool Arcade Mode. But it’s dumb in an actual game.
Nothing wrong with a different opinion and all but imo if they cant get me off the payload for a second in an entire map then they dont deserve the win especially if they dont combo ults, just my opinion though
30 Likes
My problem is that it invalidates most of the entire game sometimes. It feels terrible to have a 20 minute game boil down to who can push the payload furthest in 1 minute.
Honestly, and this may be unpopular, but I think that the team that finishes with the most time in the first round should win.
I’ve had it where we finished with 4 minutes and they finished with 1 minute. They, somehow, push it the whole way and we can’t since my team gets tilted so we lose.
It only feels marginally better than the coin-flip
5 Likes
Overtime is necessary because limiting a match entirely to the clock is very restrictive. Overwatch is objective based, not time based. If you’re on the objective, you got OT.
If Payload Maps were purely 1 shot deals (no swapping sides), then OT would be unfair. Since both sides get a chance at the same thing, it’s fair and rewards great teamwork/clutches/etc. The payload/objective area is 15%-20% the size of a normal objective (KoTH/Capture Point). There are many ways to get them off point or 3m away from the physical payload.
25 Likes
Honestly i can see it both ways and completely understand your opinion i just would miss the intensity of overtime, seems like overtime isnt popular though
10 seconds left
Attackers team-wipe defenders.
Game ends.
These arguments are silly anyway, particularly when talking about competitive considering both teams get a chance to utilise overtime.
4 Likes
It’s not about who can get it there the fastest; its about whether or not you and your team can push the payload to point A to point B and if not you and your team lose; simple as that.
3 Likes
Yea I will admit there is intensity with it sometimes.
Perhaps if they made it such that the OT timer would slowly run out of time if there are more attackers on than defenders and vice versa.
It’s not about utilizing it. It’s about whether it feels good as a mechanic in the game.
1 Like
It should be about whether or not it is fair, which it objectively is. Whether or not it feels “good” is completely subjective.
3 Likes
One of the most important designs in Overwatch is that no game is unwinnable. EDIT: Actually a more accurate description would be that you can avoid a loss in every game with ties, but that isn’t nearly as catchy.
Removing OT completely invalidates that and changes the game from who can consistently play better to who has the better momentum.
Even if the enemy takes longer to do so, if they push the payload further than you do, they played better than you do. If you push the payload 100m in one minute and then stall out there, and the enemy takes 5 minutes to push the same distance but can eek out that one extra meter, then they played better.
Arguing anything else is a fundamental misunderstanding of how the game works.
8 Likes
Okay. As long as we’re using this reasoning it’s objectively fair to remove OT as well. If neither team can us it, then it is fair, right?
If so, then it’s not only about whether it’s fair or not.
that’s how some golf tournament do it. after 72 holes, if there’s a tie, one hole will decide it all. if golf can’t figure it out don’t expect overwatch to lol
Touche, though then the argument goes back to the core design of Overwatch, that being an objective-based game rather than a time-based one as others have said.
I’m curious if that’s an actual objective of the developers or just your interpretation. Do you have any source that the developers have said anything like this?
That’s… backwards.
The way it is now is whoever can get momentum on the payload during OT will win.
Without OT it would, literally, just be who was better with the actual time allotted.
OT, in its current form, has the potential to give one team DRASTICALLY more time to push a payload than another team through sheer chance. Just because you win a single team fight towards the end of the timer does not mean you should get more time than the other team.
In my opinion.
And removing overTIME would make it so you’re not going against the clock. Without OT it would, literally, just be about the objective. How far can you push it? Both teams necessarily have the same time. Who can push it farthest?
How is that not fair? How is that fighting the clock and not the objective? How is the current form not fighting against time?
No, it would be the other way around. Removing overtime would mean your team has a time restriction. Currently, the only restriction is your team’s ability to complete the objective.
Not to mention that if it was removed, defenders wouldn’t even need to actively kill the attackers. They could just run, dodge and stall on the objective until the time runs out.
5 Likes