You make no sense at times. You come off wanting to improve the game for players, but then say you could care less if someone quits forever.
Because I think itâs impossible to make everybody happy.
But you can maximize the total amount of happy players.
And that any significant change to the game will cause some amount of people to quit.
And you essentially got 2 characters that play the game with Tactical Shooter killspeeds.
And 37 heroes that play the game like an Arena Shooter.
So the sentiment that âOverwatch Positioning must be played like a Tactical Shooter, or else a tiny subset of 7% of the players might quitâ.
That gets a âOkay, then quit.â.
I do not respect extreme selfishness like that.
3 Likes
What if I told you that heroes like Widow arenât even that impacted by abilities like Suzu 
Since thereâs no time to react to it.
guy who complained about every patch for the past 5 years complains about the newest patch
This must truly be the end
Suzu is more of a Tank thing. Which directly relates to how easy, strong, and frequent AntiNade is.
ImmoField though, thatâs both Snipers and AntiNade.
Oh how I wish this were the case.
What?
You donât think cleansing AntiNade is related to Tanks?
Right after the Mauga meta we just had?
Itâs often used to cleanse the tank.
Itâs often used to deny kills on squishies who were outplayed or on Kiri herself.
Iâd hardly say Mauga is typical of anything.
Even if Blizzard did exactly what he asked for, he would still complain.
Because itâs how he pays his rent. Itâs why heâs still making Overwatch content after âquittingâ like 6 times.
2 Likes
Well, hereâs how I would nerf Suzu/Lamp.
1 Like
maybe its time that weâd realize that going into OW2 was a big mistake and shouldnt happen. but we already know why they pursued this path is because the marketing for OW2 was nothing but a cash cow as they put all their efforts and hard work into the battle pass. everything else gets worse by the day
Yet you still tell people to quit and you donât care if they quit.
7% of the population is huge. Really when the game is already struggling to keep people.
Yet, you always act selfish with your takes by always being combative when you get push back.
Why?
But 0.5% isnât.
1 Like
.5% isnât. 7% is fairly significant.
A lot of your takes revolves around three things, that arenât going to help much.
1.) Snipers (They have been nerfed enough)
2.) Tanks being glorified DPS (Though most die if you look at them funny)
3.) That it does not matter what you deem is unbalanced, fun is what matters.
Fun does not matter in balance, itâs subjective. For example, I have fun with new Sombra, a lot of people find it unfun that I can do what I can with her. Do I want her nerfed? Slightly.
Do they want her nerfed? Dumpstered.
See where âfunâ gets you in balance?
Forcing 93% of the player base to do really boring counterplay for half the match, because we canât âaffordâ to lose a tiny fraction of 7%.
Nah. We can ABSOLUTELY âaffordâ that.
3 Likes
The entire concept of Overwatch is rock paper scissors, swap when you are getting countered.
Why remove the identity of the game, because some players refuse to help, feed, and throw by doing so?
Removing more counters would cause more than 7% to leave.
Dive would run amok, Tracer and Genji would be back to needlessly overtuned, Sombra would be unchecked. Winston and D.Va would instantly be meta.
You canât sacrifice population at all in a game that has gone from MILLIONS of players daily in OW1, to only 2-300k a day. Itâs dying faster than can be saved, and trying to get things changed that in the long run will only ruin the game, is not the way to go.
Incentivizing learning multiple heroes would be the way to go, and punish one tricking harder by slower SR gain and bigger SR losses.
Hereâs an hour long lecture on counterplay design.
And none of what you just said fits that.
Counterplay
The elements of counterplay:
- #1 Possible: Is a response possible?
- #2 Clear Telegraphed: Is the need for a response clear, with enough Time for a response?
- #3 Interesting: Are responses varied and nuanced?
https://www.gdcvault.com/play/1018273/Counterplay-and-Teamplay-in-Multiplayerhttps://leagueoflegends.fandom.com/wiki/User_blog:JAlbor/GDC_2013:_Teamplay_and_Counterplay_in_League_of_Legendshttps://ubm-twvideo01.s3.amazonaws.com/o1/vault/gdc2013/slides/822829%20Cadwell_Thomas_Counterplay%20and%20Teamplay.pdf
Ranged instakills are NOT âClearly Telegraphedâ, and inspecting a blue rectangle or the pixels on a wall isnât âInterestingâ. And âSniping Snipers with more Snipersâ isnât all that varied. And generally to even deal with the Widow/Hanzo at all outside of âSniping Snipers with more Snipersâ, you gotta forfeit your entire gameplay loop to go play Whack-a-mole. Which is not Interesting for the vasty majority of players. (And not even that reliable, if they selfpeel and get peels).
Screw that. 7% of the playerbase isnât the âidentityâ of the game.
And Snipers going basically COMPLETELY UNTOUCHED except for a slight range nerf on Widow between OW1 and OW2 isnât any sort of âidentityâ.
Thatâs just 2 years of unprofessional procrastination on the devs part.
Why should I give a crap about economic opinions from people who donât understand what an Opportunity Cost is?
If you lose 1% of players, but gain 10%. Thatâs just objectively a good thing.
1 Like
As I said, itâs probably different on the system you play on, but on Xbox DPS has been the most popular role for all of OW2 outside of new hero drops
I am not going to sit and read an hour long lecture, because you refuse to accept how Overwatch plays.
And once again, you loop it around to sniper this sniper that.
Sombra, Ball, Doom, Winston, D.Va, Tracer all exist.
So because people donât want to swap when they are getting absolutely hammered by someone that counters them, itâs a game problem and NOT a personal issue problem (Which it is).
Because they donât need it. Low ranks do not get a say in what is and isnât OP, when they canât even use the mechanics given to them to solve their issues. Once again, thatâs a personal issue and NOT a game issue.
You wonât gain 10% by doing what youâre claiming. Youâd probably lose more than you gain.
Letâs try thisâŚ
A lot of people want flankers removed, tuned down, or absolutely gutted.
There are a lot of Tracer, Genji, Sombra mains that play nothing but that hero. Letâs nerf them down to say⌠Bastion level of bad.
You would lose far far more players than you would gain, because then you have supports with no counter play going on.
You are solving ONE issue, and creating others.
A short population increase followed by an insane drop off isnât an Opportunity Cost⌠Itâs a game dying.
Because you prefer streamer takes from people who never studied game design?
Almost like those are massive game design problems.
Just because itâs possible to play Whack-a-mole the entire game, doesnât mean itâs enjoyable. Same as why they got rid of Mass Rez Mercy. Because âWhack a Moleâ duty sucks.
Pretty much. Like for real dude, you donât even know what âBalanceâ means at this point if you think a Choice Reduction isnât a Balance problem.
When thatâs the LITERAL DEFINITION OF THE WORD:
What is Play Balance?
Sid Meier once said, âA game is a collection of interesting choicesâ. It follows that game elements being out of balance and thereby eliminating choices detracts from the gameplay. Ideally, a game should be a series of choices, ending with victory of defeat or some other end condition. Sometimes, some choices will become unquestionably the only choice, or definitely not a valid choice. If there is only one valid choice at some point, but the game hasnât ended, there is a play balance problem. <**Nearly all situations commonly referred to as imbalances can be boiled down to a CHOICE REDUCTION.
https://archive.gamedev.net/archive/reference/articles/article1765.html
You think how âFrustratingâ gameplay is, has nothing to do with Gameplay Design?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Q3ezaoqIRM
I think you overestimate how difficult it is to grow the playerbase by 1% or less.
1 Like