I think the fundamental problem with this idea is that a very large number of people who play the game(and online games in general) are caustic, terrible people. These people are also usually the most vocal. Can you imagine if it was your job to police a Q&A, fight the trolls, and try to keep it helpful and relevant. Trying to have a mature, rational discussion with the playerbase would be a gigantic effort.
What I think is more likely to be helpful is for them to start releasing dev update videos frequently and accept feedback that can be filtered as they have time. If they released commentary about their reasoning behind every change they make it would inspire a lot more confidence in what they’re doing and would allow the people who do want to be helpful to provide informed feedback.
Edit: And I do think us being able to provide informed feedback would be immensely beneficial to them. There might be changes that we have a bad first impression of and don’t like that have solid reasons behind them that we don’t see. Or if they still seem like a bad idea you can provide feedback within the context of what the devs were trying to accomplish.
1 Like
A live Q and A wouldn’t work for the reasons you’ve already described, but a pre-set list of questions for the devs to answer (determined by some kind of community survey or poll) could work.
I’ll reiterate that I still think the devs so out of touch with their playerbase that this kind of transparency is a futile hope, but one can always dream…
Clearly if people complain that the game needs all these changes PTR isn’t doing what it’s supposed to. Clearly, what Blizzard is choosing to do isn’t working. And actually having dev videos explaining the details of changes and how they perceive the healthiness of the game would be WAY better than a QnA. I think that’s more likely than a livestream or something
I think they need to roll PTR changes into a mode in the main version of the game. Nowhere near enough people play the PTR version to test balance. They should add a “Balance Patch” Quick Play mode in the main game and I bet quite a lot more people would play it than PTR and they could get real balance feedback and data.
If they could actually get enough people playing the patches before going to comp the could gather data on pick/win rates, albeit over a short period of time, to at least see if what they did is having a real impact.
And how about they let console players actually freaking DO SOMETHING for once? PTR being PC exclusive means console players just get thrown into the deep end every single balance patch, and I get the game “came out for PC” but it launched on PS4 and Xbox on the same day and that’s where a majority of the playerbase is. Yet also, by the widest possible margin, we’re the most overlooked.
I wonder if there’s a technical or contractual limitation. Consoles are extremely demanding with QA standards on everything on them. You can’t just release a patch onto a console game without getting it reviewed and approved by the console’s company. On PC blizz can release anything they want because they’re in complete control of distribution. If blizz tried to put a PTR patch out on console it might take several weeks to get reviewed at least. And then if it somehow failed they have to resubmit it to the whole process and get put on the bottom of the stack of releases to review.
It would be a great idea. I mean some other game developers hold semi-regular official streams showcasing some stuff they have planned, as well as holding some Q&A. However, I think we’re beyond the point of ever believing this company/team will do something that quite a few other popular games already do as standard. MapleStory 2, for example, is something that other popular games like Overwatch should be following by example.
At least when I was playing MS2 (I stopped due to simply wanting to try other new games, for now) they regularly had a blog article discussing upcoming changes, some stuff further out and why X Y or Z is going to happen. Their community manager was clearly in touch and actively participating in some discussions with their community. The developers and community manager clearly acknowledged feedback, especially when something may have unfortunately turned south. Unfortunately here, on the Overwatch forum, it’s a whole different matter 99% of the time. A majority of occasions where negative feedback has been given, especially in great volume, it usually results in no response and possibly even a forced megathread.
1 Like
I didn’t know that, kinda bums me out. I mean now that I have a PC account it’s no biggie but still. Jeez. I can’t test things out with my main
its a great idea and i would like something 1 days during the month we can discuss about the balance change and another day where we can discuss with a level designer for what we like or not in the map
Consoles do that because the console is a product that specifically plays a set of games for it.
“Playstation 4” is a product you buy with the expectation that every PS4 game will run 100% of the time no matter what.
Ultimately the responsibility is on Sony to guarantee their customers satisfaction. The reason consoles are so successful is that they just work. There’s no hardware to fool with, no tinkering, no specs to worry about, etc. If you buy a PS4 then you know that every single PS4 game will run on it. So Sony has to have a fairly strict approvals process to ensure that any games people buy for their product run to a standard and have a limit on bugs, and the severity of bugs.
PCs are a completely different beast because “PC” isn’t a product that any company is selling with a promise to run 100% of a set of “PC” games like a console does.
Edit: This is also the reason Day1 or Week1 patches are so common. A game developer has to have a release version of the game ready plenty of time in advance so they can submit and pass an approvals process. It doesn’t need to be bug free to pass, just within standards. They may find and fix bugs between this version and the release date but that patch also has to be submitted and approved. They can’t rely on a new fixed version being approved on time so instead they get a release version approved early and then submit a patch for approval later when it’s ready. Sometimes that patch is approved by release day, but it’s still released as a Day 1 patch because that’s what’s approved. They can’t release a single version on day 1 that includes the fix, they’re required to release the release version and a patch on top of it because they didn’t get a single patched release approved due to timing.
1 Like
It would go badly for them.
I would say the more recent balance changes are more in the category of I don’t agree with where you are coming from rather than being I don’t agree with where you are coming from and you are doing it badly of the prior period before Noh but, that’s still not going to go over well.
Consider Sombra for example.
Sombra is one of the worst performing heroes in Overwatch and always has been. The developers have occasionally commented on Sombra and implied the character is staying where she is because buffing her would cause issues in coordinated GM/OWL/Contenders play.
That doesn’t exactly go over well and they’d be stuck saying that on one hero or another pretty much every month unless they decided to change policy.
The best they could do without paying for certification is probably toss together a workshop version of the PTR patch otherwise they’d have to pay and wait/pay more.