Yes, they set the quality standard years ago… Years…now is 2020 and it is time to reduce the waiting times… They have already reduced them a bit after I suggested it before… they evidently agreed with me…I just want them to reduce it more…
That wasn’t an apples to oranges…more frames means you literally see more information…A person on 60 FPS has less information than someone 144… Meaning they don’t have the “full” experience… From start to finish…
That’s why in extreme competitive environments (like the OWL) they are all on a 240hz monitor (Or more, but they are usually the exact same league wide). In ranked, it isn’t THAT serious, so they don’t need to enforce such restraints.
You are quite literally saying “Others should lose MMR and SR so I wait 20 seconds less per match.”
These people are quite capable of playing the game. They just have longer load times.
You are advocating trading in one players experience (making something tolerable turn into something intolerable) so that you can take a perfectly reasonable experience into something you won’t care about in two weeks time.
Meanwhile you are saying that their obsession with a number should take precedence over my ability to play the game instead of standing around waiting for a timer…
Players on bad hardware should expect to be at a disadvantage…people who are loading in so slowly they don’t even load in within 20 seconds are already at more significant disadvantage in terms of frame rate… I would argue a lower frame rate has a bigger negative effect than loading in late… so why aren’t you advocating for a 60 FPS lock…if you’re so concerned for people on bad hardware? In fact maybe you should even argue for a 30 FPS lock…The double standards are evident…if my having to wait isn’t intolerable, then nor is loading in slightly late…
What I am saying makes perfect sense… As I said before they have already reduced the time… They have already acknowledged that the longer one has to wait the greater is the sting of defeat…so make us wait less…
Should they though? Should they really expect that… What happens when overwatch 2 comes around? With the shinier graphical engine…you don’t think that’s going to put the requirements up?
as I’ve already said, and just to reiterate, they have already reduced the time after I suggested it… And they need to do it again…
I can wait? I can live without it? Of course I can… What kind of argument is that…? I am requesting a quality of life change that will be beneficial and enjoyable overall…just because I can wait doesn’t mean I should have to… It almost takes me back to the same ridiculous arguments against the inclusion of open queue that people would make… “Just learn to wait”…
I believe one thing we could do is when the game is opened on a fresh account for the very first time some kind of benchmark could be run… And if you fail this benchmark which tests your loading time you will given a clear warning that your system is insufficient…
If your waiting allows other people to get fully loaded in where as you not waiting means the quality of matches drops because less people are loading in on time then the obvious choice is…
So, and this is really an assumption, if loading times are indeed the reason for the long assembly /preparation times, then where do we draw the line… What about the people who only load in after two minutes… Do we extend the initial time to compensate for them as well? My argument is quite simple… Technology and hardware is improving quickly … With faster drives becoming very common nowadays…etc…therefore, if your assumption is true then we should be reducing the time with the progression of computing standards…
my suggestion improves the quality of matches by lessening the sting of defeat, by allowing players to get into the action more quickly…what you are saying is literally entitlement… That just because you are too slow to load in that everyone else should have to suffer as well…i say no…players who load extremely late , who are concerned about their rank dropping, have other modes that they can play without significant penalty… For example quick play…they can go there stop making the rest of us suffer through long and boring timers…sorry pal, but this is a game and I play it to have fun, not stand around…for those of you on 90s hardware there is always quickplay…
Which was done. What would be terrible is to change those requirements AFTER the fact. The only exception being if they grossly over estimated load times or set a wide margin for error they could adjust later.
Which is obviously what happened when they made the first adjustment you referred too.
However, people are at this point barely loading in on time. Do we say “to bad” to people who bought the game BEFORE your new proposed adjustment?
Do we tell them they should lose access to a playable experience so someone who has the privilege of having more disposable income can shave a few seconds per match?
Naw.
The advancement of technology does not follow an identical line with that of a persons income and ability to upgrade with it.
Except as I have already pointed out the requirements WILL change with overwatch 2…there is almost no doubt that they will increase… For the new shinier engine…so what then?
You say that people are barely loading in on time… But I don’t believe I have ever come across them… At least, not once the game has already loaded, for subsequent rounds… Who are these people, why are they on such terrible hardware, playing a competitive game, why should they not take responsibility for themselves instead of making everyone else suffer?if you go into a competitive game with poor hardware then you must accept the disadvantage that comes with that…and as I already said, a very low frame rate has an even larger negative impact on ones overall performance in a match than simply loading in slightly late…and how large portion of the playerbase are such players?
Now, to give practical suggestions… a very simple thing suggested above would be to reduce the distance of the initial spawn to the defenders first point of defence…and shave 10 seconds off minimum…
I don’t think I have ever seen a game with upgraded visuals etc. that performs better than its five-year-old predecessor…
As to the person who made that statement… It is indeed unfortunate for that person but he should not be playing competitive… end of story…
you claim that low frame rate is less detrimental than missing a single push… I would argue that is entirely untrue… low frame rate throughout the entirety of the match has a far greater impact than one single missed push…
you say that I do not suffer… You are wrong… There are many games where I have felt exasperated at the unnecessarily long waiting times and it has made my performance worse because it is so demoralising to have to spend more unnecessary time in a game that is extremely one-sided anyway… the sting of defeat is also far worse in a game that took a long time…as Jeff stated…you can call it a first world problem all you want … This is simply a suggestion to improve the experience for most players…it is not up to you to assess whether I “suffer” or not…
Well SSDs are much cheaper than they used to be. You can get a 500GB M.2 SSD of Amazon for 80 bucks or less.
But on the flip side, not everyone is swimming in cash because the world is currently going to **** with covid and all that, so yeah, not exactly the best time to pick up an SSD. But whenever you can grab one, do it, I had one for mine and it is a great game changer for … everything.