Agree 100% with this, but the reason the game is dying is it rewards low skill over high too frequently.
I have no idea what this has to do with the topic or what I said, but I agree, skill-less doubleshield is too rewarded. Including the Winston forms of doubleshield, the most skill-less of all as it has the most shield of all doubleshield comps.
Add a third shield with sym and you have three noskills winning when they don’t deserve it. Add a fourth with brig and it’s easy to understand why the game gets uninstalled so often by so many.
Or replace quad shield with quad boop, quad melee, or quad beam. Or hey, put an echo on there and bring back the triple tank that killed the game in the first place, only for some reason the devs thought it was ok if they condemned us to a hell where one DPS would force triple tank on us for the rest of time.
1 Like
My point was I agree - not all balancing is for GM-Comp play, but in general it has to be or the game has no competitive integrity. And yes, the designers say they consider the impact on changes across all tiers.
I think my overall point was too much consideration has been made for casuals vs competitive players in this act of balancing for beyond GM-Comp play.
That thing directly in front of you on YOUR computer.
What you see on your computer isn’t the same as what everyone else sees.
The internet is a vast place, I don’t have to tell you this, you KNOW this, this is why you tell people to “just google it”. It’s like burying a key in the middle of a desert and instead of just saying where it is being a snide condescending rude troll in jibing “hurr, don’t you know how a metal detector works”.
Is this a way of saying you’re a boomer?
Imagine telling on yourself like that.
That’s because you knew exactly where to look!
You knew it was a forum post and wouldn’t tell anyone!
Anyone can link to forum posts as they eventually, extremely belatedly, relented on doing.
Proud Gen-X’er, you know, the guys that made most of this tech and now manage it.
Yes, I come from an age where you were expected to do your part during a discussion equally. I figured that a 15-second effort was a reasonable ask, guess not.
So ignorance is no excuse.
The only explanation is purposeful dishonesty.
You purposefully knew how disruptive you were being by refusing to give the link in a futile attempt at trying to hide your source so you had more control over it for your own ends.
No that is not a product of ANY generation.
For EVERY generation the burden of proof is 100% on the person making the claim. It was 100% your claim.
I have told you why that is a lie.
You KNEW where it was from!
You weren’t searching for it, you were going BACK to where you remembered it.
Oh I suppose now is the point where you tell another feeble lie that “oh no I had no idea where it was from even though I inexplicably knew the exact date”.
You were not very smart to give the date. You thought you were being clever giving me a purposefully useless piece of information (millions of things happened in that month so you KNEW it doesn’t narrow it down) but there’s no way you guessed it. It proves you always had the source but refused to share it.
How was I in the least dishonest? I didn’t refuse to do anything; I quoted the statistic, then when people were too lazy to look it up I went back and found it. Talk about spin… omygod…
Yeah it is, but you can’t know this because you are used to being spoon-fed information. If I said JFK was killed do I literally have to post you the Wikipedia article on it? Really?
It took me about 15 seconds when challenged to find it with a logical search. No lie.
Just admit you were lazy and wrong, it’s how you get better in life.
We are done here Treb, you are simply unreasonable and I proved beyond shadow of a doubt I am correct and you are not based on direct evidence that I kindly looked up for you. Take the gift of knowledge.
Gaslighting.
I explained exactly why that was dishonest and by asking for the exact same explanation is blatant gaslighting to imply I didn’t say.
I could give the explanation again and you’ll just again say “oh but explain whyyyyyy”
You refused multiple times with rude accusations even when other people told you the burden of proof was 100% on you.
That is not a point in dispute and you know it.
You are constantly giving bad faith arguments.
When you cite a baseless fact in support of a statement you need to prove it.
Stop gaslighting me.
STOP responding in a way that so grossly contradicts what I said it’s clearly acting as if I never said what I said or said something else.
I don’t think so, I think you’ll keep posting here repeating the same spiel but now with an undeserved sense of entitlement that I should stop and you won’t.
You have been rude, condescending, gaslighting, dishonest and down right foul.
You have blatantly lied about what the “evidence” says.
You proved the overwhelming majority of play hours - almost a supermajority in fact - are NOT in competitive role lock.
I got some knowledge: 34-35% is not the majority.
That means almost twice as many hours are NOT in regular Comp.
I thought the competitive board is about OWL and general for just playing the game.
The majority are not in arcade based off the numbers presented. Most of my time is in mystery heroes and no limits but balance obviously needs to be for quickplay/competitive
‘It’s not in question; it is the most played game mode’
It’s absolutely in question because, while it’s the most played, it actually has the least players. The overwhelming majority of Overwatch players are actually casuals. It’s just that your average comp player plays comp for way longer than the average casual player plays quick play.
Also, the Overwatch League and the dev team’s constant pandering to competitive players is actually why Overwatch is dying. But, hey, enjoy your elitism.
1 Like
The majority are not in Competitive role lock either…
This is a fact they are in utter denial about.
When it comes down to it there is no fundamental immutable and irrefutable truth they won’t deny. They will deny one third is less than two thirds.
They will deny 1+1=2 if it does not suit them.
No the competitive board is about… brace yourself for this… Competitive.
OWL is on there because they play on Competitive rules.
For some people. Not all.
1 Like
The devs balance around OWL and the top 0.1% of playerbase for comp, so naturally all balance discussion will have to be based on that
They never actually said that.
Even if you interpret that is what they meant, that doesn’t mean they are the only people that matter.
The rationale is that top down balance serves ALL levels of play, not just the top players.
So what would you like to see in General Discussion?
If we aren’t discussing balance, within the context of Competitive/QP, than what do you think will ‘dominate’ this forum?
I don’t want domination.
Why is that so typical these days? When an fair situation is found going one way there’s the attitude of “oh well who else should it be unfair against”.
Where’s the presumption that things should be fair or even could be fair?
I never said you do want it. I am only using ‘dominate’ because you chose it in your title. A little sensational, if you ask me. But your thread, your title.
What would be posted in General forum, if not about competitive/qp balance?
You ask a question, and I am asking you one back. If mods moved every balance thread posted in general forum to the competitive, what would be left in General?
I am not talking about fair, but ok.
That’s no justification for using the wrong forums.
1 Like
only time i see comp brought up is game balance discussions. which absolutely should be balanced around comp. OWL and top 500 to be specific since they actually play the game correctly