it is not expensive in terms of money … but of unimaginable consequences. Game code problems are assumed.
yeah, and there is reasons for this same how cod rarely changes its numbers around or even why borderlands never deviated from 4 players
This is ironic, don’t you think? XD
I didn’t say it was a thing in workshop;. I’m saying people in workshop have done crazy things that put more stress on a server than one more player on each team.
I mean we’re already not getting new content lol. 
so I’m fine with continuing to not get content if they’re working toward a better more balanced mode.
???
Not to mention I’ve been in games with two Ashes with two Bobs out at once.
I disagree. They are a billion dollar company. They can do pretty much anything. It’s a matter of being willing to do so.
2 Likes
Why spend money on re programmed servers when theres a higher chance of failure. OW isnt dead, but its not big as it once was
Difference is I am an actual programmer whereas you are a pseudo intellectual who thinks that throwing money at a problem just fixes it. They cannot just throw more people at a problem such as that. It would have drastic diminishing returns. Furthermore, they did not say they could not do it, only that it would require drastic rewrites of all the optimization that probably took a long time to design, which is not something you just undertake unless you are very sure it is a direction you wish to go.
Its really is kinda sad that you think that doing that is just a matter of “wanting to” and throwing money at it and it will magically just happen somehow.
4 Likes
Do you have proof that you’re an actual programmer and proof that I am not?
This is exactly what it boils down to. If they wanted to do it, they could do it. Money + Manpower = results. If they don’t want to do it, that’s fine, just say so. Don’t come up with some BS reason for it not happening.
I’ve played Blizzard games for well over a decade at this point. They constantly make excuses like this.
But I’m done talking to you because your repeated personal attacks are not an argument. o/
1 Like
aka we bought our hardware just strong enough to handle 6v6
we would have to upgrade our hardware to support 7vs7
so 7vs7 is out of the question, bar none, unless we(the customers) would pay for it, but even if the hardware was free, they still have to put in man hours installing it, updating some programming or w/e…and well money money
1 Like
There working mostly on ow2 now which means most of there recourses are there so for sure there not gonna throw all that to the side just so they can rework the whole system + Serversystem so they can test something which maybe helps or maybe doesn’t and makes even bigger problems.
It makes no sense to do so both from a Business view nor a common sense view
1 Like
Because it would take more money and time for them to do it.
Jeff himself has said they CAN do it, but don’t want to do it, because of the resources it would take to do it.
He said they’re not against using a lot of resources to make big changes, like they did with 2/2/2, but it’s not a road they WANT to go down…but imo it would be better than 1-3-2.
It simply requires more work. I wish 1-3-2 idea was saved after OW2 was done. Because than they could use the freed up time to make 2-3-2 and 1-3-2 as two tests. Not in the current crippled state OW1 is in.
1 Like
Great post!!
So tired of seeing so many ignorant posters who are MISQUOTING Jeff as saying “we’ll never make the game 7v7” when in reality he said it simply requires a lot more work.
I also agree they will have more time to fix the base game AFTER OW2 and shouldn’t focus on up-ending the game like this until after OW2.
It’s expensive as in a lot of resources to anchor such a change
That is BOB which is not a hero, not to mention I think that is only the rag dolls being spammed into the well.
Try actually taking time to build your own workshop game mode.
1 Like
The current game engine isnt made for it. It would require a new game engine made for more then 6v6, along with a new ui, rebalancing etc etc.
Thats alot of months, if not even years of development time just to increase the count of players in each match above 6v6.
Bob is treated by the game as a 7th hero though. This was said by Jeff before. I don’t think he should change his mind when it’s convenient.
That’s what they literally get paid to do though - work on the game. If it will make the game better, they should do it. Clearly 2-2-2 isn’t working and 1-3-2 is going to alienate tank players.
But he isn’t. It’s just a ragdoll performing a script. Nothing different from ai bots in pve modes. Human player connected to the server sending inputs that are calculated at the server and then responses sent are a completely different thing.
Bob is treated like a player only in gameplay mechanics, aka he can be cced and he captures points if standing on one.
1 Like
jeff didn’t say it’s not possible he said it’s really hard for them to have 14 players in a game and they’ve optimized the game around 12 players
and from a programming perspective it’s not impossible to have 14 players in a game
1 Like
This isn’t 2016 anymore… it’s 2020, there should be better server capabilities
If I am working on something, if you assign 10 other people to help me it might actually take LONGER depending on what it is. Now obviously there are tasks where having more people is better, but even then you need people who are skilled at said task (there are plenty of tasks I cannot do well or just have not done is so long that it would take time to retrain me in it).
The sort of changes that would be required would likely fall into this category as its not something you would have a majority of the team well versed in. Therefore if you put the manpower into you had better be sure its what you want AND you better be prepared for it to take months regardless of how big or small the company is.
The old saying about 1 woman having a baby in 9 months but 9 women cannot have a baby in 1 month comes into play here. If you put in all that time and work just so that it can be tested and then all of a sudden decide that you do not like the feel of it then you just put in resources into something that you are not going to release instead of literally anything else.
We already had an FPS game with 128 players in it (Joint Operations). 64 players used to be seen fairly often at one point (Battlefield), whereas 32 has been trivially done for the last at least 20 years.
And you tell me, that Overwatch can not handle 14 players?