You guys are the most entitled, whiniest group of people i've ever met

General Discussion
123

Since when are anim cancels defined that way? You can literally google animation cancel and get what I’m talking about. Do I have to find some scientific paper to read some obscure definition somewhere that nobody uses to get what you’re talking about?

If you use an action and it interrupts the animation of another action without stopping the action, that’s an animation cancel. Which is an exploit. There’s no fancy definition that doesn’t make it an exploit (at least in terms of how it typically works in fps games, and how it manifests in Overwatch).

Here’s an example of an animation cancel that existed in Overwatch (this isn’t representative of all of them, but it is one): Sigma, when he was put on PTR had a bug where if you anim cancelled his primary fire by spamming his right click ability, the primary fire would shoot multiple projectiles (upwards of about 8). The animation is PART of the ability working. If you cancel it, the ability doesn’t work as intended by developers. That’s an exploit. No amount of “it’s flavor text” makes it clear that developers didn’t intend for animations to play all the way through. If that was the case, why would Blizzard consistently patch out animation cancels that result in lower ability usage time? (hint: because it’s an exploit and they didn’t want it to be that way)

Also another tip: “are you in denial?” is another way of shutting down discussion. Consistently saying stuff like “there must be something wrong with you to believe what you believe” is a great way to not have a conversation. You’ve continued to do that throughout this discussion.

I’ll just end with this:

Whether a standard exists or not, there’s no reason to abide by it or follow it. Whatever it is that you think is “precedent” doesn’t stop a game from being what it is. Overwatch is a game. Overwatch 2 is a game. If you like it, you’re welcome to buy it. If you don’t you’re welcome to pass on it. You’ve got a lot of ideas, and they’re valid, and your opinions are valid, and there’s no reason for me to argue against things like “movement acceleration is desirable in FPS games.” However, assuming that’s something that must NECESSARILY exist in every game in order for the game to be “complete” is silly. If we never broke standards, nothing would ever improve. Overwatch is a non-standard shooter to begin with. Overwatch 2 is purported to be a non-standard sequel.

And hell, who knows if literally everything you’ve asked for will be added to OW2 or not. They could just do that. No reason that they couldn’t. They just probably won’t because there’s no particular reason to. The point of this thread was that people complain too much about things that don’t matter because they feel entitled to something they’re not getting. Seems to ring a bit true to me.

124

Please actually read these forums. Pretty much no one is saying these things. Most of the people think OW2 is great but they are disappointed because nothing was said about OW1 and there is reasonable timeline for getting this OW2 content. Feels like blizzcon actually gave us nothing. This year.

1 Like
125

I don’t have a problem with the value proposition here, I’m happy to and will buy OW2 on release date despite my lack of interest in PvE.

My issue is, for me and Overwatch is all about the multiplayer experience, considering they’re marketing it as a second iteration of the game, it’s pretty dissapointing to find out

  1. They are decreasing the number of yearly heroes from a lackluster 3 to a miserable 2.
    How depressing is it going to be to realise out of 2 heroes that you waited a year in total of, none are heroes you enjoy playing?
    The game is going to get super stale fast, hero releases were the only thing getting OW fans out of bed thanks to the lackluster events.

  2. There will only be ‘atleast’ 1 more hero released to overwatch 1 until OW2 is actually released, and it’s not this month unlike every other year in OW history.
    So we’re having A) A hero release delayed and B) less heroes in OW1 than we otherwise would have.
    In short, despite not even being out for another year, overwatch 2 is already having a negative impact on the volume of content we receive.

  3. It’ will have taken them 4+ years to release a SINGLE new competitive mode by the time overwatch comes and it comes alone, with no other modes in what’s supposed to be a sequel of a multiplayer game?

This entire release, once you stop looking at it through rose tinted glasses, from the perspective of the core game honestly sounds like typical blizzard to me, too little too late while somehow having increasingly lower standards.

I can’t help but feeling like this is an overmarketed, overhyped piece of DLC that mostly serves to inject some much needed fresh blood into the player base .

1 Like
126

Plenty was said about OW1 actually.

129

Since the original DOTA? Since Street Fighter 1? Maybe even before then?

If two chained actions aren’t any faster at execution than those same actions individually, then you’re not gaining any speed. You didn’t shave off any time, you didn’t do anything faster, which is the hallmark definition of an animation cancel.

Actions are supposed to be interruptible and overlap each other, there isn’t supposed to be a limit of one action at a time. Otherwise we’re talking about tank controls and strafe modifier keys of yesteryear. It’s when you overlap something to complete the first action faster, thereby shortening the overall time of both, that makes it an animation cancel, and potentially an “exploit” (which is wholly dependent on which actions are used in question). If you didnt do it faster, then one action is just a free action you can do during your recovery frames, which is just basic overlap, not an animation cancel.

130

Have they though? They’ve given us mostly recycled content besides a handful of cosmetics for events for 2 years, and the grand announcement is that new content is coming in over a year out still.

Keep being a white knight, dude.

1 Like
131

A constant disregard for the established standard/precedent is dangerous, as it is a constant erosion of the buying power of your money as it relates to a product.

Your money is devalued when “industry leaders” think they can get away with selling less for more, and you get a lesser product with fewer features as a result.

It’s not unreasonable to call into question Blizzard’s choices here, and to pretend that you can speak for everyone in saying that it’s fine and someone is entitled, when they simply want the other half of the game they paid for that they were heavily implied to be promised based on a standard and precedent is some sort of incredibly apologist behavior that fails to acknowledge any valid criticisms in favor of winning an argument.

You can like Blizzard, you can like Overwatch 2 and even Overwatch 1 and still call into question that sort of business practice. Those are not mutually exclusive ideas.

You can also lay down criticisms and observe opportunity costs as a result of that business practice, which I have done.

You can also be a chooch – a complete faker that pretends to know everything – but realize that someone who is more knowledgeable will call you out on it and bring the receipts, and you’re only making a fool of yourself.

132

Argument 101, everybody. He got me, I’m done.

133

You demonstrated multiple times now that you don’t know the subject matter.

You called all animation cancels “exploity and dumb”. I told you animation cancels have a purpose and exist in ways you might not have thought, and I speculate you don’t actually know what an animation cancel is. I THEN TOLD YOU THE DEFINITION, which you repeatedly claimed to know, and then you claimed I’m a liar…

You said that I’m calling hitreg a problem because I’m bad and died around a corner. I gave you a link to over 10 video examples showcasing hitreg problems.

You said that if movement acceleration were added, it would slow down the pace of the game + hitscan would be stronger + no one could dodge anything + flick aiming wouldn’t be lessened. I can’t even begin to explain how you were wrong at each successive instance, because you lack the basic prerequisite knowledge of what movement acceleration is. Which, if you had that prerequisite knowledge, you’d know that all of those statements are incorrect assumptions. I also speculated that you were parroting stuff you’ve heard instead of admitting you don’t know what something is and trying to understand it.

You said the matchmaker is good enough, I disagreed and said why, pointing to a Bayesian skill system developed by other entities than Blizzard’s inhouse programming/math team.

You said smurfs and hackers will eventually happen so there’s no point. I disagreed, pointing out that any amount of time where people have fewer problem children in their games, even if it were a day, is worth it.

You said that they could roll out all of the changes I desired now. I disagreed and said that there are things they cannot do because of how they’ve handled the first game, and that it would upset OWL.

You said they won’t do a revert on a new sequel, I gave you examples in other games where reverts did happen in other FPS games and establish a precedent of what an FPS game sequel should do.

You said a sequel doesn’t have to do anything I said. I pointed to a half dozen other games where they did do it that way I said it, that establishes a standard. That I’m not making up the standard, that the past 20 years made the standard and I’m just communicating that standard exists.

You said everything I’m arguing is based on my own observations. I told you that the observations I’m making correspond to 20 years of games.

And are now resorting to ad hominem? Cute.

And before you say something about me using ad hominem, ad hominem specifically means you have no argument and resort to attacking a person as your argument. Having an argument and the receipts to prove it, and then adding insults on top isnt ad hominem, it just means you’re mean… Which, yes, I am. Arguments don’t have to be graceful.

134

Adding insults on top is just indicative of character. You went back and edited it because you forgot to insult me. Gratz on a great showing. You’ve done wonders here. Couldn’t have made of better fool of you myself. Thanks. Enjoy the spoils of making someone not want to talk with you instead of having a discussion.

135

Wasn’t a discussion in the first place. You didn’t know the material, and didnt intend on changing your viewpoint after being shown evidence. You just wanted to have argued.

136

You didn’t make any points. You made claims with no support. To respond to my questions you’ve said nothing but “but no because that’s how it is” and then called me ignorant. Whatever though, I don’t care. You’ve shown no evidence of anything at any point other than “things exist, look at these gifs” to which I never denied any of those things exist. You want them changed, I asked why, you said “they have to be changed because standards” I said why, you said “you’re ignorant they have to be changed because standards.”

This was never a discussion, you’re right. Enjoy not having a discussion still.

Also as an aside, ad hominem doesn’t mean you don’t have an argument. Ad hominem is a personal attack of any sort (see: calling someone ignorant or calling someone a “chooch”). If you don’t know that, don’t accuse someone of it.

137

A sequel should have substantial things changed, otherwise it’s not a sequel and you’re sold the same exact game. If you refuse to admit this, then my past insults stand.

Also, I SAID that I wanted the sequel to have changes because in their current state they present serious problems relatng to balance, matchmaking, OWL, netcode, public reception, community engagement, hackers/smurfs, and monetary value.

I gave you reasons with pointers for each individual reason above. You elected to ignore them.

Wrong.

Ad hominem is a logical fallacy by which you attempt to undermine the opponent’s argument by attacking their character, in place of an argument/counter-point to their argument.

It’s a logical fallacy. Which means you have to have some sort of logic to contest, which means it needs to be an argument or debate of some sort with opposing, meritable sides.

138

Ad hominem is a response “directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining”

1 Like
139

That can take place pre, post, or without argument. Any comment made to insult or attack character instead of the argument is ad-hominem. It’s not exclusively ad-hominem when there’s no argument attached.

140

They’re the devs. They can do what they want. Besides, there ARE substantial changes. Just not the ones you want.

No I didn’t.

No it isn’t.

141

Adding a new core game mode and a new coat of paint is not a substantial change. They’re the bare minimum expected of a Title Update, and barely count as criteria for a sequel.

Tell me then, did I not say there are balance problems and hero reworks that were negatively received, both that can be revisited in a sequel because that’s just what you do with a sequel?

Did I not say that doing it now upends their investment in OWL which is why the won’t do it, but a sequel allows them to do it?

Did I not say that they could have fixed their streak of missing the mark by revisiting concepts and character kits with direct community involvement, that they currently can’t because of the above, and don’t because they like to flex their “we know better than you” muscles?

Did I not link a thread with 10 video examples of hit detection and netcode issues?

Did I not say that there’s a monetary component of value, and how refusing to uphold a standard devalues your purchasing power and erodes away games in the industry?

Are these not reasons? Did I not say them?

What makes you the authority on whether or not they should do it? Why are my examples and knowledge not good enough to be reasons to implement change?

My guy…

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-Ad-Hominem-and-an-insult

’ Ad hominem ’ refers to an argument style; it is an attempt to invalidate a claim, statement, or argument because of some personal characteristic of the person making the claim…
…
An insult is just an insult. An insult doesn’t (by itself) aim to invalidate or refute a claim or argument, it just puts someone down.

142

According to you, sure.

Why is that what you do with a sequel? They can do that now. In fact, they look at balance changes constantly, no sequel require. Which I said before, which you ignored.

According to who? Again, claim with no evidence. I’m not going to sit here and dispute a claim you made when the claim is arbitrary and unfounded. I can just say “no” with the same weight as the claim you’ve made.

Missing the mark according to your observed standard, which you’ve provided no evidence for aside from “but that’s what games have done in the past.” Again, I can claim “no” with the same weight as your claim.

They can do that now. They responded to the community by adding Role Lock. Most reworks were the result of complaints about heroes. They can do that. In fact, there’s more reason to look at balance BECAUSE of OWL.

Ad-Hominem

Netcode issues exist. I didn’t dispute this. That doesn’t mean the netcode is “bad” relative to other games in the same genre, and that doesn’t mean it won’t be improved going into OW2. Hit detection and networking issues exist in every competitive multiplayer game I’ve ever played and are complained about incessantly on public forums/reddit. Blizzard can’t make internet communication happen faster, so hit detection will never be perfect and networking will never be perfect.

Why? You did say that. Why does it do that? Again, I can just say “no” with the same weight as your argument because you’ve provided no reason for me to believe that claim.

Regarding ad-hominem:

“Whether it is fallacious depends on whether or not the insult is used as a reason against the interlocutor’s argument. An ad hominem occurs when an attack on the interlocutor’s character functions as a response to an interlocutor’s argument/claim”

Discrediting someone’s argument by attacking their credibility (ignorant/stupid/chooch) is a means of attacking an argument by attacking character. But whatever m8, think what you want. I’m not about the “hah, spotted a fallacy, your claim is invalid” life. Make a point, idc what you do apart from that. If the brunt of your argument is arbitrary claims, though, there’s nothing to refute.

Again, I could just respond “no” to nearly every claim you’ve made. That a sequel “should” be a certain way by the merits of some arbitrary standard isn’t something I can refute because there’s nothing to refute about it. You’ve given no “why” to support your argument of some preexisting standard.

Half a dozen games having done something doesn’t establish a standard. Your observations of what games have done doesn’t establish a standard.

Cool. So what? I’ve provided recent games that go against your standard and are successful. So then, either the standard doesn’t exist, or the standard isn’t useful.

You haven’t established yourself as someone with an authority on the matter. Neither have I, but I’m not asking for anything. Devs are allowed to do what they want. I haven’t argued anything ought to be any particular way or that any particular thing is better. I’ve simply questioned why your claims are supposedly superior to how things are now. If you want to change the way things are, you’d have to make a case for that. There’s more to making a case than making a bunch of claims.

143

I really doubt it is the people who wanted PvE who are complaining. This community is huge and there will always be people who don’t like the direction the game is going. But you can’t see one opinion as the definitive one. It is just one person. I would say the announcements have had a pretty positive reception and have boosted the moral of the community, for the most part.

1 Like
144

The title sums it up. Be grateful