Anyone else think this game won't really take off in the MLG scene?

[Deleted]

Actually, I'll throw in Tracer for needing aiming skill too since her sticky bomb is tiny and has small blast radius.

Tracer's ulti is basically useless unless you stick it to a character, and even then you mostly just get a single kill. If you drop it on the ground, the huge triangle with an exclamation point will just drive people away and they only need to take like two steps to take no damage.

It's a horrible Q for the amount of work you have to do it to drop it in someone's pocket.

[Saverem]

Tracer's ulti is basically useless unless you stick it to a character, and even then you mostly just get a single kill. If you drop it on the ground, the huge triangle with an exclamation point will just drive people away and they only need to take like two steps to take no damage.

It's a horrible Q for the amount of work you have to do it to drop it in someone's pocket.

It's balanced in that she builds it up very quickly. Usually takes like 1 minute or 2 to go from 0% to 100% on her. Definitely the fastest ult build up in the game.

[Endus]

EXACTLY! That is my point. This game revolves around using ults to win. That is not very exciting because it dumbs down the FPS experience. FPS is about aiming skills as well as strat/position. No matter how you look at it, ults dumb down this game. It's bad enough we don't even need to worry about ammo management here, ults are basically something for the "casuals" who can use it and get a win, it makes the game easier, not more interesting.

You have an overly narrow interpretation of what "FPS" means. All your complaints basically boil down to "Overwatch isn't CS:GO".

Not really. half the ults don't even require aiming (Mercy, DVA, Junkrat, Widowmaker, Lucio, Symmetra, Zenyatta) and some of them even do the aiming for you (Reaper, McCree, Soldier76, Torbjorn is 50%) Some requires minimal aiming (Hanzo's point and shoot, Pharah's large radius attack from above, Mei and Tracer's bomb chuck, Roadhog's wide range knockback shots, Bastion's wide radius cannon shots, Zarya's aoe pull in shot)

Some of these are just straight-up false. Throwing D.va's mech properly requires proper aim. If you aren't using Torbjorn's ult to rock face with your own gun (which requires aim), you're wasting it. Bastion's tank form requires aim as much as anyone else; the cannon explodes for AoE, but it's not a "wide radius". Roadhog's chaingun is best used for knocking people off cliffs and punting them around, and that DOES require aim to manage. Etc.

And it still doesn't matter, because you're overvaluing "aim" as the sole arbiter, and not bothering with concepts like use of mobility, outmaneuvering the enemy, group strategy, flanking, and so forth.

It's like if you thought all of military strategy boiled down to target practice at the range.

[Vladinator]

If you analyze the beta and current competitive plays, look at what heroes are dominating the rosters. Mercy/Lucio or both are always present. Reinhard usually too, and a mix of what ever is left, but usually Widow for vision and sniping with her is insanely good if you hit. Because of this it can get boring unless Blizzard mixes things up, rebalances, and so forth. Skill cap ceiling will be lower compared to other MLG games.

[Saverem]

You have an overly narrow interpretation of what "FPS" means. All your complaints basically boil down to "Overwatch isn't CS:GO".



Some of these are just straight-up false. Throwing D.va's mech properly requires proper aim. If you aren't using Torbjorn's ult to rock face with your own gun (which requires aim), you're wasting it. Bastion's tank form requires aim as much as anyone else; the cannon explodes for AoE, but it's not a "wide radius". Roadhog's chaingun is best used for knocking people off cliffs and punting them around, and that DOES require aim to manage. Etc.

And it still doesn't matter, because you're overvaluing "aim" as the sole arbiter, and not bothering with concepts like use of mobility, outmaneuvering the enemy, group strategy, flanking, and so forth.

It's like if you thought all of military strategy boiled down to target practice at the range.

1: I've never played CS:GO or any CS game, so that is not my interpretation.

2: I did say that Torb is 50% in his case, which means that yes, 50% is him aiming. The other is his turret aiming. As for mobility and outmaneuvering, that also falls into the "aim" category. If someone is moving fast, jumping, have a smaller hit box (ie Zenyatta/Tracer are tiny characters as opposed to Roadhog/Reinhardt), then that all fall under the aiming category. It's harder to him them when they're fast and small, so it's harder to aim and thus require more skill to actually hit them.

So yes, character speed, size, the way they play (jumping around, knowing the map lay out, how to flank, etc) are all SKILL that is absolutely needed to victorous in any good FPS game.

Which perfectly brings my point into validation that ults TAKE AWAY from such skill by providing "cheats" that help the character aim better (auto-aim) attack through walls (Hanzo), wall hack (widowmaker), etc. I can understand you arguing that knowing when to use them is the skill... but also knowing how to win without using them takes even more skill.

[Endus]

Which perfectly brings my point into validation that ults TAKE AWAY from such skill by providing "cheats" that help the character aim better (auto-aim) attack through walls (Hanzo), wall hack (widowmaker), etc. I can understand you arguing that knowing when to use them is the skill... but also knowing how to win without using them takes even more skill.

This is like saying "knowing how to outflank the enemy with weapons that have superior rates of fire is a skill, but knowing how to win the way by just being better at shooting takes even more skill."

At target practice, yes. And winning through an inferior strategy DOES mean you're a better "player" than your opponent. But it doesn't mean it's the best tactic. You're just doing this a pointlessly difficult way.

You aren't making any case that ultimates are in any way a detraction from the competitive nature of the game. You're just arguing that you wish it were a target range rather than what it actually is. Which isn't an argument.

[Jibjub]

This is like saying "A team sport with 'classes' is flawed from the get-go for competitive play. Football will never take off, classing players as 'quarterback', 'wide receiver', 'lineman'."

It just flat-out isn't true.

Except, in football you don't really chase a meta, do you? A game like Overwatch will never really be truly balanced. It can still be successful and have an audience (like Hearthstone), but we're fooling ourselves if we are all that impressed by it as a "competitive endeavor" ...

[Saverem]

This is like saying "knowing how to outflank the enemy with weapons that have superior rates of fire is a skill, but knowing how to win the way by just being better at shooting takes even more skill."

At target practice, yes. And winning through an inferior strategy DOES mean you're a better "player" than your opponent. But it doesn't mean it's the best tactic. You're just doing this a pointlessly difficult way.

You aren't making any case that ultimates are in any way a detraction from the competitive nature of the game. You're just arguing that you wish it were a target range rather than what it actually is. Which isn't an argument.

Not really, because you actually have to work to outflank, where as in order to ult you literally just press a button.

I like ults, I personally find them fun and like that it can change the tide of a game. However, this is not something I want for an e-sport. It's like having a mini I WIN button and they'd be better off disabling it for competitive play. I don't want to see a team winning because they were able to bunch up everyone defending their point with a Zarya and then wiping them out with a Junkrat tire bomb.

[ro9ue]

Overwatch is probably THE Blizzard game most likely to have a well established eSports presence.

I don't really think Hearthstone does, even though it's hella popular to watch on Twitch. I think that's just mostly to delight in other people's RNG misfortune.

HotS is my personal favorite Blizzard game, but not even Blizz can topple LoL.

OW really has no competitor. TF2 was the OG, but it's dated. Blizzard also made sure to stamp out all of the other hype trains building up around games like Battleborn and Lawbreakers. OW just eclipsed the marketing of those games by miles, so much so that most people can't name some of the other similar shooters.

[Endus]

Except, in football you don't really chase a meta, do you?

Uhh, yeah. Obviously, they do. That's why certain defensive patterns and such have names and are well-known; that's the "meta".

Not really, because you actually have to work to outflank, where as in order to ult you literally just press a button.

I like ults, I personally find them fun and like that it can change the tide of a game. However, this is not something I want for an e-sport. It's like having a mini I WIN button and they'd be better off disabling it for competitive play. I don't want to see a team winning because they were able to bunch up everyone defending their point with a Zarya and then wiping them out with a Junkrat tire bomb.

This just makes no sense at any level.

Being grouped up enough that Zarya could snag you means you fucked up. Getting wiped out by the tire you heard coming means you fucked up. You're arguing that a mechanic should be removed because it adds complexity.

[McLovenIt]

Uhh, yeah. Obviously, they do. That's why certain defensive patterns and such have names and are well-known; that's the "meta".



This just makes no sense at any level.

Being grouped up enough that Zarya could snag you means you fucked up. Getting wiped out by the tire you heard coming means you fucked up. You're arguing that a mechanic should be removed because it adds complexity.

lol -- there's just no talking sense into some people Endus.

like Endus said, if you are so dumb as to be bunched together for Zarya to grab all or most of you, you're a bunch of morons. Even on Capture Points, once you hold the point, you don't even have to stay in the room to continue gaining %. So how would her ultimate ever get all of you??? You constantly patrol the perimeter and set traps within the point to keep enemies out.

Some of you nay-sayers seem to want Overwatch with zero ultimates for competitive play, which essentially would ruin the game as a whole. That's like playing Battlefield and taking out the vehicles.....You either play the game or you don't play the game, but you can't just go in and say "we're disabling this huge part of the game for competitive play, hope you guys can adapt to that"

Competitive Play is releasing very soon with "ranked play" but once larger tournaments come out, we'll than be able to gauge the interest level and possibility of growth in the E-Sport world.

Sounds like a few of you will hate where this game goes in the Competitive world, but the rest of us will gladly tune in and become bigger fans

- - - Updated - - -

Not really, because you actually have to work to outflank, where as in order to ult you literally just press a button.

To kill an opponent in an FPS all you have to do is "press a button" oh yea, and slide your mouse around a tiny bit.......so what's your point? Everything in every game is just PRESSING A BUTTON -- how is the "Q" for an Ultimate any different than "Left Click" for firing a gun?

[Endus]

Some of you nay-sayers seem to want Overwatch with zero ultimates for competitive play, which essentially would ruin the game as a whole. That's like playing Battlefield and taking out the vehicles.....You either play the game or you don't play the game, but you can't just go in and say "we're disabling this huge part of the game for competitive play, hope you guys can adapt to that"

It seems like what they want is for competitive play to basically be that "We're all Soldiers now" arena from last week, which pretty much everyone loathed.

[badzerath]

Again, what's your issue with this?

It can't be that Widowmaker thought she was "safe". She can't see her own model, and the only way for her to judge if she's "hanging out" over the edge of that wall is whether she can get hit. She has no way to tell if a pixel of her model was sticking past the ledge or not, without the kill cam footage.

And without the bigger hitboxes he gets, Hanzo would be basically unplayable. He's already not considered to be all that great, even with those hitboxes. This seems like such a niche issue, and one that ONLY exists because of the killcam that lets people see these niche cases.

Sure, it's not realistic, but it's a game where one character (Tracer) is kind of unstuck in time, and another (Winston) is a super-genius Gorilla. Realism isn't a major component. What matters isn't how accurately Overwatch represents realistic action, but how competitive and well-balanced the game framework it presents is. The hitbox "issue" with Hanzo is only a real "issue" if it causes a balance problem, and I can't see how it is. Don't want to get shot by Hanzo? Get behind cover. It isn't whether your model is peeking out that matters, but whether your hitbox is.

/facepalm

Ok, I like overwatch and I hope it does well in the future, but your post/argument here was so god damn pathetic even I cringed.

You compare a mechanic like hanzo hitboxes to the "realism" of a talking gorilla...

Are you even trying?

FPS and standard skill caps for FPS games - meaning the base amount of brain cells it takes to aim a crosshair at the correct part of your screen - is something totally different than the fact a gorilla is talking or tracer can rewind time.....and you KNOW that.

1. Hanzo would be playable without the larger hitbox. Invalid point is invalid. What you meant was harder and unplayable for the likes of you. Don't fucking lump me and the rest of the OW community into your category.
2. If you don't understand why dying while hidden behind a wall to a projectile that never touched you is all kinds of fucked up and bad for a game like Overwatch then you are delusional, and in denial. Fanboy alert.

Come back to planet earth.

[Endus]

/facepalm

Ok, I like overwatch and I hope it does well in the future, but your post/argument here was so god damn pathetic even I cringed.

You compare a mechanic like hanzo hitboxes to the "realism" of a talking gorilla...

Are you even trying?

FPS and standard skill caps for FPS games - meaning the base amount of brain cells it takes to aim a crosshair at the correct part of your screen - is something totally different than the fact a gorilla is talking or tracer can rewind time.....and you KNOW that.

You haven't actually made a point, here. You're just being insulting.

1. Hanzo would be playable without the larger hitbox. Invalid point is invalid. What you meant was harder and unplayable for the likes of you. Don't fucking lump me and the rest of the OW community into your category.

If he's harder to play than most other heroes, and harder to secure kills with, then he's unbalanced and would be avoided in favor of heroes that don't have such an unbalanced performance.

2. If you don't understand why dying while hidden behind a wall to a projectile that never touched you is all kinds of fucked up and bad for a game like Overwatch then you are delusional, and in denial. Fanboy alert.

Widowmaker wasn't hidden behind that wall. That's why Hanzo was able to shoot her. Whether you get hit is determined by hitbox, not player model, and regardless, the Widowmaker player can't see either, so she's not thinking she's safe because she can see that her model's behind the wall, in the first place.

[badzerath]

You haven't actually made a point, here. You're just being insulting.



If he's harder to play than most other heroes, and harder to secure kills with, then he's unbalanced and would be avoided in favor of heroes that don't have such an unbalanced performance.


Widowmaker wasn't hidden behind that wall. That's why Hanzo was able to shoot her. Whether you get hit is determined by hitbox, not player model, and regardless, the Widowmaker player can't see either, so she's not thinking she's safe because she can see that her model's behind the wall, in the first place.

I pointed out how fucking absurd and bad your argument is. Apples to oranges. Etc.

Like I said - denial. And the worst part is people like you only hurt the game and make it less likely to be successful because you support shit like this that turns off a majority of gamers that would tune into a MLG envent on Twitch.

What's insulting, at least to me is that you are a moderator on these forums. Along with your bias, poor judgement, and inability to do your job objectively.



Shouldn't you be infracting me by now? I mean I do disagree with you, and that's how you work as a moderator anyway. I mean it is on display in the OT forums:
http://imgur.com/oOvDQDJ
http://i.imgur.com/Euqt0Dy.png

Infracted

If you want to discuss moderation, come to a global. Do not derail threads making personal attacks against anyone.

[Synadrasa]

A big problem with overwatch like many people have said is the randomness and power of ults. Whenever the rng in an fps is higher, luck has a much more profound effect on the outcome of the game and therefore skill is much less represented.

But maybe Blizzard is okay with this. It would have been easy for Blizzard to just make another CS:GO, but they wanted to add something different to their fps.

[Mormolyce]

I give zero shits about MLG as I never watch that kind of thing, but what's popular as an eSport is determined solely by what attracts a lot of views, not your subjective opinion of how much "skill" is involved.

In fact, on this forum we routinely overstate how much skill is involved in all kinds of games.

I noticed that pretty much every match's victory is dependent on people knowing when to use and manage their ults.

Unlike popular MLG games like CS/Halo/etc where every character has basically the same power and winners rely mostly on their skill and strat, Overwatch relies mainly on rock/paper/scissors and coordination to know when to blow your ults and sweep the area. It's no where near as deep as a FPS where everyone is essentially equal and the winners are the better players.


e.i. Doesn't take much skill to coordinate a Zarya and Hanzo/Pharah/Tracer/Reaper/Dva/etc ult combo and wipe out the other team and cap the point.

This post makes more sense if you swap "shallow" and "deep". This game has all the FPS skill of regular FPS titles, plus ability/ult management. And no it isn't all about ultis though they are obviously impactful.

Anyway, the whole premise is stupid, they are simply different styles of game.

[badzerath]

This game has all the FPS skill of regular FPS titles

Let's not lie please.

[Mormolyce]

I pointed out how fucking absurd and bad your argument is. Apples to oranges. Etc.

Like I said - denial. And the worst part is people like you only hurt the game and make it less likely to be successful because you support shit like this that turns off a majority of gamers that would tune into a MLG envent on Twitch.

What's insulting, at least to me is that you are a moderator on these forums. Along with your bias, poor judgement, and inability to do your job objectively.



Shouldn't you be infracting me by now? I mean I do disagree with you, and that's how you work as a moderator anyway. I mean it is on display in the OT forums:
http://imgur.com/oOvDQDJ
http://i.imgur.com/Euqt0Dy.png

Could you repeat that but in a more snooty and obnoxious tone?

- - - Updated - - -

Let's not lie please.

You aim and shoot. That's an FPS.

[badzerath]

You aim and shoot. That's an FPS.

So then you either don't know what you are talking about because you buried your head in the sand (or your anus) or because you haven't read the countless threads explaining the difference.

which one is it?