Also, we should team up, cuz I'm mediocre/high gold4life.
I don't team up with most of the awesome NA PA folk because I play on the Australian servers, and only about an hour every weeknight after my baby's asleep, but before I need to get to sleep for work tomorrow.
Having to be able to rush away at a moment's notice has made my social gaming very limited haha, not that I regret having a child. At all.
There's a bunch of parents out here playing games between diapers and irrational crying fests. The time difference might be the biggest obstacle for grouping up but don't let the idea that being a parent precludes you from having some hobby fun.
+2
Options
DuriniaEvolved from Space PotatoesRegistered Userregular
Yeah, I'm in the same boat on babies, but not so much on the Australian bit
For business reasons, I must preserve the outward sign of sanity.
--Mark Twain
Two Junkrat POTGs. When I played TF2 I rarely touch the demoman but for whatever reason Junkrat is really clicking now that I've given him a chance.
That "backdoor" flank on Anubis is one of my favorites. I once got two quadrakills in the same round as Bastion/tank-mode doing that.
For business reasons, I must preserve the outward sign of sanity.
--Mark Twain
+1
Options
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
I've been playing Junkrat more simply because peeps be taking McCree and Lucio and Widowmaker is situational, but he is growing on me too. Still don't quite know when I will and won't self injure myself but I've been able to hold the line on defending Dorado so much with him he's become my go-to character there.
Get a couple good trap/mine combos in and people start to get really wary of pushing ahead, IME
One of my favorite things to do is leave a trap at a corner, and then a mine on the wall next to it, so people come around the corner, step in it, then get blasted while anybody nearby gets launched away from the edge and right into the kill box. Much more fun than launching then straight up for impromptu skeet shooting.
Get a couple good trap/mine combos in and people start to get really wary of pushing ahead, IME
One of my favorite things to do is leave a trap at a corner, and then a mine on the wall next to it, so people come around the corner, step in it, then get blasted while anybody nearby gets launched away from the edge and right into the kill box. Much more fun than launching then straight up for impromptu skeet shooting.
Tossing both in front of the spawn exit before the game begins shouldn't work nearly as often as it does.
Get a couple good trap/mine combos in and people start to get really wary of pushing ahead, IME
One of my favorite things to do is leave a trap at a corner, and then a mine on the wall next to it, so people come around the corner, step in it, then get blasted while anybody nearby gets launched away from the edge and right into the kill box. Much more fun than launching then straight up for impromptu skeet shooting.
Tossing both in front of the spawn exit before the game begins shouldn't work nearly as often as it does.
Even explicitly warning people about it doesn't stop them from blithely walking into them.
And yes, Junkrat's mine sticks to any surface. Put it on a ceiling if you want. It's not invisible though, so don't leave it at eye level.
Haha. There should really be a way to break out of emoting, even if it's funnier that there isn't.
They've said that they don't want there to be because emoting lets you move the camera around, so you can do things like corner peek without actually exposing yourself.
Two Junkrat POTGs. When I played TF2 I rarely touch the demoman but for whatever reason Junkrat is really clicking now that I've given him a chance.
As someone with a lot of time on both demo and trashchild, they're really not that similar. The big differences being demo's nades are a lot faster (making landing direct hits easier), while junkrat has infinite ammo and a fast reload (encouraging spam), which leads to drastically different play styles.
Even when it comes to sticky jumping they're super different. Demo has no cooldown (or rather, has 8 stickies before needing to do a lengthy reload) so he can clear the map on demand, but it costs health so he needs to jump from health pack to health pack, and it's not useful as an escape as you'll probably just blow yourself up (or die to fall damage). Junkrat is much more limited with the 6? second cooldown on his mine, but because he doesn't take damage from it he can use it to safely disengage from a fight.
I have no problem with players picking snipers over and over...in non-ranked. In Ranked, there should be expected standards of behavior and team play. In Ranked, my team had a player named WidowOnly who would do the same thing. Combined with abusive chatting while refusing to switch and playing poorly, both teams reported him.
I read this, right, and I'm trying to see how I can agree with the actions undertaken in this story... but my brain stalls at the part where there was abusive chatting and that one person got reported for it.
It might be the case that the Widow was the one who was abusive to everyone else first, sure. But about 85% of the time, it starts with the other 11 people being abusive to the Widow first. What about their reports/bans/punishments?
It strikes me as deeply childish to complain about someone else's hero pick and letting this somehow justify your own shitty behaviour. It's literally a "well THEY started it" argument, except apparently they started it by just picking someone they wanted to play? Suddenly that justifies the deluge of abuse?
I mean, fucking DEAL WITH IT, folks. Yes, I get upset when someone stubbornly refuses to change in Competitive, but in the interests of winning, we can also swap AROUND that person, too. How is the first response to "no I don't want to swap I'm comfortable here" not "fine I'll do it", if the endgame is to win? It's either that or you waste precious time and focus on being salty about it, which is going to have an even bigger impact on your chances of winning than the Widow ever will.
I have much bigger problems with players who just overextend and die and complain to me that no one healed them, and Widows very seldom do that, at least.
Plus, if folks hate randos so much then play with a group; I refuse to solo queue anymore in Competitive (predominantly for girl reasons, actually) and it has increased my enjoyment of this game tenfold. Half the time when I'm playing in my 3-4 stack with randoms, they constantly say it was the least toxic game they've ever played as solo queuers, win or lose. And if you find folks don't wanna group with you and play with you? Problem might be YOU (general "you", not Cantido or anyone specific).
I completely disagree with Blizzard banning people for this alone, certainly without ALSO banning the abusive behaviour targeting the Widow in the first place. All it does is, as @Houk said earlier, encourage people to keep acting like this when someone does something they don't like. Even if Widow was removed from the game, there would STILL be this kind of childish behaviour happening, and ultimately supporting this ban would have done very little to actually address the abusive behaviour in the game.
I'm personally a little skeptical we're getting the full story from just the supposedly persecuted since I've seen some bitchiness and assholeness due to picks, but nothing systematic like is described from that one side. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the general interaction was something like:
A: "Hey, dude. We could really use a tank/healer/attacker instead of Widow."
B: "Tough shit. Widow only. Shut up and deal with it."
Which isn't against any rules or abusive in and of itself, but would sure as fuck escalate people getting pissed off at him for it and taking retributive actions.
Yeah, like, considering Blizz not only banned him, but then upheld the ban and warned him about it, leads me to believe it was a pattern of behavior more extreme than simply silently picking a hero. We straight up don't have enough information to understand Blizzard's decision-making process in this case.
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
I'm personally a little skeptical we're getting the full story from just the supposedly persecuted since I've seen some bitchiness and assholeness due to picks, but nothing systematic like is described from that one side. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the general interaction was something like:
A: "Hey, dude. We could really use a tank/healer/attacker instead of Widow."
B: "Tough shit. Widow only. Shut up and deal with it."
Which isn't against any rules or abusive in and of itself, but would sure as fuck escalate people getting pissed off at him for it and taking retributive actions.
Yeah, like, considering Blizz not only banned him, but then upheld the ban and warned him about it, leads me to believe it was a pattern of behavior more extreme than simply silently picking a hero. We straight up don't have enough information to understand Blizzard's decision-making process in this case.
the full story in the original link paints a different picture
like I get we are getting the persecuted's side of the story, of course, but based on the OTHER screencaps in that article, it seems that Blizzard themselves don't have a consistent stance on what to do, which tells me that this particular dude probably ISN'T always abusive, but it likely shines through more than once precisely because it comes up game after game after game
and I don't wanna be soft on the guy - they've brought it on themselves by refusing to switch and they ALSO have to deal with it - but much of my point still stands, in that it takes (at least) 2 to tango, and at any point people on both sides could've just let it be and work around it, rather than have disproportionately emotional reactions to the situation
even if the freak out is justified, it doesn't actually solve the problem
VivixenneRemember your training, and we'll get through this just fine.Registered Userregular
edited January 2017
like if you wanna treat comp like an actual sport, with real emotional investment etc, well part of that is dealing with shitty teammates and figuring out how to win in spite of them, or leveraging what advantages they do have
the irony of course is that your team isn't always consistent from game to game, which is why it is so confusing when people react like this
ffs, the only thing you actually have any real control over is what YOU do, so why make it worse for yourself by buying into that dynamic?
I'm not criticising people for taking the game seriously, btw, but it's more that if you ARE going to take it so seriously, why not actually try to be productive rather than have a meltdown?
and this goes for both parties; my first comment after the story was posted was that people need to stop being big babies - that is addressed to BOTH sides, but it seems most people here AREN'T that inflexible Widow, hence my bigger post above is mostly addressing that crowd
Two Junkrat POTGs. When I played TF2 I rarely touch the demoman but for whatever reason Junkrat is really clicking now that I've given him a chance.
there's some kind of glitch happening cuz your POTGs got labelled as "Highlights" instead
something something delusions of grandeur
They may be highlights, but I've had PotGs with less fire. Nobody here ever got a Lifesaver?
Keep on rockin', Quid.
awww I legit wondered if it could be a glitch, since it blatantly says "HIGHLIGHT" on the thumbnail, so I didn't think Quid was lying so much as the reel re-categorised his play
Kai_SanCommonly known as Klineshrike!Registered Userregular
Well, the thing about it is, someone unwilling to switch characters, for whatever reason, is basically refusing to work together as a team in some form. That likely makes it harder to play with them period. While the rest of the team could work around THEM, that is going to drag the team down a whole when compared to another team where all 6 members are working as one. It would be the same thing in a workplace - if one employee just does whatever the hell they want, even if you work around it, you are going to be a less cohesive unit than if everyone did what they could to work with everyone.
Obviously the solution is to get a group together, but some people don't have that option. Solo queueing exists and it needs to be a decent experience if its going to exist.
A lot of those what if semantics really do have to play a back seat to how much of a detriment it is to have a "won't budge" attitude in a team game.
+1
Options
The Escape Goatincorrigible ruminantthey/themRegistered Userregular
I'm personally a little skeptical we're getting the full story from just the supposedly persecuted since I've seen some bitchiness and assholeness due to picks, but nothing systematic like is described from that one side. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the general interaction was something like:
A: "Hey, dude. We could really use a tank/healer/attacker instead of Widow."
B: "Tough shit. Widow only. Shut up and deal with it."
Which isn't against any rules or abusive in and of itself, but would sure as fuck escalate people getting pissed off at him for it and taking retributive actions.
Yeah, like, considering Blizz not only banned him, but then upheld the ban and warned him about it, leads me to believe it was a pattern of behavior more extreme than simply silently picking a hero. We straight up don't have enough information to understand Blizzard's decision-making process in this case.
the full story in that link paints a different picture
like I get we are getting the persecuted's side of the story, of course, but based on the OTHER screencaps in that article, it seems that Blizzard themselves don't have a consistent stance on what to do, which tells me that this particular dude probably ISN'T always abusive, but it likely shines through more than once precisely because it comes up game after game after game
and I don't wanna be soft on the guy - they've brought it on themselves by refusing to switch and they ALSO have to deal with it - but much of my point still stands, in that it takes (at least) 2 to tango, and at any point people on both sides could've just let it be and work around it, rather than have disproportionately emotional reactions to the situation
even if the freak out is justified, it doesn't actually solve the problem
Kotaku isn't doing any sort of reporting here, they're just repeating what the guy has told them without independent verification, and showing the screen captures that he has chosen to give them. And he has apparently been chat silenced a LOT, so he's got a lot to choose from. Like, some of these responses just seem to be in response to different things, or "well you were aggressive in chat but not aggressive enough to warrant a further ban." It's only through his chosen narrative that we have any idea of what these reports are generally about.
Kana on
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
0
Options
VivixenneRemember your training, and we'll get through this just fine.Registered Userregular
Well, the thing about it is, someone unwilling to switch characters, for whatever reason, is basically refusing to work together as a team in some form. That likely makes it harder to play with them period. While the rest of the team could work around THEM, that is going to drag the team down a whole when compared to another team where all 6 members are working as one. It would be the same thing in a workplace - if one employee just does whatever the hell they want, even if you work around it, you are going to be a less cohesive unit than if everyone did what they could to work with everyone.
Obviously the solution is to get a group together, but some people don't have that option. Solo queueing exists and it needs to be a decent experience if its going to exist.
A lot of those what if semantics really do have to play a back seat to how much of a detriment it is to have a "won't budge" attitude in a team game.
Sure, this is absolutely true and I don't disagree. But again, you don't actually have any real control over what someone else decides to do.
If your goal is to WIN and it's evident that you aren't going to change that one person's mind, then you might as well use what you CAN control to try to figure one out. Complaining about it in this case is much like screaming into the void - it ISN'T going to make these Widows more flexible (and btw, plenty of them actually are, so it's a very minority set that we see in Competitive that are ACTUALLY refusing to change) and in fact is more likely to make them STICK with their pick.
There are multiple posts in this thread and the SE++ thread where people clearly say that they are less likely to change heroes when someone asks them to switch off of someone. My self included. So don't act like everyone HERE is completely okay with that sort of thing coming their way, either, Widow or not.
You get more success if, after the first round, the entire team agrees to figure out what needs to change together, and you work backwards from the person with the smallest roster. But, you know, that's impossible if you've already set yourselves up to be internally combative during that first round.
And yeah, I'll be fucking annoyed at the one person who insists they stick with their one person, but I will not let that ONE goose ruin our chances of winning, so at least we've flagged it early and the rest of the team feels more confident in their own picks as a result.
I'm personally a little skeptical we're getting the full story from just the supposedly persecuted since I've seen some bitchiness and assholeness due to picks, but nothing systematic like is described from that one side. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the general interaction was something like:
A: "Hey, dude. We could really use a tank/healer/attacker instead of Widow."
B: "Tough shit. Widow only. Shut up and deal with it."
Which isn't against any rules or abusive in and of itself, but would sure as fuck escalate people getting pissed off at him for it and taking retributive actions.
Yeah, like, considering Blizz not only banned him, but then upheld the ban and warned him about it, leads me to believe it was a pattern of behavior more extreme than simply silently picking a hero. We straight up don't have enough information to understand Blizzard's decision-making process in this case.
the full story in that link paints a different picture
like I get we are getting the persecuted's side of the story, of course, but based on the OTHER screencaps in that article, it seems that Blizzard themselves don't have a consistent stance on what to do, which tells me that this particular dude probably ISN'T always abusive, but it likely shines through more than once precisely because it comes up game after game after game
and I don't wanna be soft on the guy - they've brought it on themselves by refusing to switch and they ALSO have to deal with it - but much of my point still stands, in that it takes (at least) 2 to tango, and at any point people on both sides could've just let it be and work around it, rather than have disproportionately emotional reactions to the situation
even if the freak out is justified, it doesn't actually solve the problem
Kotaku isn't doing any sort of reporting here, they're just repeating what the guy has told them with independent verification, and showing the screen captures that he has chosen to give them. And he has apparently been chat silenced a LOT, so he's got a lot to choose from. Like, some of these responses just seem to be in response to different things, or "well you were aggressive in chat but not aggressive enough to warrant a further ban." It's only through his chosen narrative that we have any idea of what these reports are generally about.
yeah fair enough, I suppose
it doesn't actually counter any of the points I've made, because it DOES speak to a broader problem in the player base in general
I've seen people who've blown up because someone said hey man I don't think this is working can you switch? And I've seen a guy threaten to throw in a match because he didn't like the comp despite us utterly crushing on defense. It depends on the situation.
I've seen people who've blown up because someone said hey man I don't think this is working can you switch? And I've seen a guy threaten to throw in a match because he didn't like the comp despite us utterly crushing on defense. It depends on the situation.
to be fair, "don't be a great big baby" seems to apply in every situation
I've seen people who've blown up because someone said hey man I don't think this is working can you switch? And I've seen a guy threaten to throw in a match because he didn't like the comp despite us utterly crushing on defense. It depends on the situation.
to be fair, "don't be a great big baby" seems to apply in every situation
don't you kinkshame me
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
I think everyone involved in The Widow's Situation are geese of the silliest caliber.
The Teammates:
People can play whichever hero they want (and I do). Will you get matches where everyone on your team is hard-countered by the reds at best or just horrible players at worst? Absolutely. All you can do is try your best if you think it'll help, or just make sure you enjoy yourself. To aggressively attempt to inflict your will on others, or report them for playing in a way that doesn't qualify as griefing, is to be a toxic griefer yourself. Congratulations, you're a silly goose.
The Widow:
Widow, you can be a top-500 ranked nitrous oxide powered Play of the Game machine, but if Widow is the only hero you can play in pursuit of winning a match, you are bad at Overwatch, and a silly goose.
Blizzard:
When identical situations are reported to your griefing/toxic/hackers department, they should receive identical treatment. For one agent to do one thing and a different agent to do another renders your entire flock of geese silly.
Once... and this was months ago, mind you, I'm in a comp game. We're attacking Anubis, and I lock Tracer because I can pretty much always crack the first point with Tracer (I'm often mystified by the second without a really humming team behind me). Some guy on team chat lets out this big self-important sigh and says "maaaan... get off Tracer."
I say "any reason why?"
"'Cause I wanna' go Tracer."
Y'know what I said?
"Eh, okay."
And then I went Mercy. We never got the first point, and I survived the experience without injury.
'Chance, you are the best kind of whore.' -Henroid
+1
Options
Kai_SanCommonly known as Klineshrike!Registered Userregular
Well, the thing about it is, someone unwilling to switch characters, for whatever reason, is basically refusing to work together as a team in some form. That likely makes it harder to play with them period. While the rest of the team could work around THEM, that is going to drag the team down a whole when compared to another team where all 6 members are working as one. It would be the same thing in a workplace - if one employee just does whatever the hell they want, even if you work around it, you are going to be a less cohesive unit than if everyone did what they could to work with everyone.
Obviously the solution is to get a group together, but some people don't have that option. Solo queueing exists and it needs to be a decent experience if its going to exist.
A lot of those what if semantics really do have to play a back seat to how much of a detriment it is to have a "won't budge" attitude in a team game.
Sure, this is absolutely true and I don't disagree. But again, you don't actually have any real control over what someone else decides to do.
If your goal is to WIN and it's evident that you aren't going to change that one person's mind, then you might as well use what you CAN control to try to figure one out. Complaining about it in this case is much like screaming into the void - it ISN'T going to make these Widows more flexible (and btw, plenty of them actually are, so it's a very minority set that we see in Competitive that are ACTUALLY refusing to change) and in fact is more likely to make them STICK with their pick.
There are multiple posts in this thread and the SE++ thread where people clearly say that they are less likely to change heroes when someone asks them to switch off of someone. So don't act like everyone HERE is completely okay with that sort of thing coming their way, either.
You get more success if, after the first round, the entire team agrees to figure out what needs to change together, and you work backwards from the person with the smallest roster. But, you know, that's impossible if you've already set yourselves up to be internally combative during that first round.
And yeah, I'll be fucking annoyed at the one person who insists they stick with their one person, but I will not let that ONE goose ruin our chances of winning, so at least we've flagged it early and the rest of the team feels more confident in their own picks as a result.
I kind of jumped into this so I might have been missing a lot of facts here, but it does kind of seem like you are talking about a separate, more general (and possibly personal experience) problem than the one that was the primary topic of discussion.
Cause I kind of think what Kana says does counter the points you made - assuming that the rest of the team was in any way to blame because that is what you see most of the time is kind of not fair to the rest of the team. They are just as likely to be completely innocent as in many of your cases the individual was.
I actually have been in a situation before where I was yelled at to change because I wasn't doing what the character I was playing is supposed to be doing (but actually was, just we were getting stomped) to the point where the whole team quit the match. It was quick play. I still actually feel like I was at fault too because I SHOULD have switched, but I also wanted to play that character to learn them. I may have a stronger sense of doing what is best for everyone to have the best experience over my own experience though.
0
Options
VivixenneRemember your training, and we'll get through this just fine.Registered Userregular
Well, the thing about it is, someone unwilling to switch characters, for whatever reason, is basically refusing to work together as a team in some form. That likely makes it harder to play with them period. While the rest of the team could work around THEM, that is going to drag the team down a whole when compared to another team where all 6 members are working as one. It would be the same thing in a workplace - if one employee just does whatever the hell they want, even if you work around it, you are going to be a less cohesive unit than if everyone did what they could to work with everyone.
Obviously the solution is to get a group together, but some people don't have that option. Solo queueing exists and it needs to be a decent experience if its going to exist.
A lot of those what if semantics really do have to play a back seat to how much of a detriment it is to have a "won't budge" attitude in a team game.
Sure, this is absolutely true and I don't disagree. But again, you don't actually have any real control over what someone else decides to do.
If your goal is to WIN and it's evident that you aren't going to change that one person's mind, then you might as well use what you CAN control to try to figure one out. Complaining about it in this case is much like screaming into the void - it ISN'T going to make these Widows more flexible (and btw, plenty of them actually are, so it's a very minority set that we see in Competitive that are ACTUALLY refusing to change) and in fact is more likely to make them STICK with their pick.
There are multiple posts in this thread and the SE++ thread where people clearly say that they are less likely to change heroes when someone asks them to switch off of someone. So don't act like everyone HERE is completely okay with that sort of thing coming their way, either.
You get more success if, after the first round, the entire team agrees to figure out what needs to change together, and you work backwards from the person with the smallest roster. But, you know, that's impossible if you've already set yourselves up to be internally combative during that first round.
And yeah, I'll be fucking annoyed at the one person who insists they stick with their one person, but I will not let that ONE goose ruin our chances of winning, so at least we've flagged it early and the rest of the team feels more confident in their own picks as a result.
I kind of jumped into this so I might have been missing a lot of facts here, but it does kind of seem like you are talking about a separate, more general (and possibly personal experience) problem than the one that was the primary topic of discussion.
Cause I kind of think what Kana says does counter the points you made - assuming that the rest of the team was in any way to blame because that is what you see most of the time is kind of not fair to the rest of the team. They are just as likely to be completely innocent as in many of your cases the individual was.
I actually have been in a situation before where I was yelled at to change because I wasn't doing what the character I was playing is supposed to be doing (but actually was, just we were getting stomped) to the point where the whole team quit the match. It was quick play. I still actually feel like I was at fault too because I SHOULD have switched, but I also wanted to play that character to learn them. I may have a stronger sense of doing what is best for everyone to have the best experience over my own experience though.
It's not personal because I don't experience it much at all; I work at negating it in every Competitive match I'm in, often before problems even arise.
And yes, I AM talking about the more general implications of this problem, because they do exist. The conversation, even on the preceding page, has been largely about what everyone should prioritise - themselves playing what they want to play, or giving in to what the team needs. The Widow story is just what kickstarted it.
My intent is to draw attention to several immutable facts of this game:
1) you cannot control what other people are going to do;
2) it is a team-based game, which means as much as flexibility counts, so too does working with inflexibility;
3) abusive behaviour goes both ways, and by engaging/participating in it, you are actively reducing your chances of winning, regardless of who started it, and really your more productive choices are to either opt out or neutralise it;
4) individual people enjoy different aspects of this game but some degree of cooperation is necessary to maximise chances of winning, so someone somewhere is going to have to compromise if you actually want to win;
5) it is necessary to reflect on your own contributions to a loss or a win if you want to be a better player... repeatedly externalising blame is generally an act of the stupid;
6) you will lose more games that you'd prefer, but you will not actually die from this experience.
None of these are countered by Kana's post. In fact, I think Kana and I are largely on the same page INCLUDING the specific Widow story in mind, because I absolutely agree that we don't have enough information. But it HAS drawn attention to broader problems with the culture in this game, in that I cannot believe some people out there lack the insight to clock their OWN behaviour and instead chuck a tantrum at everyone else.
Sidebar:
One of the very best experiences I had in comp was me in a 3-stack, a pair, and a solo queue. I suggested everyone pick their best hero and let's have a look at what's going on. We quickly figured out that one of the pair had a very small competitive roster - Lucio/Mercy only - and so they got to pick first. I, as the next best Support main and with the smallest DPS/Tank roster, picked Zenny to complement their Mercy.
Then we got a Zarya because that was someone else's best main tank. The other main tank was a good Roadhog but we noted the map and Roadhog wasn't the best pick for this situation, does he have anyone on their roster that complements a Zarya ult? Reaper. Awesome!
We finished up with a Reinhardt to protect the Mercy and give me something to stand behind and safely shoot things. Soldier was chosen as the last DPS because we didn't have any long-range hitscan options, he could also stand behind the Reinhardt shield and pew-pew things, and his ult would work nicely with Reinhardt's. Our mobility was low - only the Reaper could flank effectively but he could mostly look after himself - so I was in charge of watching our flank and letting the Soldier/Zarya know if someone was coming for our Mercy.
Posts
There's a bunch of parents out here playing games between diapers and irrational crying fests. The time difference might be the biggest obstacle for grouping up but don't let the idea that being a parent precludes you from having some hobby fun.
--Mark Twain
Two Junkrat POTGs. When I played TF2 I rarely touch the demoman but for whatever reason Junkrat is really clicking now that I've given him a chance.
That "backdoor" flank on Anubis is one of my favorites. I once got two quadrakills in the same round as Bastion/tank-mode doing that.
--Mark Twain
One of my favorite things to do is leave a trap at a corner, and then a mine on the wall next to it, so people come around the corner, step in it, then get blasted while anybody nearby gets launched away from the edge and right into the kill box. Much more fun than launching then straight up for impromptu skeet shooting.
Tossing both in front of the spawn exit before the game begins shouldn't work nearly as often as it does.
Even explicitly warning people about it doesn't stop them from blithely walking into them.
And yes, Junkrat's mine sticks to any surface. Put it on a ceiling if you want. It's not invisible though, so don't leave it at eye level.
http://i.imgur.com/rs4ywMb.gifv
They've said that they don't want there to be because emoting lets you move the camera around, so you can do things like corner peek without actually exposing yourself.
As someone with a lot of time on both demo and trashchild, they're really not that similar. The big differences being demo's nades are a lot faster (making landing direct hits easier), while junkrat has infinite ammo and a fast reload (encouraging spam), which leads to drastically different play styles.
Even when it comes to sticky jumping they're super different. Demo has no cooldown (or rather, has 8 stickies before needing to do a lengthy reload) so he can clear the map on demand, but it costs health so he needs to jump from health pack to health pack, and it's not useful as an escape as you'll probably just blow yourself up (or die to fall damage). Junkrat is much more limited with the 6? second cooldown on his mine, but because he doesn't take damage from it he can use it to safely disengage from a fight.
First as Bastion when I belatedly realize maybe I should do something about the other Bastion.
Then I had my Pharah ultimate interrupted in the best way.
Twitch: KoopahTroopah - Steam: Koopah
I read this, right, and I'm trying to see how I can agree with the actions undertaken in this story... but my brain stalls at the part where there was abusive chatting and that one person got reported for it.
It might be the case that the Widow was the one who was abusive to everyone else first, sure. But about 85% of the time, it starts with the other 11 people being abusive to the Widow first. What about their reports/bans/punishments?
It strikes me as deeply childish to complain about someone else's hero pick and letting this somehow justify your own shitty behaviour. It's literally a "well THEY started it" argument, except apparently they started it by just picking someone they wanted to play? Suddenly that justifies the deluge of abuse?
I mean, fucking DEAL WITH IT, folks. Yes, I get upset when someone stubbornly refuses to change in Competitive, but in the interests of winning, we can also swap AROUND that person, too. How is the first response to "no I don't want to swap I'm comfortable here" not "fine I'll do it", if the endgame is to win? It's either that or you waste precious time and focus on being salty about it, which is going to have an even bigger impact on your chances of winning than the Widow ever will.
I have much bigger problems with players who just overextend and die and complain to me that no one healed them, and Widows very seldom do that, at least.
Plus, if folks hate randos so much then play with a group; I refuse to solo queue anymore in Competitive (predominantly for girl reasons, actually) and it has increased my enjoyment of this game tenfold. Half the time when I'm playing in my 3-4 stack with randoms, they constantly say it was the least toxic game they've ever played as solo queuers, win or lose. And if you find folks don't wanna group with you and play with you? Problem might be YOU (general "you", not Cantido or anyone specific).
I completely disagree with Blizzard banning people for this alone, certainly without ALSO banning the abusive behaviour targeting the Widow in the first place. All it does is, as @Houk said earlier, encourage people to keep acting like this when someone does something they don't like. Even if Widow was removed from the game, there would STILL be this kind of childish behaviour happening, and ultimately supporting this ban would have done very little to actually address the abusive behaviour in the game.
there's some kind of glitch happening cuz your POTGs got labelled as "Highlights" instead
something something delusions of grandeur
A: "Hey, dude. We could really use a tank/healer/attacker instead of Widow."
B: "Tough shit. Widow only. Shut up and deal with it."
Which isn't against any rules or abusive in and of itself, but would sure as fuck escalate people getting pissed off at him for it and taking retributive actions.
They may be highlights, but I've had PotGs with less fire. Nobody here ever got a Lifesaver?
Keep on rockin', Quid.
the full story in the original link paints a different picture
like I get we are getting the persecuted's side of the story, of course, but based on the OTHER screencaps in that article, it seems that Blizzard themselves don't have a consistent stance on what to do, which tells me that this particular dude probably ISN'T always abusive, but it likely shines through more than once precisely because it comes up game after game after game
and I don't wanna be soft on the guy - they've brought it on themselves by refusing to switch and they ALSO have to deal with it - but much of my point still stands, in that it takes (at least) 2 to tango, and at any point people on both sides could've just let it be and work around it, rather than have disproportionately emotional reactions to the situation
even if the freak out is justified, it doesn't actually solve the problem
the irony of course is that your team isn't always consistent from game to game, which is why it is so confusing when people react like this
ffs, the only thing you actually have any real control over is what YOU do, so why make it worse for yourself by buying into that dynamic?
I'm not criticising people for taking the game seriously, btw, but it's more that if you ARE going to take it so seriously, why not actually try to be productive rather than have a meltdown?
and this goes for both parties; my first comment after the story was posted was that people need to stop being big babies - that is addressed to BOTH sides, but it seems most people here AREN'T that inflexible Widow, hence my bigger post above is mostly addressing that crowd
awww I legit wondered if it could be a glitch, since it blatantly says "HIGHLIGHT" on the thumbnail, so I didn't think Quid was lying so much as the reel re-categorised his play
Obviously the solution is to get a group together, but some people don't have that option. Solo queueing exists and it needs to be a decent experience if its going to exist.
A lot of those what if semantics really do have to play a back seat to how much of a detriment it is to have a "won't budge" attitude in a team game.
it should still says PotG in the highlights if it was a PotG; I never record mine live and it says it
Kotaku isn't doing any sort of reporting here, they're just repeating what the guy has told them without independent verification, and showing the screen captures that he has chosen to give them. And he has apparently been chat silenced a LOT, so he's got a lot to choose from. Like, some of these responses just seem to be in response to different things, or "well you were aggressive in chat but not aggressive enough to warrant a further ban." It's only through his chosen narrative that we have any idea of what these reports are generally about.
Sure, this is absolutely true and I don't disagree. But again, you don't actually have any real control over what someone else decides to do.
If your goal is to WIN and it's evident that you aren't going to change that one person's mind, then you might as well use what you CAN control to try to figure one out. Complaining about it in this case is much like screaming into the void - it ISN'T going to make these Widows more flexible (and btw, plenty of them actually are, so it's a very minority set that we see in Competitive that are ACTUALLY refusing to change) and in fact is more likely to make them STICK with their pick.
There are multiple posts in this thread and the SE++ thread where people clearly say that they are less likely to change heroes when someone asks them to switch off of someone. My self included. So don't act like everyone HERE is completely okay with that sort of thing coming their way, either, Widow or not.
You get more success if, after the first round, the entire team agrees to figure out what needs to change together, and you work backwards from the person with the smallest roster. But, you know, that's impossible if you've already set yourselves up to be internally combative during that first round.
And yeah, I'll be fucking annoyed at the one person who insists they stick with their one person, but I will not let that ONE goose ruin our chances of winning, so at least we've flagged it early and the rest of the team feels more confident in their own picks as a result.
yeah fair enough, I suppose
it doesn't actually counter any of the points I've made, because it DOES speak to a broader problem in the player base in general
to be fair, "don't be a great big baby" seems to apply in every situation
don't you kinkshame me
The Teammates:
People can play whichever hero they want (and I do). Will you get matches where everyone on your team is hard-countered by the reds at best or just horrible players at worst? Absolutely. All you can do is try your best if you think it'll help, or just make sure you enjoy yourself. To aggressively attempt to inflict your will on others, or report them for playing in a way that doesn't qualify as griefing, is to be a toxic griefer yourself. Congratulations, you're a silly goose.
The Widow:
Widow, you can be a top-500 ranked nitrous oxide powered Play of the Game machine, but if Widow is the only hero you can play in pursuit of winning a match, you are bad at Overwatch, and a silly goose.
Blizzard:
When identical situations are reported to your griefing/toxic/hackers department, they should receive identical treatment. For one agent to do one thing and a different agent to do another renders your entire flock of geese silly.
Once... and this was months ago, mind you, I'm in a comp game. We're attacking Anubis, and I lock Tracer because I can pretty much always crack the first point with Tracer (I'm often mystified by the second without a really humming team behind me). Some guy on team chat lets out this big self-important sigh and says "maaaan... get off Tracer."
I say "any reason why?"
"'Cause I wanna' go Tracer."
Y'know what I said?
"Eh, okay."
And then I went Mercy. We never got the first point, and I survived the experience without injury.
I kind of jumped into this so I might have been missing a lot of facts here, but it does kind of seem like you are talking about a separate, more general (and possibly personal experience) problem than the one that was the primary topic of discussion.
Cause I kind of think what Kana says does counter the points you made - assuming that the rest of the team was in any way to blame because that is what you see most of the time is kind of not fair to the rest of the team. They are just as likely to be completely innocent as in many of your cases the individual was.
I actually have been in a situation before where I was yelled at to change because I wasn't doing what the character I was playing is supposed to be doing (but actually was, just we were getting stomped) to the point where the whole team quit the match. It was quick play. I still actually feel like I was at fault too because I SHOULD have switched, but I also wanted to play that character to learn them. I may have a stronger sense of doing what is best for everyone to have the best experience over my own experience though.
It's not personal because I don't experience it much at all; I work at negating it in every Competitive match I'm in, often before problems even arise.
And yes, I AM talking about the more general implications of this problem, because they do exist. The conversation, even on the preceding page, has been largely about what everyone should prioritise - themselves playing what they want to play, or giving in to what the team needs. The Widow story is just what kickstarted it.
My intent is to draw attention to several immutable facts of this game:
1) you cannot control what other people are going to do;
2) it is a team-based game, which means as much as flexibility counts, so too does working with inflexibility;
3) abusive behaviour goes both ways, and by engaging/participating in it, you are actively reducing your chances of winning, regardless of who started it, and really your more productive choices are to either opt out or neutralise it;
4) individual people enjoy different aspects of this game but some degree of cooperation is necessary to maximise chances of winning, so someone somewhere is going to have to compromise if you actually want to win;
5) it is necessary to reflect on your own contributions to a loss or a win if you want to be a better player... repeatedly externalising blame is generally an act of the stupid;
6) you will lose more games that you'd prefer, but you will not actually die from this experience.
None of these are countered by Kana's post. In fact, I think Kana and I are largely on the same page INCLUDING the specific Widow story in mind, because I absolutely agree that we don't have enough information. But it HAS drawn attention to broader problems with the culture in this game, in that I cannot believe some people out there lack the insight to clock their OWN behaviour and instead chuck a tantrum at everyone else.
Sidebar:
Then we got a Zarya because that was someone else's best main tank. The other main tank was a good Roadhog but we noted the map and Roadhog wasn't the best pick for this situation, does he have anyone on their roster that complements a Zarya ult? Reaper. Awesome!
We finished up with a Reinhardt to protect the Mercy and give me something to stand behind and safely shoot things. Soldier was chosen as the last DPS because we didn't have any long-range hitscan options, he could also stand behind the Reinhardt shield and pew-pew things, and his ult would work nicely with Reinhardt's. Our mobility was low - only the Reaper could flank effectively but he could mostly look after himself - so I was in charge of watching our flank and letting the Soldier/Zarya know if someone was coming for our Mercy.