I just got blamed and mass reported for not healing.....with 43% team dmg healed.
Like, what?
yeah... yeah, i've had those games. had one game recently where both dps decided to report me because they thought i wasn't healing enough...even though most of their deaths were due to them pushing into a very good widow without tank support, so no amount of healing would've saved them.
(we ended up winning that game despite them)
Houk the Namebringer on
+1
Options
BRIAN BLESSEDMaybe you aren't SPEAKING LOUDLY ENOUGHHHRegistered Userregular
Most medals are meaningless, but good medals like those are an excellent way of vindicating healers
I just got blamed and mass reported for not healing.....with 43% team dmg healed.
Like, what?
My life as Lucio, especially on Lucio friendly maps like Anubis and Lijiang. When you never die and are literally always in every fight, you put up monster numbers, easily outhealing even Moira or Baptiste, but it's functionally invisible so "GET THE FUCK OFF LUCIO AND PICK A REAL HEALER."
Related, how the fuck do we still not have a death recap? Come the fuck on, Blizzard.
I just got blamed and mass reported for not healing.....with 43% team dmg healed.
Like, what?
My life as Lucio, especially on Lucio friendly maps like Anubis and Lijiang. When you never die and are literally always in every fight, you put up monster numbers, easily outhealing even Moira or Baptiste, but it's functionally invisible so "GET THE FUCK OFF LUCIO AND PICK A REAL HEALER."
Related, how the fuck do we still not have a death recap? Come the fuck on, Blizzard.
Lucio definitely low key heals a lot, particularly with brawn comps. You notice it as the enemy but a lot of your teammates think they’re alive cuz they’re awesome.
Kind of feel like all the REACH BEYOND THE DEAD workarounds here would be better if they just universally made it so all deployables are automatically destroyed when you kill the creator.
e:automatically DESTROYED, not deployed
ArcTangent on
+2
Options
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
Bridget needed the nerf. I agree that "player dead and respawns = their toys are destroyed" is simpler maths.
Still would like to see some damage nerfs on 76 if they're keeping this recoil
Re: Destroying objects when you're dead - automatically destroying them when a character dies doesn't have the same purpose or effect as allowing the object's owner to choose whether or not to destroy them while dead. It's literally a hard nerf versus a fairly solid buff. Which isn't to say automatically destroying them is bad necessarily, but "that's how it should be because it would be simpler" doesn't really work since the results are vastly different.
Re: Destroying objects when you're dead - automatically destroying them when a character dies doesn't have the same purpose or effect as allowing the object's owner to choose whether or not to destroy them while dead. It's literally a hard nerf versus a fairly solid buff. Which isn't to say automatically destroying them is bad necessarily, but "that's how it should be because it would be simpler" doesn't really work since the results are vastly different.
It's a simple rule that's easy to understand and provides additional counterplay against particularly obnoxious heroes like Sym and Torb while disincentivizing bad/suicidal play by not letting them still gain value after death.
There are already so fucking many weird special rules and inconsistencies around just deployables without adding even more. Some disappear on death, some don't. Some are player entities, some aren't. Some can be hacked, some can't (except when they can). Some can be shot, some can't. Some are projectiles, some aren't. Now add to this some can be interacted with after death, some can't.
Just make shit consistent. Balance can come after you've decided what the rules are going to be and are sticking to them.
I don't think this particularly makes it worse - if your deployable persists on death, it can be cancelled while dead.
yeah generally speaking I think giving players more control over their abilities is better, and less control is worse. Reaper is better being able to cancel wraith, Genji is better being able to cancel deflect, Hanzo is now better being able to cancel storm arrow, and being able to destroy your objects during death is also a good change. I'd much rather them give players more control over their abilities and balancing from there, rather than taking away options/flexibility to begin with.
Consistency across different abilities is nice but not necessary, especially if it has a negative impact on moment-to-moment game feel. Consistency within a specific character/ability/interaction is much more important, imo. (e.g. I don't think it's a problem that Sym can hack Torb turret but can't hack Sym turrets, as long as the hack always behaves the same way against the same targets. Rein shatter is the most egregious example of inconsistency within an ability.)
EDIT: Oh, but actually the one and only reason that deployables should stay on death is that if they didn't, we wouldn't have gotten the absolute greatest potg of all time, and that would be a crime.
In case anyone didn't already know how robust the OW workshop is, someone recreated the <OMEGASPOILER> genocide final boss fight from Undertale in the workshop.
So why don't all characters get to control their deployables after death then? If that's the rule, then make that the rule and change it for all of them. Don't keep carving out new exceptions and special cases.
So why don't all characters get to control their deployables after death then? If that's the rule, then make that the rule and change it for all of them. Don't keep carving out new exceptions and special cases.
BRIAN BLESSEDMaybe you aren't SPEAKING LOUDLY ENOUGHHHRegistered Userregular
Oh I guess I've never mentioned this but re: voice lines, I really want them to just split the "Come To Me For Healing" and "I Need Healing" voice lines to two separate button prompts or something. I think it's extremely cute that they make some of these contextual but I'm fucking tired of instances where I'm aiming at a teammate for the get-over-here prompt and instead I'm needlessly stressing out the other healer from my team with heal requests because I'm out of range or something.
Similarly, "Group Up" and "I'm With You" should be separate button prompts because they mean two extremely different things and I shouldn't have to literally adjust my aim just to hit the right context
Right. The new special case is for cancellable deployables. The old rule was "While dead, you don't get to interact with anything."
There are now exceptions to that specifically for cancellable deployables, which themselves are already operating under different rules from the deployables that are automatically canceled on death, which are also on a different ruleset for deployables that can't be canceled at all. Also, there are different rules on what the CD will be for cancelling depending on the deployable.
So why don't all characters get to control their deployables after death then? If that's the rule, then make that the rule and change it for all of them. Don't keep carving out new exceptions and special cases.
which characters are you talking about?
Junkrat and Orisa's ability to interact with their mine/ball are disabled on death. Sombra and Sigma have cancellable deployables that are automatically cancelled on death. Most deployables can't be cancelled at all. Mei and Sigma's are the only cancellable deployables cancelled by pressing the ability button again. Torb, Sym, Sombra, and Sigma each have different rules for the CDs on their deployable. Torb's CD rules on his turret don't even make sense. It's absolute chaos.
Man I dunno. You see that as chaos, I see that as variety in character/ability design. "Every single deployable should follow the exact same set of rules regardless of the specific effect/aims of that ability" would make the game way worse.
Like, I don't see how that attitude is any different from something like "some characters are hitscan while others are projectile, some projectiles go in an arc while others go in a straight line, some characters even have beam weapons that only go a set distance, some attacks only hit one enemy while others hit multiple, some are pixel-perfect while others have spread, some movement abilities are only horizontal but others let you go up and down, some are on a cooldown while others can be used anytime, it's absolute chaos!" Variety is the point of games like this.
Deployables can and should operate under different rules depending on their purpose and relative power, in just the same way that primary weapons and movement abilities do. In this specific case, "If you were able to destroy an object while alive before, now you can destroy it at any time" is perfectly intuitive, it doesn't introduce some crazy level of complexity or confusion, it doesn't affect anything outside of those specific cases, and if you're not playing one of those characters your experience is functionally unchanged. I'm sure you wouldn't want every primary weapon or movement ability to behave the same way, why should ALL deployables follow ALL of the exact same rules?
I certainly have an opinion on each of the deployables you mentioned and how I would personally handle each one on death, but I fundamentally don't agree that every single player-created object in the game should follow the exact same set of rules. It simplifies the game in the same way that giving everyone hitscan weapons would simplify it--i.e. not to the benefit of the intended experience. Orisa's shield doesn't need to, and shouldn't, behave the same way as a Junkrat mine or a Torb turret or a Sombra beacon, because other than the fact that they're objects that a player can place, they share basically nothing in common, the same way that Reaper's shotguns and Pharah's rocket launcher and Winston's laser cannon share nothing in common except to deal damage.
(Also, hopefully my posts don't come off as too aggressive/combative, I'm just a fan of game design theory and Overwatch is ripe for this kind of stuff, so I tend to go hard into thinking about use cases like this.)
I absolutely disagree that "you can destroy things when dead" is intuitive. You shouldn't be able to do anything when dead. If you asked a hundred people what abilities you think you should be able to use while dead, I can say with confidence that a hundred people are going to say "Uh, you're dead."
From a design perspective, KISS. Rules on fundamental stuff are a good thing! The limits on creative space are miniscule, but the propensity for creating confusion and bugs by defining everything individually are infinite. Like how is it intuitive at all that EMP disable Ball's proximity mines but not Widow's? Why is it a good thing that this is inconsistent? Or back to Torbjorn's lunacy. If he cancels his turret when it's out of combat, it goes on CD. But if it's out of combat, you can just throw out a new one without bothering to cancel it. The only use-case for cancelling his turret out of combat is if you think that it will be in combat in the next five seconds. Otherwise, cancelling it out of combat is always worse than just throwing a new turret. There really doesn't need to be a special case just for that.
It's a pretty damn big jump from "deployables should follow a consistent set of rules" to "Why even have any kind of different weapons at all?" Look at barriers versus buildables (which is probably a better term for what we're talking about than deployables). The rules for barriers are all intuitive, obvious, and consistent, plus we have a very concrete and clear visual design for what are barriers. All big red/blue glowy things work the same. All barriers interrupt enemy LoS. Barriers can't be healed, booped, anti-ed, discorded, stunned, etc. All of them crack and shatter. There isn't a random barrier that's immune to EMP, or one that blocks only hitscan weapons. Were you upset when Winston's barrier was changed to work the same as Orisa's instead of going on CD only when expiring or broken? It was no longer unique, but was now more reliable and understandable both to use and to play against.
If we said that the rules for buildables were:
Creates a destroyable prop object (as opposed to a projectile that can be DMed/deflected like Snowball)
Can be targeted/disabled by hack
Can be manually cancelled
Self-destructs oldest prop on deployment cap (ie only having one Junk mine or trap out, or max 3 Sym turrets)
Self-destructs on owner's death
That would be a fairly minor nerf to about half a dozen characters, but you'd reduce the special cases down to A.) Ultimates (no manually cancel or self-destruct on death, plus other possible minor rule-breaks like Bob as a player entity since they're ultimates and literally screamed out as a special thing happening anyway), and B.) Junk and Sym (both have two buildables so you'd need to finagle somehow or skip being able to manually cancel one). It wouldn't significantly change the way any characters are played and a shitload of things would be consistent. You would only need to know those five rules and once you know them for one buildable, you've got that knowledge for all of them. Also, we could get rid of all the weird projectile-props that gain or lose properties for no earthly reason. Like you want to talk unintuitive, why do DM and Grasp only work on things that are moving? Are DVa and Sigma t-rexes that can't see mines/dynamite when they're motionless? Why does this blindness also extend to airborn Sym turrets and translocators?
Priority passes: If you play flex queue, the game rewards you with passes you can use to get a faster DPS queue. I like it though I think it should go to dedicated tank or support players as well.
I kind of hate that mindset. "Getting to play DPS" shouldn't be a reward. Fix the reward/incentive structure of the game so that there aren't 'designated to suffer' classes and/or make the other classes more fun to play. All I can see this doing is people picking the flex queue and treating it as open season to throw/fuck around when they get something they don't want, even if you have to win to get a 'priority ticket.' Prove me wrong, player base. Oh wait, 4/5 of my placements had a thrower or leaver. Don't see the player base coming through on this one! Plus, won't this make the 'regular' DPS queue even worse?
I kind of hate that mindset. "Getting to play DPS" shouldn't be a reward. Fix the reward/incentive structure of the game so that there aren't 'designated to suffer' classes and/or make the other classes more fun to play. All I can see this doing is people picking the flex queue and treating it as open season to throw/fuck around when they get something they don't want, even if you have to win to get a 'priority ticket.' Prove me wrong, player base. Oh wait, 4/5 of my placements had a thrower or leaver. Don't see the player base coming through on this one! Plus, won't this make the 'regular' DPS queue even worse?
No game has ever successfully made tank and healer as popular as DPS. It can't be done. The idea is that it improves DPS queue times by incentivizing many more people to play flex. Which is somewhat canceled out by those players getting priority queue, so full time DPS players will probably still be waiting in line for a similar amount of time. Also you get more passes for a win so there's incentive to try.
Plus, won't this make the 'regular' DPS queue even worse?
I think you found the secret hidden message.
Though I have a low opinion of folks who only play DPS. Not playing tank and healer at all is a great way to be an clueless DPS who has no idea how bad they are.
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
edited November 2020
I'd rather have bans and harsh penalties for leavers than priority pass. The game is just unplayable right now and 2/3 of games come down to who has someone leave first as opposed to skill.
Leave a game and you can't play as that class for 2 matches. There we go.
TexiKen on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Holy gods, that camera keeps zooming in and out a little bit in a way that is extremely distracting
I kind of hate that mindset. "Getting to play DPS" shouldn't be a reward. Fix the reward/incentive structure of the game so that there aren't 'designated to suffer' classes and/or make the other classes more fun to play. All I can see this doing is people picking the flex queue and treating it as open season to throw/fuck around when they get something they don't want, even if you have to win to get a 'priority ticket.' Prove me wrong, player base. Oh wait, 4/5 of my placements had a thrower or leaver. Don't see the player base coming through on this one! Plus, won't this make the 'regular' DPS queue even worse?
No game has ever successfully made tank and healer as popular as DPS. It can't be done. The idea is that it improves DPS queue times by incentivizing many more people to play flex. Which is somewhat canceled out by those players getting priority queue, so full time DPS players will probably still be waiting in line for a similar amount of time. Also you get more passes for a win so there's incentive to try.
Hard disagree. Tons of asymmetric games have well developed reward structures for promoting and incentivizing what on the surface appear to be unpopular roles. Certainly not 100% successful, but there are a lot of levers that can be pushed. Player behavior isn't a completely immutable beast. We've had this argument at least a dozen times before though, so this is the last I'll say on it.
I'd rather have bans and harsh penalties for leavers than priority pass. The game is just unplayable right now and 2/3 of games come down to who has someone leave first as opposed to skill.
Leave a game and you can't play as that class for 2 matches. There we go.
Yeah, this too. Leavers and blatant throwers should be the easiest thing in the world to detect, and yet... It may very well be a better use of their time to focus on making the game less miserable for the people trying to play it rather than the last year or so they've spent trying to band-aid the DPS queue time.
No Limits at least is non-random so it can have a competitive meta, even if the strats that emerge are likely to be very toxic. I don't see the harm in it as a time limit arcade thing.
Posts
Like, what?
yeah... yeah, i've had those games. had one game recently where both dps decided to report me because they thought i wasn't healing enough...even though most of their deaths were due to them pushing into a very good widow without tank support, so no amount of healing would've saved them.
(we ended up winning that game despite them)
I'll almost always upvote a healer
My life as Lucio, especially on Lucio friendly maps like Anubis and Lijiang. When you never die and are literally always in every fight, you put up monster numbers, easily outhealing even Moira or Baptiste, but it's functionally invisible so "GET THE FUCK OFF LUCIO AND PICK A REAL HEALER."
Related, how the fuck do we still not have a death recap? Come the fuck on, Blizzard.
Lucio definitely low key heals a lot, particularly with brawn comps. You notice it as the enemy but a lot of your teammates think they’re alive cuz they’re awesome.
Most fights, I’m alive for 10-15 seconds before I die. In that time, my team kill nothing. Our dps are building ults basically at passive rate.
Turns out it’s a 5 stack that reports me for some reason. So I challenge them to a scrim with some friends.
We absolutely murder them. Like, they get zero kills in the first map and less than 10 the second.
It was petty but it felt good.
anubis feelings
just the thing i do to myself at least once every round i play pharah
Kind of feel like all the REACH BEYOND THE DEAD workarounds here would be better if they just universally made it so all deployables are automatically destroyed when you kill the creator.
e:automatically DESTROYED, not deployed
Still would like to see some damage nerfs on 76 if they're keeping this recoil
Re: Destroying objects when you're dead - automatically destroying them when a character dies doesn't have the same purpose or effect as allowing the object's owner to choose whether or not to destroy them while dead. It's literally a hard nerf versus a fairly solid buff. Which isn't to say automatically destroying them is bad necessarily, but "that's how it should be because it would be simpler" doesn't really work since the results are vastly different.
It's a simple rule that's easy to understand and provides additional counterplay against particularly obnoxious heroes like Sym and Torb while disincentivizing bad/suicidal play by not letting them still gain value after death.
There are already so fucking many weird special rules and inconsistencies around just deployables without adding even more. Some disappear on death, some don't. Some are player entities, some aren't. Some can be hacked, some can't (except when they can). Some can be shot, some can't. Some are projectiles, some aren't. Now add to this some can be interacted with after death, some can't.
Just make shit consistent. Balance can come after you've decided what the rules are going to be and are sticking to them.
yeah generally speaking I think giving players more control over their abilities is better, and less control is worse. Reaper is better being able to cancel wraith, Genji is better being able to cancel deflect, Hanzo is now better being able to cancel storm arrow, and being able to destroy your objects during death is also a good change. I'd much rather them give players more control over their abilities and balancing from there, rather than taking away options/flexibility to begin with.
Consistency across different abilities is nice but not necessary, especially if it has a negative impact on moment-to-moment game feel. Consistency within a specific character/ability/interaction is much more important, imo. (e.g. I don't think it's a problem that Sym can hack Torb turret but can't hack Sym turrets, as long as the hack always behaves the same way against the same targets. Rein shatter is the most egregious example of inconsistency within an ability.)
EDIT: Oh, but actually the one and only reason that deployables should stay on death is that if they didn't, we wouldn't have gotten the absolute greatest potg of all time, and that would be a crime.
(Always worth another watch...)
which characters are you talking about?
Blizzard: Pailryder#1101
GoG: https://www.gog.com/u/pailryder
Similarly, "Group Up" and "I'm With You" should be separate button prompts because they mean two extremely different things and I shouldn't have to literally adjust my aim just to hit the right context
Right. The new special case is for cancellable deployables. The old rule was "While dead, you don't get to interact with anything."
There are now exceptions to that specifically for cancellable deployables, which themselves are already operating under different rules from the deployables that are automatically canceled on death, which are also on a different ruleset for deployables that can't be canceled at all. Also, there are different rules on what the CD will be for cancelling depending on the deployable.
Junkrat and Orisa's ability to interact with their mine/ball are disabled on death. Sombra and Sigma have cancellable deployables that are automatically cancelled on death. Most deployables can't be cancelled at all. Mei and Sigma's are the only cancellable deployables cancelled by pressing the ability button again. Torb, Sym, Sombra, and Sigma each have different rules for the CDs on their deployable. Torb's CD rules on his turret don't even make sense. It's absolute chaos.
Like, I don't see how that attitude is any different from something like "some characters are hitscan while others are projectile, some projectiles go in an arc while others go in a straight line, some characters even have beam weapons that only go a set distance, some attacks only hit one enemy while others hit multiple, some are pixel-perfect while others have spread, some movement abilities are only horizontal but others let you go up and down, some are on a cooldown while others can be used anytime, it's absolute chaos!" Variety is the point of games like this.
Deployables can and should operate under different rules depending on their purpose and relative power, in just the same way that primary weapons and movement abilities do. In this specific case, "If you were able to destroy an object while alive before, now you can destroy it at any time" is perfectly intuitive, it doesn't introduce some crazy level of complexity or confusion, it doesn't affect anything outside of those specific cases, and if you're not playing one of those characters your experience is functionally unchanged. I'm sure you wouldn't want every primary weapon or movement ability to behave the same way, why should ALL deployables follow ALL of the exact same rules?
I certainly have an opinion on each of the deployables you mentioned and how I would personally handle each one on death, but I fundamentally don't agree that every single player-created object in the game should follow the exact same set of rules. It simplifies the game in the same way that giving everyone hitscan weapons would simplify it--i.e. not to the benefit of the intended experience. Orisa's shield doesn't need to, and shouldn't, behave the same way as a Junkrat mine or a Torb turret or a Sombra beacon, because other than the fact that they're objects that a player can place, they share basically nothing in common, the same way that Reaper's shotguns and Pharah's rocket launcher and Winston's laser cannon share nothing in common except to deal damage.
(Also, hopefully my posts don't come off as too aggressive/combative, I'm just a fan of game design theory and Overwatch is ripe for this kind of stuff, so I tend to go hard into thinking about use cases like this.)
From a design perspective, KISS. Rules on fundamental stuff are a good thing! The limits on creative space are miniscule, but the propensity for creating confusion and bugs by defining everything individually are infinite. Like how is it intuitive at all that EMP disable Ball's proximity mines but not Widow's? Why is it a good thing that this is inconsistent? Or back to Torbjorn's lunacy. If he cancels his turret when it's out of combat, it goes on CD. But if it's out of combat, you can just throw out a new one without bothering to cancel it. The only use-case for cancelling his turret out of combat is if you think that it will be in combat in the next five seconds. Otherwise, cancelling it out of combat is always worse than just throwing a new turret. There really doesn't need to be a special case just for that.
It's a pretty damn big jump from "deployables should follow a consistent set of rules" to "Why even have any kind of different weapons at all?" Look at barriers versus buildables (which is probably a better term for what we're talking about than deployables). The rules for barriers are all intuitive, obvious, and consistent, plus we have a very concrete and clear visual design for what are barriers. All big red/blue glowy things work the same. All barriers interrupt enemy LoS. Barriers can't be healed, booped, anti-ed, discorded, stunned, etc. All of them crack and shatter. There isn't a random barrier that's immune to EMP, or one that blocks only hitscan weapons. Were you upset when Winston's barrier was changed to work the same as Orisa's instead of going on CD only when expiring or broken? It was no longer unique, but was now more reliable and understandable both to use and to play against.
If we said that the rules for buildables were:
Creates a destroyable prop object (as opposed to a projectile that can be DMed/deflected like Snowball)
Can be targeted/disabled by hack
Can be manually cancelled
Self-destructs oldest prop on deployment cap (ie only having one Junk mine or trap out, or max 3 Sym turrets)
Self-destructs on owner's death
That would be a fairly minor nerf to about half a dozen characters, but you'd reduce the special cases down to A.) Ultimates (no manually cancel or self-destruct on death, plus other possible minor rule-breaks like Bob as a player entity since they're ultimates and literally screamed out as a special thing happening anyway), and B.) Junk and Sym (both have two buildables so you'd need to finagle somehow or skip being able to manually cancel one). It wouldn't significantly change the way any characters are played and a shitload of things would be consistent. You would only need to know those five rules and once you know them for one buildable, you've got that knowledge for all of them. Also, we could get rid of all the weird projectile-props that gain or lose properties for no earthly reason. Like you want to talk unintuitive, why do DM and Grasp only work on things that are moving? Are DVa and Sigma t-rexes that can't see mines/dynamite when they're motionless? Why does this blindness also extend to airborn Sym turrets and translocators?
Priority passes: If you play flex queue, the game rewards you with passes you can use to get a faster DPS queue. I like it though I think it should go to dedicated tank or support players as well.
No game has ever successfully made tank and healer as popular as DPS. It can't be done. The idea is that it improves DPS queue times by incentivizing many more people to play flex. Which is somewhat canceled out by those players getting priority queue, so full time DPS players will probably still be waiting in line for a similar amount of time. Also you get more passes for a win so there's incentive to try.
I think you found the secret hidden message.
Though I have a low opinion of folks who only play DPS. Not playing tank and healer at all is a great way to be an clueless DPS who has no idea how bad they are.
Leave a game and you can't play as that class for 2 matches. There we go.
Hard disagree. Tons of asymmetric games have well developed reward structures for promoting and incentivizing what on the surface appear to be unpopular roles. Certainly not 100% successful, but there are a lot of levers that can be pushed. Player behavior isn't a completely immutable beast. We've had this argument at least a dozen times before though, so this is the last I'll say on it.
Yeah, this too. Leavers and blatant throwers should be the easiest thing in the world to detect, and yet... It may very well be a better use of their time to focus on making the game less miserable for the people trying to play it rather than the last year or so they've spent trying to band-aid the DPS queue time.