There are like overwatch bux challenges every week
4 challenges gets you 30, 8 challenges gives you 20, 11 or 12 (can't remember) gives you 10
so you can get 60 overwatch bux a week (the equivalent of sixty cents)
and a hero costs 1k, if you don't get it in the FOMO period (and I am sure the overwatch bux bundle will let you get like 900 instead of 1k so you have to double dip if you want to buy the hero)
they're going to do whatever is proven through their research to make money
If you think this money is going to help meaningfully fund development and keep all the employees in good and stable lives then I mean
good for you
but the shareholders and all their yachts feel like a more likely outcome
+5
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Will she be unlocked for everybody when the battlepass is over?
I get the reasoning behind requiring you to have all heroes to play competitive, but I think it's the scummiest part about this in practice, because the average player is going to be barred from competitive for at least a few extra weeks unless they pay. More infrequent players will never get in for the seasons where a hero is released. IMO they should just remove that requirement, it's not ideal but you'll do fine without one character. Maybe require people to unlock every hero other than the one that just came out.
+1
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
I get the reasoning behind requiring you to have all heroes to play competitive, but I think it's the scummiest part about this in practice, because the average player is going to be barred from competitive for at least a few extra weeks unless they pay. More infrequent players will never get in for the seasons where a hero is released. IMO they should just remove that requirement, it's not ideal but you'll do fine without one character. Maybe require people to unlock every hero other than the one that just came out.
idk where people are getting that from
keller has literally said u dont need all heroes to play comp (and in any case it would only ever be all heroes per role u q if u think about it)
None of this battle pass stuff matters cuz Junkrats always free bayybeee
Unless he's not. If you don't already own OW1, only 15 heroes are going to be available on launch without having to unlock them apparently, and the only two they've confirmed are Junker Queen and Sojourn.
This is an ability/lore breakdown of Kiriko similar to the Sojourn video they made months ago.
tldw;
-primary is slow traveling, slow healing talismans that track nearby allies, similar to Bridget's heal pack but there's more of them
-secondary is a kunai which looks to be like Mei's icicle but they're giving it big crit damage
-ability 1 is a teleport to nearby allies with a healthy distance to port which looks like it will be a big stall ability
-ability 2 is basically an immortality field Ana nade that looks to give allies affected 2 seconds of invulnerability w/cleanse. And it looks like it's just on a 15 sec cooldown right now.
-ultimate is a mix of Lucio's green boost with Ana nano, movement up, weapon speed up, reload up, cooldowns sped up about 3x, nothing about healing or attack power up
Damage Role Passive - New Passive: Eliminations grant 25% increased reload and movement speed for 2.5 seconds. Does not stack with itself but will refresh the duration
All heroes now refund up to 30% ultimate power on hero swap
It still kind of feels to me that the DPS passive is obligatory because they think every role needs a passive. IMO DPS just shouldn't have one. The reason they struggle to figure it out so much is because there is no one change that works for every DPS character, they're too varied and they don't really have a problem that needs solving.
0
Options
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
Commanding shout being nerfed, good, needs to be hit even more, that ability made it so nothing could be killed on the other team and why it felt like non burst DPS had no power in the beta.
Those do seem like weird passives that a bunch of characters don't actually get much if any use out of. Hanzo doesn't reload. Widow's not mobile if she's getting kills. A few already have skills that auto or buff reload. Did they ever do the cauterize (reduced healing on taking damage) thing or say why they canned it? I remember hearing about that, but from a quick Google, seems like it might not have made it to any of the public betas.
Those do seem like weird passives that a bunch of characters don't actually get much if any use out of. Hanzo doesn't reload. Widow's not mobile if she's getting kills. A few already have skills that auto or buff reload. Did they ever do the cauterize (reduced healing on taking damage) thing or say why they canned it? I remember hearing about that, but from a quick Google, seems like it might not have made it to any of the public betas.
I could easily see them working in naturalistic buffs for said characters (increased draw speed etc.) though they could probably just leave it as is.
- Phone number requirement for all new accounts
- ML transcripts of recent voice chat of reported players for moderation
- New players have to unlock various features and heroes over about 100 games (makes game more accessible and combats smurfing)
- Endorsements simplified to one category for teammates only
If they're serious about that this time, great. That would be incredible.
But at the same time, when cross-play was first introduced, people went ballistic because all of a sudden, the whole playerbase was seeing the nonstop torrent of racism, homophobia, and sexism just in the general PC chat (which I have no idea why it even exists at all), to say nothing of the in-game chat. And they clearly weren't moderating the vanilla text chat, so I'm pretty skeptical of a fancy schmancy voice to text to moderation scheme.
Oh yeah, they're also ditching general chat. They say they already use ML to detect toxic text chat, but I imagine that's just for slurs and not general negative sentiment. I don't see much text chat that is completely horrible, just people being rude. I wish the rules were stricter about that but I don't expect it.
As I recall, smurfing is a huge problem on console because there's nothing stopping console players from making new accounts for free. The phone number validation should finally do something about that.
+2
Options
DragkoniasThat Guy Who Does StuffYou Know, There. Registered Userregular
edited September 2022
Yeah the phone number verification thing is interesting. As is requiring new people to win 50 QP matches to access ranked.
Like it won't stop people from doing it(You can just use a family member's phone number) but it does give people a few more hoops to jump through.
Also needing the player to win that many matches will probably make it a bit harder to game a lower rank.
Dragkonias on
0
Options
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
Removing general chat, good, it's just korean spam on Xbox.
I'm all for removing the level number and borders as it stands, but I would like some visual cue that my team has people who have at least played to say, level 300 in the current system. That's more than enough time to show you aren't a smurf (even with the new phone verification which will likely get a workaround).
Now some talk about an SR/MMR reset and harsher penalties for quitters and we're getting somewhere.
Removing general chat, good, it's just korean spam on Xbox.
I'm all for removing the level number and borders as it stands, but I would like some visual cue that my team has people who have at least played to say, level 300 in the current system. That's more than enough time to show you aren't a smurf (even with the new phone verification which will likely get a workaround).
Now some talk about an SR/MMR reset and harsher penalties for quitters and we're getting somewhere.
I think this is specifically what they don't want people to do - making an armchair evaluation at the start of each game of how fair the matchmaking is and whether the enemy team has a smurf. It doesn't actually accomplish anything productive for the players to know that, even if they're right. Many people will start throwing or trolling straight away if they think the matchmaking is bad. It's better for everybody to just play like normal in every game. If they get matched against a smurf, that sucks, but that's Blizzard's problem to solve, not something that in-game vigilantes can fix.
+3
Options
DragkoniasThat Guy Who Does StuffYou Know, There. Registered Userregular
edited September 2022
Yeah. I really don't think knowing your teammates rank does much except give people someone to blame when shit goes sideways.
Dragkonias on
0
Options
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
I never use it for my teammates rank, it's for identifying the smurf on the other team. Level 10 Widow/Doom/Ball? 95% of the time it's a KBAM asshole on console.
Even so, that doesn't do anything except make you angry. Blizzard now seems to be doing pretty much everything that can be done to fight smurfing, there is no perfect solution. Console players in particular will find it way harder to use new accounts.
yeah like, okay you now know (or at least think) the other team has a smurf. even if you're right, the fact that it's a smurf means there's nothing you can do about your own play to improve your chances of winning that you couldn't already be doing. all it's good for is making you and your team mad and more willing to give up the game as lost.
and yeah an SR reset ain't happening - if it were, it would have been announced by this point for sure.
I'm disappointed they're still doing golden weapons. I don't know why weapon tints aren't part of the battle pass. There shouldn't be a real incentive to play competitive.
0
Options
DragkoniasThat Guy Who Does StuffYou Know, There. Registered Userregular
I don't care cause gold weapons are ugly anyway.
+1
Options
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
Breaking down the ranks into 5 sub tiers will be good if it can maintain a playerbase for just plats 1-5 to compete, I just laugh at the 7 wins (good) or 20 losses (that feels like an admission the matchmaking pushing you hard into losing streaks)
I'm not certain what the 20 loss thing is about, I guess it's supposed to give you an incentive to try to win during your placements because it will take a long time if you lose. Or maybe it's meant to give less weight to losses during placements since they can often be unavoidable?
I'm not certain what the 20 loss thing is about, I guess it's supposed to give you an incentive to try to win during your placements because it will take a long time if you lose. Or maybe it's meant to give less weight to losses during placements since they can often be unavoidable?
That's not just placements, that's the interval you always get updates to your rank at. It feels like a transparent attempt to make the evaluation pop up after a win rather than a loss but with a back stop.
Yeah, the lack of transparency about your ranking is the most obnoxious thing, especially since they've always slammed their thumbs down hard on how it's measured/calculated, and they seem to just be doubling down on that. Why even show ranking at all? Tie rewards instead to the behavior you want to encourage.
Posts
4 challenges gets you 30, 8 challenges gives you 20, 11 or 12 (can't remember) gives you 10
so you can get 60 overwatch bux a week (the equivalent of sixty cents)
and a hero costs 1k, if you don't get it in the FOMO period (and I am sure the overwatch bux bundle will let you get like 900 instead of 1k so you have to double dip if you want to buy the hero)
they're going to do whatever is proven through their research to make money
If you think this money is going to help meaningfully fund development and keep all the employees in good and stable lives then I mean
good for you
but the shareholders and all their yachts feel like a more likely outcome
You'll need to grind some kind of challenge. Win 20 games as a support or something.
idk where people are getting that from
keller has literally said u dont need all heroes to play comp (and in any case it would only ever be all heroes per role u q if u think about it)
Unless he's not. If you don't already own OW1, only 15 heroes are going to be available on launch without having to unlock them apparently, and the only two they've confirmed are Junker Queen and Sojourn.
plus junkrat is overwatch he’s at least 3-4 of that 15
looking suspiciously French here tho
This is an ability/lore breakdown of Kiriko similar to the Sojourn video they made months ago.
tldw;
-primary is slow traveling, slow healing talismans that track nearby allies, similar to Bridget's heal pack but there's more of them
-secondary is a kunai which looks to be like Mei's icicle but they're giving it big crit damage
-ability 1 is a teleport to nearby allies with a healthy distance to port which looks like it will be a big stall ability
-ability 2 is basically an immortality field Ana nade that looks to give allies affected 2 seconds of invulnerability w/cleanse. And it looks like it's just on a 15 sec cooldown right now.
-ultimate is a mix of Lucio's green boost with Ana nano, movement up, weapon speed up, reload up, cooldowns sped up about 3x, nothing about healing or attack power up
Most noteworthy bit:
I could easily see them working in naturalistic buffs for said characters (increased draw speed etc.) though they could probably just leave it as is.
- Phone number requirement for all new accounts
- ML transcripts of recent voice chat of reported players for moderation
- New players have to unlock various features and heroes over about 100 games (makes game more accessible and combats smurfing)
- Endorsements simplified to one category for teammates only
But at the same time, when cross-play was first introduced, people went ballistic because all of a sudden, the whole playerbase was seeing the nonstop torrent of racism, homophobia, and sexism just in the general PC chat (which I have no idea why it even exists at all), to say nothing of the in-game chat. And they clearly weren't moderating the vanilla text chat, so I'm pretty skeptical of a fancy schmancy voice to text to moderation scheme.
Like it won't stop people from doing it(You can just use a family member's phone number) but it does give people a few more hoops to jump through.
Also needing the player to win that many matches will probably make it a bit harder to game a lower rank.
I'm all for removing the level number and borders as it stands, but I would like some visual cue that my team has people who have at least played to say, level 300 in the current system. That's more than enough time to show you aren't a smurf (even with the new phone verification which will likely get a workaround).
Now some talk about an SR/MMR reset and harsher penalties for quitters and we're getting somewhere.
Steam: MightyPotatoKing
I think this is specifically what they don't want people to do - making an armchair evaluation at the start of each game of how fair the matchmaking is and whether the enemy team has a smurf. It doesn't actually accomplish anything productive for the players to know that, even if they're right. Many people will start throwing or trolling straight away if they think the matchmaking is bad. It's better for everybody to just play like normal in every game. If they get matched against a smurf, that sucks, but that's Blizzard's problem to solve, not something that in-game vigilantes can fix.
and yeah an SR reset ain't happening - if it were, it would have been announced by this point for sure.
I'm disappointed they're still doing golden weapons. I don't know why weapon tints aren't part of the battle pass. There shouldn't be a real incentive to play competitive.
That's not just placements, that's the interval you always get updates to your rank at. It feels like a transparent attempt to make the evaluation pop up after a win rather than a loss but with a back stop.