|
Yardbomb posted:See the problem with wanting no stuns in Overwatch is that the game would straight up be nothing but uncatchable Tracers and Genjis times more than usual even, because that's how you stop them, that's the counter to them being so ridiculously mobile and flighty at all times, is that you have the ability available on X or Y people to make them sit down for even a second and die. That and while yes you can also just shoot these, quick stuns are pretty important for shutting out stuff like the Reaper that just jumped down into the middle of your team ulting and similar things. Like yeah it blows to get plain old stunned and fanned or whatever else too often at times, but the alternative outcome of them not being in the game is a whole, whole lot worse to think about. I don't play Overwatch but it seems like it would be really hard to balance with that many 'classes'. Every post it seems like new heroes are being discussed, there must be at least a dozen.
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 07:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 23:03 |
|
|
Phlegmish posted:I don't play Overwatch but it seems like it would be really hard to balance with that many 'classes'. Every post it seems like new heroes are being discussed, there must be at least a dozen. See the real problem with Overwatch is that Zarya doesn't do enough damage, her shields don't last long enough, and she's not fast enough. Also she needs more range and a stun move and her ultimate needs to deal damage and give her charge. On an unrelated note, yes I play Zarya exclusively, why do you think that influences my opinion of her design?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 07:20
|
|
|
Somfin posted:Sounds like a paper-says-scissors-is-OP situation to me, chief. If the other team plays high stun, maybe Play someone who doesn't get prioritised for stunning? Yeah if you didn't want to be hit by something that is annoying just play a class that makes players not use that annoying thing on you gosh 
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 07:57
|
|
|
Stuns are good design in Overwatch for the same reason ultimates are good: they allow for a greater amount of back-and-forth and mean that encounters don't go the same way every time. Yes, other players get to influence how effective you are, or how much time you spend in control of the game. They can do this with stun attacks, or they can do it by shooting you. The downtime from getting killed is a lot higher than the downtime for stun on the something like two abilities that have it. It's also unfair that players can snipe you, or pop up behind you and shoot you while you're unaware, or hit you with an ultimate, or knock you off a ledge, or any of the other things that can happen in a multiplayer game, because the design in a multiplayer game isn't the same as in a single-player game. In a good single-player game, the player's performance is the sole factor that influences what happens. That's not the case when there are other players, and extrapolating blanket design rules from single-player games into a multiplayer experience is really stupid.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 08:23
|
|
|
Phlegmish posted:I don't play Overwatch but it seems like it would be really hard to balance with that many 'classes'. Every post it seems like new heroes are being discussed, there must be at least a dozen. 22 right now, soon potentially up to 23 if the Sombre they're teasing is one. And honestly... yeah, it's hard to balance and Blizzard are clearly NOT up to it. Admirable effort overall, but Overwatch is a game where you'd need to tap into decades of developer experience and knowledge of what works in the genre to make it happen, and Blizzard have come from strategy/MMOs/MOBAs. Their design style seems to be 'come up with something and hope it works', and the problem is they don't have the expertise in the genre to ensure it does. Some of their ideas work really well (Lucio is the best aupport I've played in anything), sometimes the attempt is admirable but flawed (about two thirds of Symmetra's design is great, but the other third has no loving clue what it's doing so she's really unfocused), and sometimes the result is almostdetrimental to the team that chooses them (I would prefer not having a healer to having an Ana that thinks she can).
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 08:27
|
|
|
Cleretic posted:I would prefer not having a healer to having an Ana that thinks she can. Edit: I guess McCree fills the role pretty well. Higher skill ceiling based on aiming, relatively fragile up close without becoming as useless as most snipers. Widowmaker's assault rifle/sniper rifle combination is a step in the right direction, but Ana's worthless because encouraging a healer to hold back (especially when the level design in most levels means you can't keep line of sight to your team from very far away) is a huge mistake.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 08:30
|
|
|
You can say a lot of things about Overwatch, a good game isn't really one of them, its polished as hell but its entirely broken at a fundamental level, the maps are a complete loving mess, the characters are completely unbalanced, some good examples are Mcree and Soldier 76, other than Soldier's heal, Mcree can do the hitscan hero job far better and with more damage, even with the damage drop-off on Mcree's bullets he can still kill a number of heroes at absurd ranges, moreso if he's paired up with a Mercy boosting him or a Zenyatta discording whomever he's shooting at, I mean before the discord nerf a Mcree headshot on a discorded opponent was 289 damage, that's death to any character that isn't a tank. Medics? Another huge loving mess, you have a highly mobile medic who only needs to near you to heal you, this medic can also improve the teams speed as well his own, he also has a pushback as a sort of get off me button, you have a medic that can heal, debuff enemies and do damage, all the same time and another medic who's a sniper and has the highest burst healing in the game, on the other side you have Mercy, she can either heal you, buff you or shoot her surprisingly power pistol, she can only do one of these at any given time, her heal beam has decent range but she still needs to be in the middle of any given fight to do her job well and her only means of escape is praying she has a line of sight to a teammate that's not on the point and any smart team will kill you first before loving over the rest of your team, trances and genji's in particular love to murder Mercy because you're such an easy target, the only thing she brings to a fight is her rez which admittedly is quite powerful but again, it relies on you not dying first to any given major wipe. I also take some issue with a fat woman in a winter coat having more HP than someone in a suit that turns them into a flying tank but I guess that's nitpicking at this point, OW to me is a game that's popular purely due to the marketing blitz and the blizzard name, its just not a good game at all, I genuinely tried to enjoy it but the maps and balance issues are just far to glaring and Blizzard just keeps making them worse with every buff and debuff, I mean we're in competitive season 2 and comp teams are still the same boring old meta from S1, the only difference is you occasionally see a Hanzo now cause they undid the hitbox changes they made so Hanzo is back to hitting your should but it counts as a headshot.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 08:31
|
|
|
Alteisen posted:some good examples are Mcree and Soldier 76, other than Soldier's heal, Mcree can do the hitscan hero job far better and with more damage Alteisen posted:moreso if he's paired up with a Mercy boosting him or a Zenyatta discording whomever he's shooting at, I mean before the discord nerf a Mcree headshot on a discorded opponent was 289 damage, that's death to any character that isn't a tank. Alteisen posted:Medics? Another huge loving mess, you have a highly mobile medic who only needs to near you to heal you, this medic can also improve the teams speed as well his own, he also has a pushback as a sort of get off me button, you have a medic that can heal, debuff enemies and do damage, all the same time and another medic who's a sniper and has the highest burst healing in the game, on the other side you have Mercy, she can either heal you, buff you or shoot her surprisingly power pistol, she can only do one of these at any given time, her heal beam has decent range but she still needs to be in the middle of any given fight to do her job well and her only means of escape is praying she has a line of sight to a teammate that's not on the point and any smart team will kill you first before loving over the rest of your team, trances and genji's in particular love to murder Mercy because you're such an easy target, the only thing she brings to a fight is her rez which admittedly is quite powerful but again, it relies on you not dying first to any given major wipe.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 08:38
|
|
|
Leal posted:Yeah if you didn't want to be hit by something that is annoying just play a class that makes players not use that annoying thing on you gosh Or accept that some characters have moves that will just always be more effective against you if you play certain other characters, rather than demanding that every character be precisely balanced against every other character. Or maybe do what Blizzard's support have been harping on about for a long time and swap characters if you're being countered, rather than playing it like a locked-in MOBA. Or maybe do what I wish every loving moron who shows up and whines about something being OP should do- play that if it's so loving broken. Get countered, learn how you got countered, learn to counter what you don't like. It's not like lifetime stats matter, and it's not like a loss puts you out of the game for any meaningful length of time. Or keep coming back and whining about how Blizzard clearly can't make games because the game you've been playing obsessively for the last two months has a thing in it you don't like
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 09:22
|
|
|
FactsAreUseless posted:Stuns are good design in Overwatch for the same reason ultimates are good: they allow for a greater amount of back-and-forth and mean that encounters don't go the same way every time. This already happens in other games without cooldown abilities or win buttons, through the game dynamically creating different situations that favor players in different ways. Ultimates are completely unnecessary to make it happen. The simplest situations like this are when a player doesn't have full health or a full magazine, but it can be a combination of a huge number of things at once. In battlefield there's 64 people at once fighting with different kits at very different ranges, in different kinds of terrain, with different vehicles driving/flying around at the same time. If you drop a good player and a bad player in front of each other in a wasteland with the same loadout then yes, the good player will win every time, but the situation is never that simple and so there's no need for battlefield to randomly give players an aimbot or let them revive their entire squad at once. This means both player skill and their surroundings make a difference. For an example closer to overwatch, TF2 was a fantastic class based game for years and did not need ultimates to do it. One class had something vaguely resembling an ultimate, but for a number of reasons it was way more limited than overwatch's. It did have crits which were dumb as hell, but nocrit servers existed 
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 09:30
|
|
|
Games like Overwatch are basically a game about two teams throwing bullshit at each other Incidentally, it also has skill-based aspects to it like aiming and positioning The complaint about stuns and other loss-of-control garbage is understandable but Get this: You need to be throwing more bullshit at them than they are at you. Understand that its about competition Don't think 'I lost because I got stunned', think about why you got stunned.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 09:38
|
|
|
Digirat posted:This already happens in other games without cooldown abilities or win buttons, through the game dynamically creating different situations that favor players in different ways. Ultimates are completely unnecessary to make it happen. The simplest situations like this are when a player doesn't have full health or a full magazine, but it can be a combination of a huge number of things at once. In battlefield there's 64 people at once fighting with different kits at very different ranges, in different kinds of terrain, with different vehicles driving/flying around at the same time. If you drop a good player and a bad player in front of each other in a wasteland with the same loadout then yes, the good player will win every time, but the situation is never that simple and so there's no need for battlefield to randomly give players an aimbot or let them revive their entire squad at once. This means both player skill and their surroundings make a difference. Obviously not every game needs them, but as you pointed out, Battlefield is a completely different kind of game. More players, bigger battles, vehicles, etc.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 09:45
|
|
|
Away all Goats posted:Don't think 'I lost because I got stunned', think about why you got stunned. Cause the the player put their crosshair over me and hit the "stun" key  E: Why would the player do this? Cause it makes it easier to kill their opponent, what with the whole "can't move" thing Its not like I'm shitposting cause I don't think stuns should be in the game, just you are acting like there is some deep dark strategy in this 6v6 FPS and there is a penalty for a player stunning one person and not another when some character's can stun frequently enough that it wouldn't matter and people are picking characters with stuns for deep strategic thought and not just "It makes my enemy stop moving so I can kill them easier" Its like saying picking Heavy in Planetside 2 is some deep strategic move so you can use your rocket against maxes and vehicles and not because they get a shield that used to give 75% more life, now nerfed to 45%, then all the other classes that also stacks with the damage reduction suit option and said rocket can one shot infantry on top of carrying an LMG which plays like an assault rifle with 50-150 rounds in it. They pick it cause its the easiest to kill other players Leal has a new favorite as of 10:45 on Sep 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 10:25
|
|
|
Overwatch is a good game, and Mercy is a good character.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 11:18
|
|
|
Somfin posted:Sounds like a paper-says-scissors-is-OP situation to me, chief. If the other team plays high stun, maybe Play someone who doesn't get prioritised for stunning? Haha I called it
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 11:46
|
|
|
CJacobs posted:Haha I called it Dude Blizzard have clearly said many many times that some characters will beat other characters and that you should switch based on the needs of your team and what the other team is bringing to bear against you. "Play a different character" is a perfectly valid solution. If you think they're saying that because they don't know how to balance, well, maybe that's the case, but it's still the solution they intend you to use and they empower you to do that by being able to switch whenever you fuckin' want.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 12:20
|
|
|
Defeating someone's hard counter to you by switching to whatever is their hard counter, and that being by design, is like one step removed from playinig a moba and mobas are The Worst Genre
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 12:28
|
|
|
"If you're playing rock and you're having a lot of trouble against paper, try switching to scissors." Cutting-edge gameplay.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 12:32
|
|
|
CJacobs posted:Defeating someone's hard counter to you by switching to whatever is their hard counter, and that being by design, is like one step removed from playinig a moba and mobas are The Worst Genre Okay, a few things there: A: Overwatch already is a TF2 with MOBA mechanics. What, you thought every character literally having an ultimate was coincidence? B: Switching to hard counters mid-match is not actually a MOBA thing. Picking counters at the start of the match is, but that's wildly different, and in fact switching characters is usually specifically punished (Dota 2 takes away your starting gold for switching characters, I know others have similar ideas). C: Switching class to adapt to situations, including/especially other players doing really well with a specific character is, however, a class-based shooter thing. Are you telling me you never saw someone in TF2 switch to Pyro to handle a Spy, or to Demoman/Spy to handle a heavily-fortified Engineer nest? In conclusion, this sentence is literally as wrong as it can conceivably be, and gently caress you for making me defend Overwatch. Cleretic has a new favorite as of 12:44 on Sep 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 12:37
|
|
|
If you consider a character to be a tactic, it makes more sense. People getting attached to a character or role is a big problem and has been since the first class-based shooter to feature a sniper rifle.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 12:41
|
|
|
Overwatch is the Dark Souls of first person shooters.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 12:43
|
|
|
CJacobs posted:Defeating someone's hard counter to you by switching to whatever is their hard counter, and that being by design, is like one step removed from playinig a moba and mobas are The Worst Genre Actual MOBAs have you making investments. You can't switch characters once you are playing, you can't change your skill/ability choices and while you can sell your items it's usually at a loss. The only investment you have in Overwatch is an ultimate charge, which doesn't take long to build if you are playing a character suited to the situation. Counters are definitely a thing tho. Plenty of times I've gotten tired of getting sniped so I went Winston, killed the sniper two-three times, had them switch to Reaper, I get killed two-three times and I switch characters again. Since matches rarely last longer than 10 minutes it's not a constant revolving door of character changes. I like that if someone is dominating our team I can switch characters in the hope of shutting them down. I would even be tempted to call it "fun".
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 12:46
|
|
|
Cleretic posted:Okay, a few things there: Hmm, fair enough. stuns are garbage still, the guy who said the time-to-kill in overwatch is way too short for them is correct
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 12:46
|
|
|
Cleretic posted:Okay, a few things there: A and B aren't really defenses of Overwatch but regarding C, I only played TF2 early on but I played a poo poo ton of it, and I played one class 80% of the time and never felt like I was getting hard-countered and shut down just because an opposing player picked a certain class. Playing a Spy against a Pyro is probably the only case where that would've happened, and that was the most extreme class relationship in the game. well why not posted:If you consider a character to be a tactic, it makes more sense. People getting attached to a character or role is a big problem and has been since the first class-based shooter to feature a sniper rifle. That's a problem? I like getting to know players by the characters/roles they play, whether it's my friends I'm playing with or serious matches I'm watching.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 12:52
|
|
|
In ffxi, there are spells and job abilities. Spells take time to cast and have a cooldown and They are affected by haste and the debuff slow. Job abilites are instant cast with a cooldown and haste/slow has no effect. Summoner is a pet class where the only spells you have are 1 second casta to summon an avatar pet, all abilities you issue to the pet are job abilties. Guess which job class has innate resist slow?
frodnonnag has a new favorite as of 13:47 on Sep 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 12:52
|
|
|
Red Minjo posted:It took me a while to figure out, but that monster's Aard weakness seems to actually be that Aard produces a loud sound that can get it to smash into a wall, instead of using the bombs to do that. I did the fight again, got a poison proc early and the DoT mostly soloed the boss for me. Only needed one effective Samum and I was done. Percentage damage is good.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 12:56
|
|
|
FactsAreUseless posted:And TF2 was a good game, but it could also stalemate really badly with things like Engineer stacking, or some maps just being straight-up terrible (2fort). The only way to break these stalemates was typically an Ubercharge. Overwatch has a lot more back-and-forth as a result. I think TF2's focus on a smaller number of classes was a good thing, and Overwatch definitely has too many classes, but I think ultimates work well in it. You're right that overwatch has more back and forth, but its game modes themselves go further to prevent stalemates. All of its modes will end in a certain amount of time because of the clock, while CTF in TF2 could go on indefinitely. I found unbeatable defenses in TF2 happened way less often on highlander servers or at least ones that limited teams to 2 of a class maximum, so that's a problem that could have been fixed (but wasn't) if servers just used better settings. I feel like TF2 was less balanced around class stacking than overwatch so that setting was more necessary to prevent stalemates--if nothing else, it was nice when someone on your team decided that what you really needed was a fourth spy. And all of those points are in overwatch's favor, which is partly why I remain unconvinced that ultimates are the magic ingredient to create back and forth, not other things overwatch has going for it. Ultimates do have that effect, but with pretty huge collateral damage IMO
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 13:45
|
|
|
Triarii posted:That's a problem? I like getting to know players by the characters/roles they play, whether it's my friends I'm playing with or serious matches I'm watching. It's kind of a problem when some players insist on sticking to one character/role regardless of how appropriate it is to the map, the objective and the composition of the rest of their team. Like, I like playing Tracer, but if there's already a Tracer on my team or a Tracer just won't gel with the plan the rest of the team are attempting, or we don't have a healer or something, then I don't play as Tracer. In Overwatch it's almost always people picking sniper classes when they're bad at it or one isn't needed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 13:49
|
|
|
I honestly thought Overwatch was a MOBA until recently
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 14:07
|
|
|
Maybe support having to tell people how to play differently actually reveals an inherent problem in the way the game wants to be played vs how people want to play it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 14:09
|
|
|
Normally I really don't like stuns as a mechanic but I can't imagine being so bad at Overwatch that being consistently stunned is an issue. Like...wow.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 14:16
|
|
|
Higsian posted:Maybe support having to tell people how to play differently actually reveals an inherent problem in the way the game wants to be played vs how people want to play it. Eh, maybe, but only in that it's different to what people are expecting and it should be clearer in game.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 14:25
|
|
|
Fil5000 posted:It's kind of a problem when some players insist on sticking to one character/role regardless of how appropriate it is to the map, the objective and the composition of the rest of their team. Like, I like playing Tracer, but if there's already a Tracer on my team or a Tracer just won't gel with the plan the rest of the team are attempting, or we don't have a healer or something, then I don't play as Tracer. In Overwatch it's almost always people picking sniper classes when they're bad at it or one isn't needed. That's because the rest of the design decisions made in the game cause it to be a problem, like having a mandatory healer role and including so many flanker and sniper classes that get worse the more of them you have and/or have very hard counters. I've never had a problem with players doggedly sticking to one character or role in TF2, Diablo, Monster Hunter, or Street Fighter, because those games are designed to let you pick what you find fun and just do that instead of telling you "no, player, you are playing this wrong and you're going to be punished for it". And some Overwatch matchups really do feel like punishment; playing Junkrat against Pharah, or Reinhardt against McCree or Roadhog is just not fun.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 14:37
|
|
|
poptart_fairy posted:Overwatch is the Dark Souls of first person shooters. Overwatch is the Bucky Barnes of this thread. FactsAreUseless posted:And TF2 was a good game, but it could also stalemate really badly with things like Engineer stacking, or some maps just being straight-up terrible (2fort). The only way to break these stalemates was typically an Ubercharge. Overwatch has a lot more back-and-forth as a result. I think TF2's focus on a smaller number of classes was a good thing, and Overwatch definitely has too many classes, but I think ultimates work well in it. TF2 is a good multiplayer class game bc the classes are clearly defined enough that players know their roles without even having to properly communicate with teammates. snipers take out high priority targets, engineers set up support structures, medics heal the frontline units, spies and scouts gently caress poo poo up. i haven't gotten a chance to look at overwatch yet, but it sounds like there's a lot of overlap with all the different roles (as far as i know, there's like 2 scouts and one of them heals? and a sniper healer or something?) instead of learning what a class' role is, it sounds more like you gotta understand each hero's quirks, much like a MOBA, and that poo poo can get confusing to a person who ain't adept at DOTA or LOL. whenever i was in a match and saw poo poo like engineer stacking or too many pocket medics, i'd switch to whatever i thought was necessary for the team to progress and then go back to my usual shenanigans if i thought we were good. i had my main classes, but i made sure i was good or decent enough with all the other classes to cover any holes in my team's structure and just to understand how to properly deal with each class. the only thing close to an ultimate would be the ubercharge, but other classes now have pseudo-ultimate abilities which are weapons that can consistently buff players with mini-crits or can induce crit states (pyro's phlog, engineer's revenge crits, spy's diamondback, scout's crit-a-cola, the buffalo steak, chargin targe, sniper's heatmaker and motherfuckin jarate) but these weapons require you to give up a weapon slot to use. and while there are items that allow other classes besides the medic to heal players (mad milk, sandvich), choosing those items also removes a weapon slot for that class so it reminds the player that it's more of a secondary or even tertiary function to their role rather than the main thing they do. these alternate loadouts offer diversity and depth to each class, but they don't completely blur the lines between each class' role. the problem with TF2 is that some map modes aren't supported and left vestigial (tc_hydro is the only tc map, and last i checked sd only had one map), and symmetrical maps can be purgatory if the teams just can't organize properly. imo attack/defense and payload maps are better than ctf, push, or plr bc they're always pushing the teams forward and some maps are large enough or have enough diversity in their stages where you won't get visual fatigue from seeing the same parts of the level forever and ever. also, TF2 is too bloated with vanity items and is used to get consumers to preorder other games on steam so they can get sweet reskins and hats, but that's just me being salty for preordering homefront.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 14:37
|
|
|
Overwatch is a blight on humanity and the only good to come of it is that bird that hangs out on the annoying robot's shoulder. Truly, we live in the darkest timeline for having it exist.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 14:54
|
|
|
Titan Quest is 10 years old and so they just released an updated edition on Steam. For $5 I figured it was worth playing again. But man I forgot just how unbelievably loving long this game is. They actually patched in an option to increase the game speed like in a strategy game and it's still agonizingly long. Eight hours in and I'm almost done with the first act of the first playthrough.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 16:17
|
|
|
Bizarrely, I'd never heard of Titan Quest up until recently. Is it worth playing? Seems a bit MMORPG-like, but I could be thrown off by the aesthetics of the interface.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 16:24
|
|
|
It's a Diablo clone. It's not bad, it's just a long slow journey.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 16:26
|
|
|
The fact that they gave Anniversary Edition away for free to everybody who already owned the original game was really cool. The recent trend of making people re-buy an updated version of a game they already own to get a glorified patch (Hard Reset, Metro 2033, Human Revolution) makes business sense but is still annoying.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 23:03 |
|
|
Making people spend money on Hard Reset Redux is pretty ballsy considering how garbage the original game was.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 18:25
|
|