Re: Overwatch
Posted: Tue Apr 25, 2017 4:43 pm
Managed to bag a 27 kill streak with D.Va in ranked last night and we somehow still lost the match. I must've went through 7 mechs in the one life.
Hexx wrote:I actually might be fine with this. It's crystallised tonight in my head that this a poorly designed/bad game.
Your enjoyment is directly related to the actions of other players. It's near impossible to have a 'good game' if your team isn't playing properly. Most other games (CoDs, Titanfall, Battlefield, Destiny etc) you can still have a good time in a bad match...
...There's plenty of games people walk away after a while from because it's too tense, or too frantic, or too dry eye can't blink making. I struggle to think of another one that you walk away from because it's design just creates rage...
Mafro wrote:
Karl wrote:Hexx wrote:I actually might be fine with this. It's crystallised tonight in my head that this a poorly designed/bad game.
Your enjoyment is directly related to the actions of other players. It's near impossible to have a 'good game' if your team isn't playing properly. Most other games (CoDs, Titanfall, Battlefield, Destiny etc) you can still have a good time in a bad match...
...There's plenty of games people walk away after a while from because it's too tense, or too frantic, or too dry eye can't blink making. I struggle to think of another one that you walk away from because it's design just creates rage...
I don't entirely disagree - Overwatch has problems for sure - but I think this is a bit harsh. Overwatch is fundamentally designed to be an e-sport, in the same domain of games as like Street Fighter. (It still needs tweaking to be a good e-sport, but that's not really relevant here.)
In Street Fighter, beginners button-mash and the most mashy mashers tend to win, which is the opposite of the skillset you need to actually get good at the game. Plenty of people never progress beyond mashing and have tonnes of fun at that level, and that's great, but if your goal is to win consistently then you eventually have to unlearn that and adopt a better strategy, right? In Street Fighter, just knowing how to block and which moves leave you safe to continue blocking will let you stomp someone who's mashing. It's not enough to make you a pro, but it gets you out of that beginner bracket. OTOH, you shouldn't try to do the same ridiculous combos that a real pro would, because it's above your level and it'll make you do worse.
You're at 1400 SR, which means you're a beginner and playing with other beginners. I'm not much better than this myself so I can say from personal experience: beginners have bad aim, bad positioning, bad game sense (i.e. that gut feeling of when to push, when to hold, when to fall back...). Some heroes and strategies excel at exploiting those mistakes and become less relevant as you get better; some heroes and strategies that would be relevant at a higher level don't work when your team as a whole don't meet a certain level of proficiency.
I'm sure you do deserve to rank up, but to achieve that you'll need to adopt a strategy that stomps beginners, rather than one that relies on good team play which you won't get at 1400 SR. Be the Pharah that exploits the fact that their team don't know to look up. Or be the Reinhardt that sticks with the team, then charges the enemy to initiate a battle at the right time. Or be the Mercy that's actually on mic, directing the team to group up and push. You'll be 1000 SR points higher at least - and better ranked than I am! - before these basic, solid tactics stop carrying you (and your teams).
Sorry for the pep talk but it sounded like you needed one
Karl wrote:I don't know what you to tell you -- you're playing with really bad players and you won't adapt your strategy to acknowledge the fact that both your team and the enemy are bad, so of course you're going to be held back by those players. For inspiration, here is a guy who played only support characters and ranked up from Bronze to Grandmaster. I haven't watched all the videos but maybe they'll help, particularly the ones in Bronze/Silver.
Pick one or two heroes that are impactful - I made some suggestions you didn't like, so go ahead and decide what you think will have the most impact in the games you play - insist on playing them all the time, and play them really well. You don't have to carry every game, but to rank up you have to have enough impact that you win more games than you lose. The enemy has 6 randos and you have 5 randos plus yourself. If you're losing more games than you win then that might well be because you're trying to play 'properly' and your team aren't, but by the metric of winning it's actually you holding them back. You've got to change that or you'll be stuck in Bronze with idiots forever.
I don't actually mind if you think Overwatch is good or not but it kind of sounds like you're just upset or frustrated about being a low rank.
For what it's worth, I very rarely have games that are no fun. I'm not gonna say it never happens, but I really like the characters I play, I find them inherently fun no matter what's going on around me. I play quick play primarily so I'm used to bad team compositions and no communication, but I don't see how I could possibly get stressed out playing Lucio or Mei ( ) or Winston, they are relaxing and hilarious.
but to rank up you have to have enough impact that you win more games than you lose
Karl wrote:Sure, OK. I guess if you find low ranks boring but aren't good enough to rank up then yeah, you're stuck. In that sense I agree with you in that I can understand why you are frustrated, it sounds like you might need to choose a different game that you are naturally better at.
You asked me about SR. The SR system rewards winning primarily, but also rewards you based on a variety of (sometimes hidden) metrics that say, "given his rank and hero, did he do more winner-like things than loser-like things this match?" Note that it doesn't decide based on how the developers think the game should be played, it judges you statistically by comparing your actions to those of winners and losers in other games. (By far the easiest way to game this system is to die less often. When you're dead you can't 'score' on any of these metrics, whereas when you're alive & doing stuff you're probably 'scoring' on at least some of them. But anyway...)
The defence of the design choice is that it would take ages for very good players to rank up (and for very bad players who were misplaced to rank down) if you didn't 'accelerate' the process by assessing the person's skill.
But like I said, I don't really understand your mindset because I genuinely enjoy playing the heroes I play even when I'm losing and my teammates are bad. I play Lucio, Mei, and Winston because they constantly interact with the enemy in funny ways (both in terms of their gameplay mechanics, but also their voicelines and stuff) and I find it very amusing and fun. That's primarily what I get out of Overwatch. If I get matches with good teamplay then that adds another element I enjoy a lot, but I have fun pissing around too, which I guess is why I really like the game as a whole even though I'm ranked low and you don't. It's not like I get frustrated if I have a few 'bad' matches because I'm almost always playing one of the three heroes I really like. (That's not a judgement of you, just my hypothesis as to where we differ.)