Son banned from Overwatch competitive play AGAIN

[Gee]

I wont lie, I've been in a comp game that someone else has picked what I would like to play and I'm 'forced' into a support or tank role. I don't mind this if the team is then working, but it's not enjoyable when people that have taken that character can't fulfil their role.

Main reason why I stopped playing OW competitively. Even if I played with 3-4 friends, all on Discord, there'd still be some other random on my team that insists on playing Bastion for defense, when the enemy team has a Genji. No matter how hard we tried to get them to re-pick, they wouldn't but they'd still continue to flame us in team chat etc. Not for us being bad, we're all competent players but it's incredibly frustrating.

I haven't played since comp. was first released so I don't know how the situation is now, but I recall there being a lot of cheaters when I played.

 

[Mockingbird]

Very few cheaters, still a lot of people who want to play your game for you and will complain if you deviate from their narrow idea of what's 'the best pick' (the other side of the coin to the main complaint in this thread). A small number of people who are actively trying to lose/annoy people.

Most of the time, particularly if you have 2-3 people to queue with (RL friends or people you know from in game), you can have a great time, but the few bad matches are bad enough that they stick out a lot and generally I steer clear of comp now as well.

 

[Curlyriff]

Im going to Say it Curlyriff - You are missing the point of this type of game.

Slating a game for bad design when you dont understand the entire concept of the game is ignorant.

Sorry I get the point. I don't agree that it makes it right. I believe you can still have a competitive play where people can pick which ever character they like. Yes they may not be optimised to be the "best" option but that comes down to player skill and ability to out think the opponent.

I also pointed out that what you are seeing on your team as someone not able to be the optimum against the enemies character would also then be the same for opposite team as they would also have to change tack also to gain that advantage.

I understand the concept of the game. I have played it, I had no problem in my short time playing but I feel that people here are saying only certain meta for characters work. I don't believe that is true and if it is so then it is bad game design because you might as well have the teams pre-chosen character wise and just let people pick out of those who they are playing.

 

[Curlyriff]

Having counterpicks is not bad game design. It's a fundamental part of almost every esport I can think of. League of Legends, Dota 2, Street Fighter (any fighting game really). All are entirely based around picking the right character that both works with your teammates and is effective against the enemy team. CSGO is probably the only exception to this, even Starcraft has favourable matchups.

Calling it bad game design is simply incorrect. All of the games I mentioned wouldn't work if every character was homogeneous and didn't have strengths and weaknesses that could be exploited by choosing a different character.

I was not suggesting that there should not be counter picks that are optimised. However it should mean that other picks are still viable. People here are stating that unless you pick Meta 2-2-2 then it is impossible because the other characters are then useless.

Sorry but all the other games you note including R6S have of course counter picks but they also have a huge other number of variable options that are possible.

 

[Curlyriff]

It just seems nonsense to me? How can he even attempt to criticize a game he clearly knows nothing about?

He is within his right to not agreeing with the "concept" of the game. However that doesn't mean its poorly designed or developed.

I have played the game. I never stated it was badly designed. I stated that if you only have the options that there is only 1 counter pick and no other method to play than that is bad design regardless of the game in question.

I even enjoyed the game when I played. So I think you have miss-interpreted what I typed in honesty.

 

[Curlyriff]

I'm not a big fan of overwatch myself but saying it has bad design is just ridiculous.

You can't even compare overwatch to r6.

Overwatch is very much a team game, yet many still play it like a deathmatch - to get the most out of it you need to have a more dynamic approach that requires flexibility over who you can play. Every class has a purpose/strength, some for even certain sections of a map, but it all plays a role.

If you go into every match picking the same class time and time again regardless, then you are essentially screwing it up for everyone of your team mates.

If it's quickplay then unfortunately you need to accept a high chance of being surrounded by morons, but that's true for every online game - bf1 having 5 snipers outside of any cap point when it;s in enemy hands or the high number of 0-0 snipers - or r6 with people rushing around blindly, shooting areas of cover and generally being unstealthy while next to a group moving into position - the list goes on.

Proper induction/training before letting someone step foot into an online match might solve some of the issues, but people are selfish ****s sometimes, nothing can be done about that.

The first part of your statement is how both Overwatch and R6S work though. Both have classes that have strength and weakness, both require dynamic views of the map and the alternative team.

I am not sure if people who are playing Overwatch assume no other game does this or what but it isn't the case.

 

[AndyCr15]

Sorry I get the point. I don't agree that it makes it right. I believe you can still have a competitive play where people can pick which ever character they like. Yes they may not be optimised to be the "best" option but that comes down to player skill and ability to out think the opponent.

You can pick whatever you like, but it might need to change if a need arises. Again, a Reaper isn't going to be much use against a Phara, no matter how skillful the Reaper is. That's not bad game design though, it's what gives it extra strategy.

For this to be the case (it's skill over character) they would need to be much similar, which would remove what makes the game so much fun.

I also pointed out that what you are seeing on your team as someone not able to be the optimum against the enemies character would also then be the same for opposite team as they would also have to change tack also to gain that advantage.

You've lost me there. They already have the advantage as they have a successful character 'X' to which our team has not countered. Why would they need to change?

If you mean 'whoever isn't countering is playing a character that they need to counter', no not if this character isn't causing big problems for the opposition they don't. Hence the pressure for this person on our team to change.

People here are stating that unless you pick Meta 2-2-2 then it is impossible because the other characters are then useless.

I don't think anyone has said that have they? Again, makes me think you don't really understand what we're talking about.

Some people believe in 3 tanks, one DPS and 2 support. I tried it in one team, as one guy was insistent. I was the lone DPS and surprise, surprise we struggled to kill anyone on attack. I then got the blame as I was DPS!!! (On my own)

 

[Musty Pie]

I have played the game. I never stated it was badly designed.

Bad game design.

I don't believe that is true and if it is so then it is bad game design because you might as well have the teams pre-chosen character wise and just let people pick out of those who they are playing.

I don't even ... What the.... Nah I'm out.

 

[AndyCr15]

Interesting video on YouTube -

Surely when you see this in death cam, you know instantly the guy is hacking? It's actually kind of a dull video, but at 3:00 he gets banned I think it then shows him trying to buy the game again

 

[Nemeses]

It just seems nonsense to me? How can he even attempt to criticize a game he clearly knows nothing about?

He is within his right to not agreeing with the "concept" of the game. However that doesn't mean its poorly designed or developed.

If you forced to play a class you don't want to, its a bad design. Nothing you say will move it away from that, its a system that I would bet my life gets abused every single day, because its how gamers are these days.

 

[AndyCr15]

If you forced to play a class you don't want to, its a bad design.

No it's not, it's the point of the game. If you don't want to play at least one character from each of the four classes, you probably shouldn't play Comp.

It's a little bit like saying Football is bad design. You must have a goalie if you want any chance of winning. If everyone turned up to a game and they all played centre forward, would you blame the design of football?

 

[TonyTurbo78]

I see blizzard have banned 10k accounts recently for cheating. That's what you call a proper banwave not sure if that's old news, just had a game feed.

 

[Curlyriff]

I don't even ... What the.... Nah I'm out.

You took the quote out where I said if that is how it works it is bad game design. Not that this IS bad game design right now because I haven't got all the details. Stop miss-quoting and ignoring the paragraph and context in which it is written.

 

[Curlyriff]

You can pick whatever you like, but it might need to change if a need arises. Again, a Reaper isn't going to be much use against a Phara, no matter how skillful the Reaper is. That's not bad game design though, it's what gives it extra strategy.

For this to be the case (it's skill over character) they would need to be much similar, which would remove what makes the game so much fun.



You've lost me there. They already have the advantage as they have a successful character 'X' to which our team has not countered. Why would they need to change?

If you mean 'whoever isn't countering is playing a character that they need to counter', no not if this character isn't causing big problems for the opposition they don't. Hence the pressure for this person on our team to change.



I don't think anyone has said that have they? Again, makes me think you don't really understand what we're talking about.

Some people believe in 3 tanks, one DPS and 2 support. I tried it in one team, as one guy was insistent. I was the lone DPS and surprise, surprise we struggled to kill anyone on attack. I then got the blame as I was DPS!!! (On my own)

Just a quick summary because at least your taking the time to discuss as an adult.

The first point, what about anyone else being able to be affective against said character though on the whole team? It still seems a very locked meta being used in my opinion which personally to me isn't something I feel is right.

And in regards to the second point. Yes your second statement. However if they are not affective against the other team that is a different issue in that it appears as if the person playing then can't use their character affectively and thus isn't punishing the team where they possibly could be. That comes down to the players skill and understanding. If they can force another character change on the other team to try and combat them then it could work in your advantage. It has to work both ways otherwise the Meta doesn't make sense at all.

In to point 3. Yeah people previous were stating that you could only play meta a/b/c etc and that was where I took issue because there are a lot more details such as map, player skill, general understanding of the mechanics etc behind the meta than just A vs B character wise. Or at least there should be.

I was trying to say if only the character meta is the way to play it would be a very locked game which people were suggesting it was. That I found to be untrue on my play that I have had although maybe a little short for a full view on this but this also comes from games that do have this issue and how people were describing the problem.

 

[Curlyriff]

No it's not, it's the point of the game. If you don't want to play at least one character from each of the four classes, you probably shouldn't play Comp.

It's a little bit like saying Football is bad design. You must have a goalie if you want any chance of winning. If everyone turned up to a game and they all played centre forward, would you blame the design of football?

To a point I do agree, however you have different formations. People who specialise in different styles of play for the same position and of that if you say had 10 players for same position then I would suspect that you could choose 7 or so with their play style to be affective against the team you are currently playing.

Now the ones that are not affective directly to the opposite player however offer something else which may make the other team switch things and then open up new plays and thus others become much more affective.

It is like choosing to play deep, go wide, short pass, long pass etc. Those are all parts of the meta and all are different but you can often use any and still be successful if you are skilled enough and know how to counter the other team accordingly.

I hope that makes sense and why I feel that a game with a wider meta can still be challenging but offer greater freedom to players. That is what I would say is better game design. Now I don't know if this is true for Overwatch fully however it was suggested that for instance that sorry but the only thing that would work against team A is say the short pass game and the others would mean instant loss regardless of skill, understanding and decision making.

 

[AndyCr15]

To a point I do agree, however you have different formations. People who specialise in different styles of play for the same position and of that if you say had 10 players for same position then I would suspect that you could choose 7 or so with their play style to be affective against the team you are currently playing.

I don't entirely understand what you're saying. You might pick 7 people who's playing style can slot in as defenders and midfielders? The point being, you need defenders and midfielders. That's kinda my whole point in fact. You can't have 11 attackers and nothing else. You simply wont win. That's not because of bad game design, it's a bad strategy for the game.

This is the same as having 5 DPS and one tank. It's just a bad strategy to win a game. Not bad game design. That's not to say you can't do it. I've done it. We had some much damage and the team was generally good players, but it's not going to work very often.

It is like choosing to play deep, go wide, short pass, long pass etc.

Yes, but quite often one strategy is clearly a better way to go given what your opponent is doing. You can do others and you still might win, especially if you have good enough players, but one way might give you a better chance.

Now the ones that are not affective directly to the opposite player however offer something else which may make the other team switch things and then open up new plays and thus others become much more affective.

But sometimes the opposing teams set up can nulify even a very good player in his choice and he would need to chose something different. As has been said, sometimes a very good opponent might need a specific counter, to give your own team the best chance.

If a football team has an amazing midfielder, you might stick your own best player on him, man to man.

I don't actually know anything about Football, so I can't go into a lot of detail. American Football I could talk forever. If you go against an agile QB, you might use a LB as a spy. This can weaken other areas of your D, but would safe guard you against him destroying you scrambling all the time. I don't see how it is even close to bad game design. I see it as the reverse. Good game design that allows strategy to have an effect on the outcome.

 

[Nemeses]

No it's not, it's the point of the game. If you don't want to play at least one character from each of the four classes, you probably shouldn't play Comp.

It's a little bit like saying Football is bad design. You must have a goalie if you want any chance of winning. If everyone turned up to a game and they all played centre forward, would you blame the design of football?

You not even seeing the issue, you join a battle with 3 of your mates I join solo we both same class, I bet even if I'm better if I don't swap, I'm the one blamed ..now I don't mean you personally before you get on your high horse, just in general and do not tell me people in games are not like that today.

As long as that can happen its a bad design, no matter how blindly you defend it.

Again your analogy is so far off, it tells me you just do not understand, so I will leave it with this as my final comment.

 

[AndyCr15]

I understand fine, I think you don't though as that's a totally different thing to what I'm talking about, which might be why you think my analogy is way off. You're simply saying it's a toxic community. How on earth is that game design?!?! Possibly the most ridiculous point yet.

 

[FARGO]

From my understanding, players are meant to adapt to what they face through the each round, as the round progresses. In a similar way to LoL or DOTA. It is designed so that a successful team will use the character classes in certain combinations against certain opponent combinations - it isn't meant to work by choosing whoever we feel like. Players are playing against the enemy teams strengths and weaknesses and deliberate team composition is the way in which it was designed to work.

 

[Musty Pie]

From my understanding, players are meant to adapt to what they face through the each round, as the round progresses. In a similar way to LoL or DOTA. It is designed so that a successful team will use the character classes in certain combinations against certain opponent combinations - it isn't meant to work by choosing whoever we feel like. Players are playing against the enemy teams strengths and weaknesses and deliberate team composition is the way in which it was designed to work.

And you understand correctly