Official Overwatch Discussion Thread

  • Thread starter Deleted member 245375
  • Start date
I look forward to the update, about time Lucio's ult gets toned down a bit. Didnt see anything for Genji unless I missed it.
 
Lucio's Ult isn't toned down per say. The ult charge cost increases are being done in tandem with having self healing charge your ult (which would effectively raise the rate of charge).

No Genji changes.
 
oooh, 21:9 support. I am looking forward to that.

EDIT: WTF, now 21:9 people are vertically handicapped.
 
Fully support Blizzard here. Better to basically disallow cheating than to give people another potential hardware advantage.

McCree and Soldier's Ult with an increased FoV would be nuts.
 
Fully support Blizzard here. Better to basically disallow cheating than to give people another potential hardware advantage.

Cheating? Really? Every other competitive FPS supports widescreen format because it has a negligible impact compared to actual skills.

Kinsaras said:
McCree and Soldier's Ult with an increased FoV would be nuts.

Easily addressed by limiting the targeting area using a HUD overlay corresponding to an 16:9 aspect ratio.
 
If anyone can twitch aim just as fast with a 21:9 vs a 16:9, God bless them.

It's questionable that getting a 21:9 would result in that much of a benefit (like Blade-Runner says above) - if it does, then why not give players who use it a special tag next to their username?

But what they've done instead is actually handicap 21:9 users by restricting their vertical FOV. That's a bit harsh.
 
If anyone can twitch aim just as fast with a 21:9 vs a 16:9, God bless them.

It's questionable that getting a 21:9 would result in that much of a benefit (like Blade-Runner says above) - if it does, then why not give players who use it a special tag next to their username?

But what they've done instead is actually handicap 21:9 users by restricting their vertical FOV. That's a bit harsh.

If you were to consider less vertical FOV a handicap then by the same token you would have to consider less horizontal FOV a handicap as well, which would apply to non 21:9 users if you were to grant 21:9 the additional FOV.

At the end with differing aspect ratios on the market some group is going to be disadvantaged, as such I feel it is both the path of least resistance and fair to cater to the larger user bases being 16:9 which is the current mainstream aspect ratio.

The only way I can see one can resolve this without impinging on another user base is if they were to grant total custom control over the viewport to end users (unlimited FOV adjustment on each axis). The only games I know of that do offer this would be top down view ones with unlimited zoom in/out, Supreme Commander being an example.

However I recognize on hardware enthusiasts demographics there is larger bias that software should favor the "greater" (as in perceived higher end) hardware.
 
Cheating? Really? Every other competitive FPS supports widescreen format because it has a negligible impact compared to actual skills.

How many competitive FPS support both? I honestly don't know.

For all we know Blizzard is going to fix it and this is just temporary. This is just the first step.
 
How many competitive FPS support both? I honestly don't know.

UT, CS:GO, BF4, TF2 all do. Hell even the most recent CoD's have supported it properly.

For all we know Blizzard is going to fix it and this is just temporary. This is just the first step.

Doubtful considering that Blizzard have stated its intentional, unless they now backpedal in the face of fearsome nerd rage.
 
The only way I can see one can resolve this without impinging on another user base is if they were to grant total custom control over the viewport to end users (unlimited FOV adjustment on each axis).
FOV control has been denied to players for so long in so many ways.

However I recognize on hardware enthusiasts demographics there is larger bias that software should favor the "greater" (as in perceived higher end) hardware.
Yeah I mean this is always going to be the problem - you are paying for more hardware and getting (perceived) screwed. I mean, I don't think people necessarily get 21:9 monitors to be OP (pay to win!), nor do I think they get it to get squished into a smaller FOV.
 
Yeah I mean this is always going to be the problem - you are paying for more hardware and getting (perceived) screwed. I mean, I don't think people necessarily get 21:9 monitors to be OP (pay to win!), nor do I think they get it to get squished into a smaller FOV.

From my perspective, immersion is the most fundamental factor....competitive MP benefits aren't 't even a consideration.

And as you allude, there are a myriad of different hardware configurations which arguably deliver some meager competitive advantage....oh those poor people still gaming on 60hz monitors cannot compete with people who can afford 240hz models, so lets just cap FPS to 60 to level the playing field. If Blizzard wanted to pander to the lowest common denominator of configurations then it should have just stuck to a console release.
 
At least they should give 21:9 FOV a slight increase in horizontal width equivalent to the amount chopped from the top.
 
Cheating? Really? Every other competitive FPS supports widescreen format because it has a negligible impact compared to actual skills.

I had a triple-monitor setup for a few years and I was not any better at FPS games with the added FOV. There's lots to see and it's very immersive, but you don't simply become a god of FPS games. There were also times where I felt the ultra-wide FOV was degrading my performance due to feeling less focused on the action in front of me (where you need to be focusing to shoot at or react to threats) and distracted/overwhelmed by the larger scope.

Calling 21:9 "cheating" is silly, especially when you see pros in some games using 1024x768 or such nonsense to get ultra-high FPS and larger player models on their screens, etc. This is PC gaming: let players play however they are comfortable.
 
What is with competitive? 1 in 10 of my matches is a good, fun game. The other 90% is just alternating steam-rolling or getting wrecked in 3 minutes flat. Either the points system is broken or this game has way too much variety and play styles for proper points standing. Frustrating. At least in games like CS GO you can be pretty certain your teammates know the game as well as you and know where to play from. This game is a crap shoot.
 
I had a triple-monitor setup for a few years and I was not any better at FPS games with the added FOV. There's lots to see and it's very immersive, but you don't simply become a god of FPS games. There were also times where I felt the ultra-wide FOV was degrading my performance due to feeling less focused on the action in front of me (where you need to be focusing to shoot at or react to threats) and distracted/overwhelmed by the larger scope.

Calling 21:9 "cheating" is silly, especially when you see pros in some games using 1024x768 or such nonsense to get ultra-high FPS and larger player models on their screens, etc. This is PC gaming: let players play however they are comfortable.

Something that people seem to have a hard grasping is that for aspect ratios everything is relative. 21:9 is not wider than 16:9, it's wider relative to height. 16:10 is not taller than 16:9, it is relatively taller than it's width.

Why is the above distinction important? If you have a fixed view port (majority of games) or one adjustable on only one axis (almost all the rest including Overwatch) then you will have to have an ideal aspect ratio from a development perspective. There simply is no way around this. Only one aspect ratio can be what is considered optimal, every other one will have to have cut off content. If optimal FOV is designed around 21:9 then 16:9, 16:10, etc. will have their FOVs reduced by comparison. There is no way around this with the above constraints.

Whether or not it is "cheating" isn't really an important distinction or argument.

I understand from the psychological perspective here as a 21:9 buyer it feels like you are buying something wider and should have more width but things aren't that simple nor is that really the case.

The other option would be to have a completely user adjustable view port. This however brings with it a number of technical and design challenges and is another debate whether or not it is important for games to adopt them.

FOV control has been denied to players for so long in so many ways.


Yeah I mean this is always going to be the problem - you are paying for more hardware and getting (perceived) screwed. I mean, I don't think people necessarily get 21:9 monitors to be OP (pay to win!), nor do I think they get it to get squished into a smaller FOV.

Well I bring that issue up because I feel something hardware enthusiasts should understand (and something a lot don't currently seem to) is that there isn't really shouldn't be an inherent onus on game developers to showcase hardware.

Yes from the consumer perspective it feels like you aren't getting your moneys worth on what you spend on hardware but as the developer should a customer who spends $3k on hardware be more important then one who spends $1k when they both spend the same $60 on that developers game?
 
Last edited:
Still a douchey moved by the developers for something that should've been there from the beginning. If they don't like to support 21:9 consumers, then most of 21:9 consumers will not support their game. it's not the end of the world.
 
It's just evidence of Blizz being spectacularly out of touch and unaware that this argument raged in the previous decade when the average desktop AR moved from 4:3/5:4 to 16:10, 16:9 and beyond. I've been on 21:9 for two years now. My KDR did not change, and I didn't become a FPS gawd overnite. It's also more evidence that Blizz is still a newbie at first person shooters- all the production quality not withstanding.
 
Interesting video essay about the contrast between TF2 and Overwatch communities and playstyles.

 
So far the D.Va changes feel pretty good. She can hang out in the danger zone for longer, and you can use your shield at more opportune times, fire when you can and shield when you need to. Changed her playstyle a lot, but I like it so far.
 
Interesting video essay about the contrast between TF2 and Overwatch communities and playstyles.



TLDR: Play TF2 if you are a special snowflake and feel the need to express yourself to online randoms..

Nice video actually. I stopped playing TF2 the patch they released hats and shit, maybe that's why I like Overwatch's semi-locked down customizations.

I do miss the dedicated server aspect ie: TF2, CS, (Valve) etc.
 
Ana needs a few tweaks but she's going to bring an interesting element. Sleep grenade is way to strong. D.Va and the other fixes seem great.
 
TLDR: Play TF2 if you are a special snowflake and feel the need to express yourself to online randoms..

Nice video actually. I stopped playing TF2 the patch they released hats and shit, maybe that's why I like Overwatch's semi-locked down customizations.

I do miss the dedicated server aspect ie: TF2, CS, (Valve) etc.

Totally. I play TF2 off and on (have not since the latest patch crap) but I cant last very long on pub servers with the stupid items. So few were actually thought out. I do miss the Valve that knew how to make games.
 
Welp, I've pretty much stopped playing this game. I got to about level 50, mostly grudgingly, and then I realized I spent most of my time in this game pissed off. So I just stopped playing. As I suspected, ended up being a waste of money. Frankly I just find that I much prefer playing more standard FPS games like Dirty Bomb or (now mostly defunct) Wolfenstein ET. This was okay for a while but after I tried out every character, it started being really boring and frustrating. Not a good mixture.
 
Been putting more time in on Zarya, she's tough to play well but when you do it feels awesome. I definitely have more fun playing the tank heroes than anything else in this game. Reinhardt, Roadhog, and Zarya are my go-to picks lately.
 
I got a question for you Overwtach [H]ers...

I never did get into TF2 because of what I deemed a bit of a steep learning curve with all the different player types, upgrades, and all that unlockable junk so my question is: Is Overwatch more accessible than TF2?

I like me a run and gun type of multiplayer shooter like counter strike, battlefield, Quake, HL2 DM, etc... I love the new Doom multiplayer but things like Hack modules in that are over my head, I just want to get into the game.

I'd like to give this a try to see what all the fuss is about. Is this accessible to casual playing types or would I be out of my league here? I always felt like I couldn't really grow/learn to play TF2 since everyone already seemed to 'get' the game and playing always resulted in me being murdered left and right which wasn't fun for me. I straight up SUCKED at TF2.
 
I got a question for you Overwtach [H]ers...

I never did get into TF2 because of what I deemed a bit of a steep learning curve with all the different player types, upgrades, and all that unlockable junk so my question is: Is Overwatch more accessible than TF2?

I like me a run and gun type of multiplayer shooter like counter strike, battlefield, Quake, HL2 DM, etc... I love the new Doom multiplayer but things like Hack modules in that are over my head, I just want to get into the game.

I'd like to give this a try to see what all the fuss is about. Is this accessible to casual playing types or would I be out of my league here? I always felt like I couldn't really grow/learn to play TF2 since everyone already seemed to 'get' the game and playing always resulted in me being murdered left and right which wasn't fun for me. I straight up SUCKED at TF2.

I would say it has a bit more of a learning curve than TF2 only because of the wide array of Hero's and their abilities as well as what counters what and so on. Now you can jump in, pick one hero that fits your style or looks cool and just play that hero for a while watching and picking up on the rest of it. I would not specifically say it is harder than TF2 but there is more out of the box to pick up on. Now with TF2's steroid item mess there is a crap ton more to learn on custom items but it only has 9 classes and 3 weapons each. Overwatchs maps are a bit more linear so it takes less time to figure them out and less to worry about being snuck up on (for now).

I say spend some time on youtube watching game play and see how it looks, it may seem daunting at first but after a few rounds of practice to find your character jump in and play it. After 5 or 6 rounds you should have more than the basics down to "run and gun." If you have some friends it can be a ton of fun.
 
I have to be honest, I have barely played this game since I bought it a few weeks ago. Got to level 12 or so I think and have barely touched it sense. Every time I hop on it either takes forever to find a match (for some reason), so I end up either going vs. AI or waiting for a match, which usually ends up being a bunch of jokers running off doing their own thing.

I don't really dislike the game as a whole and the variety of characters are intriguing, but it's just too hard to get a decent game going with randoms.
 
I have to be honest, I have barely played this game since I bought it a few weeks ago. Got to level 12 or so I think and have barely touched it sense. Every time I hop on it either takes forever to find a match (for some reason), so I end up either going vs. AI or waiting for a match, which usually ends up being a bunch of jokers running off doing their own thing.

I don't really dislike the game as a whole and the variety of characters are intriguing, but it's just too hard to get a decent game going with randoms.

Weird, while I am not a fan of being forced into match making I have not had to way more than a few minutes to find a game. Playing solo I think I wait around 30 to 40 seconds tops before I am put in one. Now full pubber matches are hit or miss, I think I'm at about 50% to 60% good to moderate groups with a few great ones out there. The rest are kinda meh. But at least it does not take long for the next round to start usually so I dont get too bothered.

I only have time for 2 to 4 maps a night usually. 2 solo and 4 with friends that way I dont get annoyed or burned out. I like to play a variety of stuff lol.
 
I just got to level 17 and I've been on and off this game for a bit. Last few nights have been mostly okay - I'll say this: try and learn one character from each class.

While one of the meta's in this game is the switching of characters to suit the situation (and counter the other team), when you're starting out it's just not possible to do so. In the early stages of learning the game it's not about winning but finding four key characters.

(Now, I've said all that - but I have been playing as nothing but Mei recently and trying to balance both attack and defense. I led a few matches in both kills and objective time - in a mixture of payload escort and capture. As a fairly slow defensive character, this shouldn't happen really. I will probably shift to someone new like Ana/D.Va-post-buff next most likely, but I'm having a decent time so far.)
 
I'd like to give this a try to see what all the fuss is about. Is this accessible to casual playing types or would I be out of my league here? I always felt like I couldn't really grow/learn to play TF2 since everyone already seemed to 'get' the game and playing always resulted in me being murdered left and right which wasn't fun for me. I straight up SUCKED at TF2.

There's still a big learning curve learning the rock/paper/scissors mechanics of all the classes and their ultimate abilities. OW encourages you to frequently change heroes/classes during a match, something that is counter-intuitive to a lot of run and gun shooters. And you can't really solo with randoms and expect to have a good time.
 
Damn. I was going to be playing with randoms since I've only recently got back into PC gaming and everyone else I actually know are console gamers.

I might still give this a shot. 40 bucks ain't too bad and I'm not that much of a stranger to strategic shooters. Are there things that advanced players can unlock that give an advantage?
 
Damn. I was going to be playing with randoms since I've only recently got back into PC gaming and everyone else I actually know are console gamers.

I might still give this a shot. 40 bucks ain't too bad and I'm not that much of a stranger to strategic shooters. Are there things that advanced players can unlock that give an advantage?
There's nothing like that?
 
Damn. I was going to be playing with randoms since I've only recently got back into PC gaming and everyone else I actually know are console gamers.

I might still give this a shot. 40 bucks ain't too bad and I'm not that much of a stranger to strategic shooters. Are there things that advanced players can unlock that give an advantage?
No, there isn't a competitive advantage to unlocking any of the unlockable things. They're all purely cosmetic - sort of nod to the TF2-style unlockable hats, but less overwhelming.

I generally have a good time playing with randoms. If you want to get really super serious about the game, you'll do well to make some friends to play with as an actual team, but for just playing for the fun of it, most people play at least passably.
 
That's good to hear.

I may just pick this up this weekend. I got access to the closed alpha for Lawbreakers and I had a ton of fun with that last night. I think Overwatch may tide me over until that game comes out.
 
Currently sitting at skill rating 58. Solo Queuing is sometimes good, but a lot of the times its terrible , lol.
 
Yeah, ranked matchmaking is broken. It felt like the first 10-20 matches were all right - pretty much a 50/50 win loss split, matches were mostly competitive (as in neither team gets steamrolled). Since then I've played another 50 or so matches and 75% of them are so incredibly frustrating. My team gets destroyed in half the matches, obliterates the opposition in a quarter, and the remaining quarter are actually decently fun.

Still playing for now, but I don't know how much longer I'll stick with it. Disappointing that they can't figure out a simple matchmaking algorithm.
 
Yeah, ranked matchmaking is broken. It felt like the first 10-20 matches were all right - pretty much a 50/50 win loss split, matches were mostly competitive (as in neither team gets steamrolled). Since then I've played another 50 or so matches and 75% of them are so incredibly frustrating. My team gets destroyed in half the matches, obliterates the opposition in a quarter, and the remaining quarter are actually decently fun.

Still playing for now, but I don't know how much longer I'll stick with it. Disappointing that they can't figure out a simple matchmaking algorithm.

I've had the opposite experience, but then I think the problem is mostly psychology. Blizzard had a great post about it, but basically it boils down to this:

Players will say they prefer a close match, even one where they lose, to a steamroll even if it's a steamroll where they win. Reality tells a different story, in that when you give a player a close match that they lose they end up *feeling* like they got their ass kicked, and they complain and think the match was unfair. Essentially the result is that most players actually prefer a complete stomp(where they lose) to a close game where they lose, because the psychology is that in the total stomp you're not trying as hard because it seems hopeless. In the close game you're trying your hardest and it's frustrating you because you're still losing, so you actually dislike that match more. My win/loss rate is close to 60% in competitive, less in quick play but I have far more matches in quick play. The reality is that most matches are actually fairly well matched, but if people aren't playing heroes they're strong with or if they're just making bad picks then it can feel otherwise. If the matchmaker puts me on your team, it doesn't know if I'm going to play Zarya or if I'm going to play Lucio because nobody else would. I'm much stronger with Zarya than I am with Lucio, and even though my win ratio with Lucio is above 50% it's nowhere near the ~65% that I'm at with Zarya. When player choice plays such a big role before the match even starts, I'm honestly impressed that the matchmaking works as well as it does.
 
Back
Top