Overwatch, It Isn't New Anymore

[Corrderio]

Which makes it incredible!

Combine it with her "Shh" intro and watch the horror.

[Meian]

Dva and Mei skins are pure gorgeousness. Got D.va's on free first crate so I am glad. Most of these are all fantastic~

[nicholai]

I got stupid mercy mei and junk rat skins, just want rein

[shukudai]

Hanzo salt.

I've kept a little notepad of playing with a Hanzo. If they play Hanzo the majority of the time (and they do), it goes in my list.

I have not won a game with a Hanzo on my team in 15 matches. Not one. Some teams stank, some teams were pretty good. I was support 100% of the time. I healed them, I supported like they were any other DPS, as much as possible.

0-15. Over about a week. I'd say maybe 1/3rd of them got raged on by the team, either at the start, middle or end of the match. The best was "I play with pros, and I'm leading right now." in a KoTH map where he barely survived a moment, and a review of the killfeed showed two kills from him. Yet he kept it up, "I'm winning right now, so shut up." etc.

I wish there was a way to link in text chat, so I could open each match with a Hanzo meme.

[Karbuncle]

I've watched a few Seagull videos so I'm pretty pro Hanzo now myself so idk about those scrubs.

On a more serious note, I'm pretty good with Hanzo as he doesn't require a lot of tracking, just good flick skills which I can usually pull off. He just had a stigma, a very well deserved one lol. So many bads

[shukudai]

Sure people can be great at Hanzo. But generally, it means a loss. No matter how good the Hanzo is. Teamwork far, far, far outweighs any skill on a Hanzo. Most of the team is on tilt the moment someone picks Hanzo, which doesn't help.

But I like statistics: http://masteroverwatch.com/heroes

Sort by Popoularity: Hanzo is 11th most popular character.
Sort by Win Rate: Hanzo has the second lowest, 22nd out of 23, with only Sombra having a lower winrate.

Given those numbers, it's very understandable why teams simply don't want Hanzo on them. I'm not even shocked McCree has the third lowest win rate, because the issue is more "We can't kill Pharah, go Soldier or McCee", which tends to result in Pharah dying during their ults only. Even more odd, is Ana, the game changing, you win if you have Ana, her kit is so strong, she's unstoppable, has the 4th lowest win rate.

What those statistics say to me in the end is four things:

1) Teamwork is more important than all other factors.
2) Team composition is incredibly important, including switching it up to counter.
3) Favorable hero choice on each map is important.
4) Skill with the hero you are playing.

I'm entering matches and before there's a pick, a couple people go "I don't play Reinhardt.", "I'm bad at Reinhardt.", or Hanzo saying "We need another tank/healer" when we have three DPS. In the end, you just have to accept that solo queue is something you can barely influence. No amount of typing, voice communication, positivity, calling, anything, can influence a match enough. People become incredibly awful human beings. Just had someone go "For fucks sake, Soldier, you suck. KILL FUCKING PHARAH YOU PIECE OF SHIT." The Soldier in question started off on a different hero, on his first death under a minute in, swapped to Soldier to counter, and hadn't even left the spawn yet. The rage and vitriol of people who aren't even paying attention ruins it all. And Blizzard never, ever does anything to alleviate this issue.

[Karbuncle]

Mm can't say I care much about win rate statistics. For all its worth it could just be showing people picking classes they suck at because people say it's "meta". I'd much rather have a decent Hanzo on my team than a shitty Soldier. Same skill yeah I'd prefer Soldier in his current position but if they go Hanzo I'm going to give them the tools he needs to succeed to the best of my abilities. (Much like youbdid). There's no cure for shitty players.

At skill levels where team work just isn't happening or solo Queu in general, outside of vital roles you'd probably not be surprised how easy it is to win with a non meta comp when people play classes they excel at. cause let's face it, the "meta" only means dick at levels of play where teamwork and skill go hand and hand, or in six stacks.

The instant tilting at a perceived "off meta" pick is far more damaging to the team than the pick itself. Though I'm guilty of this. Tracer of Defense just kills me.

Not saying that composition can be thrown out the window, just that in most levels of play it matters far less than communication and team work.

So basically what I'm saying is I agree with you almost entirely. But Hanzo is a powerful character who's only flaw is the overwhelm amount of shitty people playing him.

Got a Hanzo? Go Zarya and give him a wombo combo and hope he recognizes if they have a Zenyatta he's not effective anymore lol.

Did I mention there's no cure for shit players ?

[shukudai]

Every character is a "powerful character" in Overwatch. They're like chess pieces. Only one hero can do "X" (aka: move like a Bishop), and that's super valuable. Only one hero can do "Y" (aka: Move like a rook). Blizzard has stated several times they want their characters to feel very unique and strong. Problems arise when you have four pawns and a king and a rook, and the enemy team has two pawns, a rook, a bishop, a king and a queen.

I'm all for "Hey, if you work together, then ignore meta and map selection, do your thing." History shows that well... just doesn't work. Period. Maybe at 3000 SR or higher, it's a different story.

Not to be negative, but you can fit that statement onto every single character.

"But Sombra is a powerful character who's only flaw is the overwhelming amount of shitty people playing her." I mean, hacking is super useful when done well. EMP is devastating. She can be a good distraction.
"But Tracer is a powerful character who's only flaw is the overwhelming amount of shitty people playing her." She can sneak around maps, pester like no one else, easily get picks, survive a bunch of crap situations.
etc, etc, etc.

I just kind of refuse to believe people who are Lv.100+, or Lv.300+ are just awful, horrible players. You cannot play that much and be that bad. And they're both right in that their hero choice can be great, even if it doesn't fit the comp at all. Like, most teams have Reinhardts. Breaking his shield is super useful, it's really great to have two DPS to help take down that shield ASAP. And your team even has a Reinhardt too! But your co-tank is D.Va, and she's busy flanking. And you have a Genji, who's also flanking. They're both out of healer range. So if they don't get picks, you're just going to get completely overwhelmed. All those "powerful" characters that don't fit a composition do fit in the mold of "Hey, if they can pull it off, we're good."

I'll take a solid, stable, boring team composition every single time rather than rely on a Tracer/Genji/Hanzo/Widow. And I want to burn anyone who goes to maps like Eich and two tanks it with Winston and D.Va or Zarya. When your Winston and Zarya are like "Yeah, can we get a Reinhardt?" you just want to leave on the spot.

[Karbuncle]

I don't think I'm making my point clearly enough. So here are two videos explaining what I mean.





Maybe if you have like 20 minutes and watch these you'll better understand what I'm trying to say, and maybe even find we agree on pretty much everything. Map layout should effect your picks, enemy team should, etc etc. I'm just speaking to the fact 99% of the people you'll run into in comp don't give a shit and won't really exude teamwork or give a damn about their statistic.

Also Sombra is great, when used right.

Il not suggesting all heros are good for all situations or any of that other jazz. What I'm saying is there's a good chance your misfortunes are the result of just being outplayed or bad players, not your team comp.

What skill level are you at?

Edit: second video won't load on my phone. Is it working for you ?

[shukudai]

They're there, and I'm not disagreeing. It's just two sides of an argument. One side is stability and basics are going to get you to win. The other side is unorthodox stuff CAN work. I'm just salty, and would rather the "unorthodox side" didn't exist, so I wouldn't have to deal with it. The unorthodox side provides the better feels, the stability side provides more wins. You're going to lose 50% of the time anyways, regardless of which side of the coin you fall on.

Edit: I watched the first video, and partially disagree with it.

My main contention with what the video is saying is that it presumes people are bad players and assuming a strong meta composition will win them the game. No one thinks that, I hope. The point he should be making is that popular meta compositions are team compositions that create favorable situations to make strong plays. In his example that the other team has a good Mei, who is using her Ice Walls in an effective manner, people might switch to a Dive composition. And the Dive composition won't work well if people don't effectively play to the strengths of it, i.e: A Dive comp doesn't work if you're all funneling into a small corridor.

I believe this to be very self-evident. When I look at team composition, I look for the team composition that can handle as many situations with high chances of winning in as many situations as possible.

For example, let's take a popular meta composition, on Eichenwalde Attack: Reinhardt / Roadhog / Ana / Lucio / Soldier / Pharah.

The first goal is generally to get past the choke point. This kind of composition lets you safely break a Reinhardt's shield, get picks, makes healing easier, and still gives you some great options with Roadhog's hook and Pharah is versatile in breaking enemy Reinhardt's shield or clearing turrets. The healing is relatively stable, and both healers are able to push out some damage as well. The tanks have high health and aren't all over the place, when Rein's shield drops, Roadog can usually soak some damage, and a broken Rein shield is a really great visual indicator for Roadhog to move up for a bit and for healers to focus him. Damage is very direct and obvious, but also very strong.

When you chose to swap out Pharah for say, Junkrat, things take quite a change. Junkrat isn't a bad pick in this kind of situation, but he's not the optimal pick. He has a more difficult time doing direct damage, but he's better at controlling space, and his trap and bomb can do some awesome stuff. Just not as awesome as replacing Pharah.

Then instead of Pharah or Junkrat, you throw in Hanzo. He's got mobility to move around, he provides less damage through the choke, and there are not as many good angles for him to effectively do damage until past the choke point, where he becomes stronger. But you've got to get by that choke first. Maybe your Reinhardt gets frustrated and tries to charge to force a push, but Hanzo is in a poor position to support the charge because before the charge, he's better off higher up.

Of course I'm picking examples that spin things in favor of the argument I'm making, but that's how I see things like a Hanzo pick or a Widowmaker pick. You're rely on the person who plays one of those heroes to make great plays to compensate for what an average Soldier or Pharah can do in exchange for performing slightly better in some specific situations later. When it works, holy shit is it awesome. When it fails five times in four minutes and you don't break the choke once, you want to strangle someone.

[Karbuncle]

They're there, and I'm not disagreeing. It's just two sides of an argument. One side is stability and basics are going to get you to win. The other side is unorthodox stuff CAN work. I'm just salty, and would rather the "unorthodox side" didn't exist, so I wouldn't have to deal with it. The unorthodox side provides the better feels, the stability side provides more wins. You're going to lose 50% of the time anyways, regardless of which side of the coin you fall on.

Edit: I watched the first video, and partially disagree with it.

My main contention with what the video is saying is that it presumes people are bad players and assuming a strong meta composition will win them the game. No one thinks that, I hope. The point he should be making is that popular meta compositions are team compositions that create favorable situations to make strong plays. In his example that the other team has a good Mei, who is using her Ice Walls in an effective manner, people might switch to a Dive composition. And the Dive composition won't work well if people don't effectively play to the strengths of it, i.e: A Dive comp doesn't work if you're all funneling into a small corridor.

I believe this to be very self-evident. When I look at team composition, I look for the team composition that can handle as many situations with high chances of winning in as many situations as possible.

For example, let's take a popular meta composition, on Eichenwalde Attack: Reinhardt / Roadhog / Ana / Lucio / Soldier / Pharah.

The first goal is generally to get past the choke point. This kind of composition lets you safely break a Reinhardt's shield, get picks, makes healing easier, and still gives you some great options with Roadhog's hook and Pharah is versatile in breaking enemy Reinhardt's shield or clearing turrets. The healing is relatively stable, and both healers are able to push out some damage as well. The tanks have high health and aren't all over the place, when Rein's shield drops, Roadog can usually soak some damage, and a broken Rein shield is a really great visual indicator for Roadhog to move up for a bit and for healers to focus him. Damage is very direct and obvious, but also very strong.

When you chose to swap out Pharah for say, Junkrat, things take quite a change. Junkrat isn't a bad pick in this kind of situation, but he's not the optimal pick. He has a more difficult time doing direct damage, but he's better at controlling space, and his trap and bomb can do some awesome stuff. Just not as awesome as replacing Pharah.

Then instead of Pharah or Junkrat, you throw in Hanzo. He's got mobility to move around, he provides less damage through the choke, and there are not as many good angles for him to effectively do damage until past the choke point, where he becomes stronger. But you've got to get by that choke first. Maybe your Reinhardt gets frustrated and tries to charge to force a push, but Hanzo is in a poor position to support the charge because before the charge, he's better off higher up.

Of course I'm picking examples that spin things in favor of the argument I'm making, but that's how I see things like a Hanzo pick or a Widowmaker pick. You're rely on the person who plays one of those heroes to make great plays to compensate for what an average Soldier or Pharah can do in exchange for performing slightly better in some specific situations later. When it works, holy shit is it awesome. When it fails five times in four minutes and you don't break the choke once, you want to strangle someone.

Okay, Very well said and I'm not on my dumbass phone anymore so explaining will be easier, but I think it might help your sanity to let you know what I've gathered from our conversations. You put too much faith in the intelligence or skills of random people I think... there are those people who think "The meta comp is the only way to victory", and from what I've heard they exist from Bronze to Grandmaster lol.

Oh and for clarity sake, I do agree certain heros are better in certain situations, and your portrayal of each units strengths is spot on, I'm simply saying in situations you think a Pharah would be optimal, and you would be right in assuming so, the Junkrat could be a absolute trash Pharah, and so no matter how good a good Pharah on your team would be, that shit tier Pharah who's playing Junkrat is probably better off on Junkrat. Now hypothetical situation and he's good/equal at both, and he's choosing the worse option, he's either dumb, doesn't know any better, or doesn't care... so rule out "Not knowing any better", and then go from there... but you can't fix the other two options lol

[shukudai]

I don't disagree either. It's incredibly difficult to find who's decent at their hero's role. If five people have chosen a character, and the last person should be a DPS, but they're just not good at it, they don't say it, they just pick a DPS.

Flip it the other way, "I'm not good at Reinhardt." is heard super commonly. And I mean, it's Reinhardt for fuck's sake. You don't have to be at pro player level. He's Overwatch's version of FFXIV's Paladin: You really can't screw it up. He's there so you can have a super solid, super easy to play tank to stabilize your team composition. Aim isn't much of an issue with Reinhardt compared to the rest of the heroes. If you sit there and hold up your shield, you're about 60% of the way to being a good Reinhardt. The other 40% is made up of situational awareness and when to use your abilities. And just like Paladin, unless you're a hardcore Reinhardt, he's just not very satisfying to play. Blizzard made him look cool, his Ult is top tier, he can get tons of kills without needing aim, he's a very strong hero... but it's just not enough to make up for the fact that mostly, he stands there holding up his shield and that's not exactly fun. And I have no clue how to make that kind of thing more "fun" and also not be overpowered at the same time.

It makes me understand why Blizzard takes such long times to create new maps, create new heroes... Getting the balance right, making it enjoyable for the 95% of people who will never get to say 3000 SR (I'd love to see statistics on how the playerbase is segmented into the different ranks), yet make it interesting and fun enough for pro players who draw crowds, and make the game wow people... It's not an easy job. I mean, Hanzo is going to get a certain amount of people playing him because he's "the bow guy", and people resonate with that. He's very satisfying when you knock out those headshots, his climbing is really fun, his wallhack arrow is really cool, and he's just so fucking fun to play as. But his designated role/playstyle doesn't mesh well with how the vast majority of the people play the game.

tl;dr: I just like talking about OW.

Edit: Do you think people are *really* that bad? I don't consider myself to be especially good, I just kind of follow general rules (i.e: Don't poke behind corners when half your team is dead. Before you rush in, look behind you, see where your teams markers are. If three of four people die, run back, don't try to survive and get killed just as your team gets back to group up, etc.)

[Karbuncle]

Edit: Do you think people are *really* that bad? I don't consider myself to be especially good, I just kind of follow general rules (i.e: Don't poke behind corners when half your team is dead. Before you rush in, look behind you, see where your teams markers are. If three of four people die, run back, don't try to survive and get killed just as your team gets back to group up, etc.)

There are absolutely people who are that bad. Not all of them by any stretch, but they do exist. A lot of the basic rules you follow and line out just in that post, people don't obey. Several games I've been in where its been a trickle fight and people simply will not listen to reason when I ask to group up. I desperately try not only to avoid being salty, but to take even a wipe in a positive manner... so if we wipe to an ult fight, I'll come back with "Okay, they expended a lot of ult power there, we have the advantage, lets group up and push in hard, whos got an ult ready we can combo?"

And despite that, most of the time only 1 person will respond, or literally no one, and we'll probably lost the match or get lucky. I like to believe they're not stupid, they just don't... know any better, or don't care enough to try. Why people join comp and not voice chat, even if just to listen and respond in text... is beyond me... you're taking the game serious enough to try competitive mode, but not enough to communicate for a win?

But regardless, yah, there are people out there who are simply bad, rather it be due to stubbornness, delusion of grandeur, toxicity or simply ignorance... they're there. Theres also the ones like outlined in the videos I posted where they just know enough to kinda know "meta" but don't really know how to execute it in reality or that "meta" isn't everything.

I still have a lot to learn too, My ass hasn't even hit Platinum yet :\, I know I don't have accuracy or composure for Masters+... yet... but Im a damn good Ana/Zen/Mei/Rein and I'm getting much McRee/Soldier/Zarya (The "tracking" heroes I enjoy)

[Malithar]

This is why I've come to just enjoy the game for what it is. When you try and break down what's optimal and shit, all joy is lost. Or just post pages and pages of blog posts about how people are terrible and picks are dumb. Anymore I just log in for 3-5 games a night and just play whatever I'm feeling in quick play, whether that's attack Symmetra, any sniper, etc. If Wulf is on then it's competitive time, but beyond that, I couldn't be bothered to care what I'm playing in what, as long as it's contributing.

[Karbuncle]

Eh we're more so discussing things in Competitive only, the only aspect of the game I try to take seriously enough to win.

[shukudai]

Trying to enjoy it for what it is is different to other people. Just like a lot of people here spent god knows how much time trying to acquire gear to min/max in XI, have the perfect set of items for gear swapping, etc. It's fun to a lot of us.

I think the difference with Overwatch is more that "This is competitive mode. This isn't the "Let's have fun! I'm going to chill and play some Widowmaker." mode. It is, as the title suggests, a competitive mode. It is more competitive than the others, and gives you a ranking based on your teams success. So, I imagine most of us really want to win, and when you find people who have a completely different view of it, it just ruins our enjoyment and theirs. They should stick to Quick Play or Arcade or really any mode that's not Competitive. Though when I do go into Quick Play on occasion, it's most people angry there's no tanks or no healers or the composition sucks. To me, that's what Quick Play is for.

I would be totally fine with multiple competitive modes. One that enforces voice coms, and one that mutes voice and only let's you use the wheel. Some kind of perhaps not requirement but not-so-subtle hint that "Hey, play your best here, it's a video game, but this is where people are more serious."? I honestly am surprised Blizzard does absolutely nothing about this, I would think they have a ton of people who are qualified and experienced at making social systems to make their massive player base a lot less angry. Just calling a mode "Competitive" does not make it that if people ignore it.

[shukudai]

Random anecdote: I have a friend in real life who plays McCree and Genji only. He comes over sometimes, we play some OW, but watching him play is an experience. He does not pay attention to his team at all. It's all about "Hey, i'm going to sneak behind this guy." "Fuck that bitch cunt they killed me twice, I'm going to Ult them." "Watch, this is going to be so cool!". Decent person, but when you put him in Competitive Mode, he literally just wants to do cool stuff and get Play of the Game. Even if he spends half the match dead, it's never his fault. I generally don't even know what to say to him lol.

[Malithar]

Trying to enjoy it for what it is is different to other people. Just like a lot of people here spent god knows how much time trying to acquire gear to min/max in XI, have the perfect set of items for gear swapping, etc. It's fun to a lot of us.

I think the difference with Overwatch is more that "This is competitive mode. This isn't the "Let's have fun! I'm going to chill and play some Widowmaker." mode. It is, as the title suggests, a competitive mode. It is more competitive than the others, and gives you a ranking based on your teams success. So, I imagine most of us really want to win, and when you find people who have a completely different view of it, it just ruins our enjoyment and theirs. They should stick to Quick Play or Arcade or really any mode that's not Competitive.

To piggyback off of your XI analogy, you're essentially carrying the same perspective that someone without an endgame LS did when it came to anything at all in oldschool XI. Without a 6 man team that shares your view/similar skill level, you're really just left banging your head against the wall hoping against hope that the 5 randoms you get can breath on their own.

Similar to XI, there's no option other than to hope your randoms are good, find that LS (5 man team) to join, or just reserve yourself to a lower level of expectation/stick to non-competitive. Hoping, as has been hashed out, doesn't really get anyone anywhere except to the conclusion that everyone is dumb. At least in quick play, that level of dumb can be enjoyed, rather than agonized over in competitive.

[Ryko]

Fuck the "it's my 12.95" mentality. Though I guess that's coming straight from XI and being used to people playing the jobs they need to to get the job done. Also yeah there are like 9 modes for fucking around or practicing, leave that there.

I spent a lot of time sheltered in statics <_<

[shukudai]

To piggyback off of your XI analogy, you're essentially carrying the same perspective that someone without an endgame LS did when it came to anything at all in oldschool XI. Without a 6 man team that shares your view/similar skill level, you're really just left banging your head against the wall hoping against hope that the 5 randoms you get can breath on their own.

Similar to XI, there's no option other than to hope your randoms are good, find that LS (5 man team) to join, or just reserve yourself to a lower level of expectation/stick to non-competitive. Hoping, as has been hashed out, doesn't really get anyone anywhere except to the conclusion that everyone is dumb. At least in quick play, that level of dumb can be enjoyed, rather than agonized over in competitive.

I really can't disagree with that much.

To me, "Competitive Mode" is what that's supposed to be, the equivalent of an endgame LS. Quick Play, Arcade, 1v1, those modes are the "content" for people who want mess around, have fun. Competitive is where you try your best, put ego aside, and do whatever you can to make your team have a higher chance of winning.

To continue the XI analogy, OW's competitive mode is like when you went to camp Fafhogg and three random LS show up, somehow get claim, then take an hour and enrage it.

I'm fine with someone who's personal skill level is low, but is working with the team (in composition, in communicating, holding their emotions in check) than someone who's ultra skilled at Sombra but realistically has no way of making it work with the team. I mean, I get annoyed in those matches too, where people don't trickle, swap as needed, but it never comes together, but at least I know the people I was playing with could see why those kinds of changes were needed. I do hate change mid match in Solo Q, because people don't pay attention to who swaps, when, or why, and it's two or three minutes until people have swapped, adjusted, died a couple times while waiting while a timer ticks down, but it's a _much_ better type of frustration than "Hanzo is great."