Elitism in the Overwatch Community


How come that elitism is even a thing in Overwatch? I mean, we’re talking about a game where
a monkey pretends to be a scientist, a british girl is playing jump-rope with the laws of
relativity and “Hamster in the backline” is an actual callout that’s used unironically. Heck, other competitive gaming communities
are laughing at us for pretending that Overwatch is an eSports title. Should we really be segregating each other
into different camps of perceived skill levels? Well.. Considering the current state of Skill Rating
Distribution on Ladder, it seems obvious that Blizzard ain’t doing it, so I guess that’s
where we come in. Mocking aside, since the release of Overwatch,
we always had this discussion. And it really doesn’t surprise me. Looking at the roster of characters, it is
immediately apparent that some of them were designed to be more beginner friendly, whereas
others are built to be a bit more complex and difficult to play. I mean, the heroes have difficulty levels
for crying out loud. And while we can discuss the validity of difficulty
level assignments for certain characters (Baptiste) the point is that, this is not a foreign concept. This was an intentional design decision. How is this even a debate then? The community is assigning difficulty levels
to the characters as much as the developers. So why are we fighting each other about it? Well, that’s because in any given meta,
difficulty levels and in-game value don’t always happen to scale in a way that players
can agree on.As a baseline, a more difficult character
should always get more value than an easy character, when played equally well. If I am really good at Tracer and Junkrat,
then there should never be a situation where I get exponentially more value out of Junkrat
than Tracer, just because of how much more difficult she is to play. Okay now let me tell you why that is nonsense. Don’t get me wrong, the basic idea isn’t
stupid or anything. It makes sense to suggest that a character
that is more difficult to play should yield more value than a character that is easy to
play. But that is assuming that Overwatch has been
designed in such linear fashion. And it should be rather obvious that it hasn’t. If aiming was the only relevant mechanic in
the game, then it would be really straight forward. If you happen to be aiming more better, than
you should be getting more better value and more better rankings. Heck, you can even add a couple more things
to it before it gets really complicated. Like for example, movement, awareness and
reaction time. And with all of these things in mind, a linear
power curve can still be achieved. There are various ways of achieving such a
hierarchy, but quite frankly, there are plenty of channels out there that focus on explaining
game design, and I don’t think I can do as good of a job as they do, even if I tried. So let me bastardize the concepts here real
quick. You have two players with each an unknown
skill level. If you want to determine who is the better
player, then you have to put them on even footing. Both players are given the same weapon and
are tasked to take each other out. Whoever can consistently beat the other is
then classified as the better player. And they would be awarded a higher skill value. But what if one of those players suddenly
has a different weapon? What if one of them has a shield and the other
doesn’t? What if one of them has a damage amplifier
and the other doesn’t? Overwatch is not an arena that puts two players
against each other on even footing. That’s why 1v1 duels don’t make for any
indication of player skill- Because our game, from the ground up, has been built as a 6
v 6, objective based hero shooter, where switching characters at any given point in time is an
option. If you win in a Widowmaker match up, then
that doesn’t mean you’re a better Overwatch player than your opponent. It could mean that you’re better at aiming
than them, but that is only a subset of all the skill sets necessary to be a good Overwatch
player. Being better at aiming doesn’t make you
inherently better at the game, it just makes you better at aiming. It’s like 1/6th of the equation to determine
your value as an Overwatch player. And all these things make for the parameters
that then define skill. It includes teamplay and hero switching as
much as positioning and aiming. To be a good Overwatch player, you have to
be good in a match of Overwatch. And not be better in a 1 v 1 duel. I mean, if anyone suggested that them reaching
GrandMaster in Competitive FFA made them a GrandMaster Overwatch player, then pretty
much everyone would disagree. Because it’s not the core game mode that
makes Overwatch. It’s an arcade game mode. Something designed for fun over balance. And quite frankly, the entire idea of Overwatch
has been built with fun over balance in mind. Or at least it very much appears to be. If you could go back in time and ask the developers,
as they are making the game, what their vision for Overwatch is, what do you think they would
say? A balanced, competitive experience? A way to consistently asses mechanical skill? A twitch-arena-shooter? No, they would tell you that they want it
to be fun for everyone. They would tell you that they want it to be
accessible. In fact, don’t take my word for it. Let’s hear Jeff Kaplan and Chris Metzen
talk about some of the fundamental design choices that they thought were most important
during the creation of Overwatch.Accessibility. The
point of Overwatch is, indeed, not to out-aim each other at every opportunity. It’s about accessibility. It’s about giving everyone a chance to play
the game, help their team and contribute to a victory. That’s why we make this very important distinction-
Overwatch is not just an FPS, it’s a Hero Shooter. The game is more about the heroes than it
is about the mechanical act of aiming. I know the argument will be made that non-twitch
options are fine and all, but they have no right to be anywhere near the higher ranks. And my retort would be: Do they really though? If we’re talking about a game that was fundamentally
designed around the idea of giving everyone a chance to participate, then the thought
of having these types of characters all across the ladder isn’t really that far fetched. They are an integral part of the game and
its design, which might also explain why Blizzard is trying to hard to achieve a level of balance
that allows all of them to be picked across all levels of play. With that design philosophy in mind, it should
occur to us that we can’t expect a linear power curve to exist in a game that was built
around accessibility. It’s about options. But let’s get back to that whole discussion
surrounding how much value any given character is allowed to provide. The general idea that an easy to play character,
as a baseline, should provide less value than a difficult to play one. All things be equal, that is pretty much the
case right now for most of the characters in the game. I honestly hate to admit it since there is
a whole laundry list of characters that I want to see nerfed, but I want them nerfed
not because I don’t like that they’re easy and get a lot of value, but for purely
selfish reasons. It’s because I don’t like playing against
them, and I find them annoying. If everybody was able to admit to that simple
truth, then this whole conversation would probably have a bit of a different tone. A lot of people like to hide behind the excuse
that is a perceived skill requirement, when in reality, we’re all biased in favor of
the characters that we like to play. I know that saying “They’re only good
because of the current meta.” is kind of a cop-out these days, and seen as a lazy excuse
more than an explanation. Like, should Doomfist be able to delete squishies
with the press of a single button? Should Moira be able to get loads of damage
done by blindly tossing her orb into the enemy team? The answer to a lot of these questions is
a definitive no. But why do these things happen? Characters in Overwatch are not contained
in their own power-eco-system. Moira is not powerful just because of Moira. She is powerful because there is currently
very little in the way of viable counter picks against her. If we were playing D.Va and she ate every
single orb that Moira tosses out, then suddenly we have a case for Moira being too weak. But would anyone complain about Moira being
weak in light of the fact that she is not as difficult to play as Ana and Zenyatta? The faction of aim elitists, for sure, would
not complain about that. If you need any more convincing, think about
Junkrat. For the longest time, from the launch of this
game onward, Junkrat has been the crown jewel of low-skill-BS frags that people always,
always complained about. We had the same discussion about Junkrat that
we currently have about Moira and Doomfist. So why are we suddenly leaving him out of
the conversation? Because we barely ever see him picked. Nobody would complain about Doomfist if he
was never played. Nobody would complain about Moira if Ana was
a viable pick against her. We need to get rid of the idea that the power
levels of characters are solely defined by their own statistics. Because the game, as a whole, is incredibly
interconnected. A 50 Damage Per Second Value, all else be
equal, is a very one dimensional figure. But add the context of an actual game of Overwatch
to it, and suddenly it isn’t so simple anymore. Especially if you add 10 other players as
variables and the thousands upon thousands of hero combinations that follow as a result
of that alone. Like, okay, cool, I can do X amount of damage
to another player if both of us decide to just stand there and fight it out 1 v 1. But that isn’t what a real match of Overwatch
actually looks like. How powerful a hero is depends hugely on your
team composition, the enemy team’s composition and the map. Knowing how interconnected and volatile these
potential power levels are, it really is important to look at where the source of any given problem
comes from. And that includes the question of, “Why
aren’t any of the counters being played?” Because naturally, characters have been designed
with counterpicks in mind. And if it turns out that these counterpicks
can’t be played because another character simply provides way more value across the
board, then suddenly, you got yourself a culprit. There is a lot of mental gymnastics involved
in finding out what the problem is and how to handle it. Like, is a character providing too much value
as a baseline, or is another character not providing enough? Would that character be weaker if another
one that they synergize with was toned down a bit? What if we give one of the counters a bit
of a buff? There are like 27 million different angles
of attack for any given, balance related problem in the game. There is really nothing big-brain about this,
it’s just something that a lot of us say very offhandedly without ever elaborating
on what we mean. Like oh yeah sure, I guess balancing is not
all that easy, but what if they just nerf Sigma? And that’s where the, “Well, actually..”
starts coming into play. The part that matters more to Developers than
it should ever matter to us players. And the fact that most of us never consider
any of these difficulties really is a testament to that. We’re just here to play a game, and not
to balance it. We don’t have to make sense of it, because
our salary isn’t on the line if we’re wrong. As such, we can spout whatever nonsense we
want. Including the nonsense I am spouting in this
video. Really, I just wanted to conceptualize the
idea of Overwatch to you. Stop looking at it for what you want it to
be, and start looking at it for what it actually is. This is not the cartoon version of CS:GO,
this is Overwatch. Its own game, with its own skill requirements
and its own goals. And by nature, some heroes will always have
an easier time fighting other heroes, skill requirement be damned. There are simply more moving parts to it than
we often give it credit to. Believe it or not, but saying that you think
something isn’t fun is actually way more valid criticism to a developer than you claiming
that it is unbalanced. Because the Developer knows if it’s balanced
or not. But what we find fun is a very subjective
matter. In that sense, it’s more about pleasing
the majority than pleasing everyone. If most of us simply don’t like playing
against Moira because we find it annoying that she is cluttering our screen with her
abilities and we get frustrated over the fact that she has a lock-on beam and we don’t,
then that alone is already a great piece of criticism for the Devs. And all of that without us pretending that
we know better than them what is and isn’t balanced. You can be elitist about it all you want,
but if there is anything that Shroud taught us, then it’s the fact that there’s more
to this game than just aiming. Never forget that Overwatch was built from
the ground up around the idea of accessibility, and not aiming. And honestly, like, get over yourself? Again, we’re playing a game where “HAMSTER
IN THE BACKLINE” is a legitimate callout. Please, don’t pretend that we’re taking
this like, super seriously or anything. It’s a game. It’s supposed to be fun more than it’s
supposed to be balanced. And by the way, I just wanna address this
because I know somebody’s gonna comment on that- Some people say that any hero that
is currently besting you will always be annoying, but that is not entirely accurate. That might be true for some players, perhaps
those who aren’t quite as mechanically skilled or knowledgeable about the game;
But in a lot of titles, Overwatch included, being taken out with great effort or in style
is actually often celebrated. Yes, we’re pretty whiny in our community,
but Ana landing an amazing sleep dart, Widowmaker landing a one-in-a-million jumpshot or Winston
juggling you into oblivion are all things that a lot of high ranked players don’t
complain about, because they know how difficult they are to pull off. And as a result, they even celebrate it. But hey, that’s just my opinion. And you are more than welcome to tell me down
in the comment section below that I am a poo-poo head and my opinion is stupid. But seriously, as always my friends, feel
free to have your discussions down in the comment section below. Until then, I want to thank you everybody
so much for watching, don’t forget to drop me a like on your way out if you enjoyed the
video, subscribe if you want to see more, and if you want to go the extra mile- A 5
dollar membership goes a long way in supporting the channel. Thanks again for watching, and I hope to see
you guys next time.




Comments
  1. Very good video, gave me a valuable new perspective on the game aswell as lot to discuss and think about

    Damage orb is still bs tho

  2. Why is skill such a prominent argument in a game where you can find hundreds of clips of hanzo arrows headshoting and killing someone a mile above their actual head? For real though, everyone has their own definition of what heroes take skill and which ones don’t. I think Lucio and Mercy are way easier to play than Moira but most players i’ve talked with would argue otherwise. Hell in past metas that favored Ana I found her easier to play than Moira even though she is objectively more mechanically demanding, like your not gonna tell me that Ana was super hard to play in a triple tank/goats comp. I feel like no matter how hard a character objectively is they will always be way easier to play in a meta that favors them than most non metas heroes would be. It’s a HERO shooter, you pick heroes cause they do well in certain situations, not cause they take more skill.

  3. What I took away from this video: saying a hero is not fun to play against is often times more valid criticism than saying they take no skill.

  4. I don't mind the game being more accessible to people, but there is a certain point where it's overkill.

    For me, heroes like Moira, Brig, Sigma, Hanzo, feel like overkill. The issue isn't a debate of skill, the issue is how much value and potential a kit has, and how little investment, time, effort, and risk it takes to achieve it.

    Plus, you can't always have a game be both accessible, and competitive. Since both those things tend to be in direct opposition to each other.

  5. theoretically then if we want to alter this so people don't get free elo off playing ' easy' heroes, in a dream world were time was limitless and activision didn't exist they should have different patches for different ranks and maybe for console so that a balance is closer to being achieved

  6. I think the problem of balancing is much deeper than people believe it is. In theory it's simple, our imaginary function v(s) (value from skill), should be the same for all heroes.

    The problem arises in defining skill. Is it mechanical skill (1)? Experience with the game overwatch(2)? Experience with your hero(3)? Probably a combination, so lets just call these skills: 1, 2 and 3 skill.

    A person that's played a lot of FPS but never overwatch will have a ton of 1. skill but none of 2. and 3. skill. A flex player will have a lot of 2. skill, a bit of 1. skill and none of 3. skill.

    A mercy one trick will have a lot of both 2. and 3. skill with very little 1. skill. Therefore the function in reality looks more like v(s_1, s_2, s_3). We can immediately see that this function IS NOT the same for all heroes:

    V_widow(x, 0, 0) > V_mercy(x, 0, 0). So does that mean that widow is OP? Probably not because it's "balanced" by: V_widow(0, x, 0) < V_mercy(0, x, 0). One might hope that V_widow(x, 0, 0) = V_mercy(0, x, 0). But how can you even compare to different types of skill and say they are equal? In summary: It's hard to balance by skill when "skill" isn't well defined.

  7. Literally just got done saying this. Almost all the time if you lose its because the other team was a better team than yours. Individual skill is not the be all end all, and aim isn't all you need to be good. Far from it.

  8. To be completely honest I think most people dont so much care about the "perceived skill" required to play a hero, although it is most people's go to argument, they are just misaddressing the power difference which is the real issue that leads to bad feelings. Most people hated brig not because she was easy to play, but because she was an unstopable god monster with no counter that destroyed the entire concept of dive comps and enabled multi-tank death balls that totally removed the need for dps and actually made picking one throwing in 99 of situations. If brig released at the time and was an actual option rather than a forgone conclusion to pick most people would have been fine with her inclusion. Same reason as to why people dont like our current "Low skill" multi barrier meta, I dont think the hate is caused by the skill level required to play it, instead the hate is caused by its over bearing power that pushes hit-scans and other heroes out of the game. ( Edit-This also applies to the concept of hero over powered-ness and perceived skill.)

  9. Coincidentally, I'm writing a report about this specifically in Overwatch and how Blizzard kind of mismanaged the game throughout the years. I'm definitely going to use this video as a reference, thanks for the great video as always!❤

  10. I don't understand why your channel isn't growing, your editing is decent, your commentary is good, the topics you cover are interesting, and you upload decently often.

  11. It's a little annoying how much people hate Moira, like before double barrier she was being seen as the worst support in the game, and now everyone hates on people who play her and call her OP
    Great video btw! Just realised i didn't mention that

  12. I'm just gonna ignore the irony of me being an elitist in the comments of a video about elitism, but i think OW very much has introduced characters that are too easy and too forgiving. The so called easy characters of ye olde days (Junk/Mercy etc.) still punished you for being an idiot and having poor game sense, but characters like moira do hold your hand enough for you to climb without learning as much as you probably should, combine that with the whole "bad players think theyre good bc they dont know enough to realise theyre not" sorta thing and then the game validating them by them winning with however many mistakes the character held their hand through and it get frustrating in higher ranks when people think they know much more than they actually do. And its very much not a "hero takes no aim therefor theyre easy" cuz no aim heros like winston and rein especially will punish you hard for mistakes.

    Its very much a problem with the character designs and not the players obviously, its just not a direction i think is healthy for the game

  13. I'd just like to ask something to anyone willing to answer: would you be able to make a hero that has nothing that could be deemed "annoying" or "unfun to play against" and still keep it fun to play? Just a honest question, not trying to put forth an statement here.

  14. ye overwatch isn't a competitive game anymore, in fact it probably never was. blizzard is just focused on making it so your average diamond moria main can flex on his plat dps friend, when if he play anything that required skill he would go right back to gold where he belongs.

  15. I love this. It's back to your classic game analysis videos. These kinds of videos are why I subbed to your channel in the first place. Remember your video like two years ago (during the Moth Meta), when you went over what you figured were the six fundamental skills for Overwatch? You alluded to it here, and it was awesome. More of this!

  16. The accessibility vs value gained argument is difficult for Overwatch. To massively simplify, I think that most easy-use techniques should have less value gained for most individual abilities, but never full characters.
    Ideally, a character with more accessible utilities would also have less value gained, but more utilities in general. That way easier/low impact characters would have less of an impact with their kit, but more options to.choose from, meaning they would be harder to counter and viable in more circumstances. Alternatively, a high value character would be difficult to play and would have less viability in some cases, meaning more weaknesses/counters to take advantage of.
    It's also a huge plus when you have abilities that get better with knowledge, experience or skill. Like Moira's fade. It's pretty good for dodging at lower ranks, but at higher ranks it's also great for gaining high ground or repositioning.

  17. I hate it when dps players say noirs or X character requires no skill because aim insnt needed like some characters require more brain than just aim

  18. Hey Cliff I really find your videos cool again. there was a time when you were just moaning about everything in OW world and now you're back on track. I really enjoy this fact as you were always one of my favorite OW YTers. I can't aim at all and on top of that I'm probably a peanut brain who cannot climb out of plat for 3 years but thanks to accesibility I am able to play this game at all. Comparing it to Apex, PUBG and others I find it so much more entertaining – because I don't have to focus on f**king aiming!!! 🙂

  19. TBH accessibility would eventually kill this game. Look how unfun the game has become when they try to please all players.

  20. Since Doomfist's release it has not been fun getting punched as a 200-250 hp hero and it only now gets barely nerfed. Idk as a player it feels like anything unfun to play against takes forever to get addressed or tweaked and when it finally does something else unfun takes its place. It feels like my criticisms of the game aren't heard regardless if devs read every single forum post or comment because it's not reflected in the game

  21. Do you mind making a video about the blizzard / Honk Kong situation? Blizzard made a really bad decision there and i feel like this may influence the game negatively. I myself haven’t played overwatch in weeks as i do not agree with activision-blizzards’s choice to support those torturing bastards.
    It’s okay if you don’t want to get into politics, though! I get it.

  22. 4:33 I remember this clip…..it was about the original design of Overwatch

    Generally fun for everybody and not trying its hardest to be an e-Sports game

  23. Finally a content creator who says what needed to be said about this. The hard on for aim always cracks me up. It's just like when players always find being anything below masters is an insult. Considering that 96% of the player base is below masters and only 4% of players make up masters and GM combined. There are a whole lots people claiming to be in that 4%. Seems suspect to me.🤔

  24. You have seen it yourself that there are people with exceptional skill with aiming but due to everyone around them not working together leads to losses and keeping them in gold and below.

  25. Aim isn't the most important thing in this game. Heroes like Mercy, Lucio, Moira and Brig aren't op just because they don't need to aim and they all have difficulties to properly master
    People just really hate supports because Rein and Winston exists and no one talks about them

  26. I’m not even sure Blizz care about fun. Look at the whole Mercy issues over the years. They look at data and work wholly off that.

  27. Truth, my aim is good with McCree but my kill count not so much. But hey at least I know my place and that place is quick play.

  28. Exactly this. People also forgot that OW, before 2-2-2 (or even after), for the most part have been about maining heroes that you like. Like I love female sniper archetypes like Widow/Ashe and that's why I use them a lot, not because they require skill etc. And you know what, I also love Sym and her sassiness, so I use her a lot too. I noticed when I'm playing Widow, my game sense is a lot more forgiven if I can aim well while playing Sym, my aim (esp 2.0 lul) can be forgiven but my positioning has to be on point.

    Since 2-2-2, I've been playing support a lot as well (because I don't wanna wait a decade for a game). I find support kinda enjoyable but I play a lot more Mercy than others because I think she's elegant and cute not because she's easy. I love Moira and her sassy remarks remind me of Sym. Are these characters easy? I would be lying if I say no. But are they downright easy? Definitely no. Especially at my rank, where you start to see good X hero mains distinguish themselves from bad X hero mains. I always found that people who go on hate bandwagon for any characters, recently Moira, when they actually play her, they overextended and died, they ran out of resources, they used Coalescence questionably etc.

  29. I think it's fine for heros to play that are less mechanically intensive then others. I just dont want heros to provide so much value for so little effort. Like I don't like mercy but saying she doesn't take skill now is just plain wrong. What I dont want/like is heros like brig 1.0 where it takes so little effort to provide so much value.
    If a hero doesn't require mechanical skill the skill cap for that hero should be made up with things like gamesense and positioning.

    Also ur a poopoo head and your opinion is stupid

  30. Just going to say this, Monkey is NOT fun so can we please buff him. Ok i am done crying now.
    Very good video Cliff as always.

  31. I will also say i suck at aiming so i cannot play games like cod and BF but OW is where i feel at home in the tank roll.
    You do not "need" to have a high "skill" in aiming but you need gamesense and a lot of other stuff, so each roll has it's own "skill" but in the end skill in a 1v1 in OW is never true.
    Skill in a team fight is what matters, telling your team that the other teams tracer has pB will let your healers know to watch other for her, if you did not have the skill to know her ult and if you did not say something you may have lost the next team fight because your healers are less skilled then you are.
    So skill comes down to how well you work with the team, i myself am a shotcaller if i play comp.
    I take control of the teams coms and work out a plan with the rest of my team and most of the time win games.
    So skill is more of "how well do you work with your team and how they work with ya" which tbh most people suck are being a team player.
    But i guess i do think like this a little, if i get killed by a reaper or doom i will almost always be pissed the fudge off. But if i get killed by a Dva or Zarya i will next to never get pissed because i know how hard it can be to play thos heroes well.

  32. Sombra is the least fun hero in the entire game, her ability to hold a button for like 1 second and stop you from playing the game for 6, is the worst, it is not fun and should be removed.

  33. questions baptiste 3 stars difficulty
    show a gameplay footage where he never once try to shoot at enemies while also healing his teams

    OK

  34. I have always respected your affinity for applying a neutral, honest perspective to most controversial issues and discussing the merits of each view, as opposed to giving in to baby rage. Thank you, Cliff. Stay awesome.

  35. Cliff: "saying something isn't fun is way more valid criticism than saying it isn't balanced"
    Mercy's legacy playerbase: blzz plz. Listen to this man. It's been 84 years since Mercy's been fun…

    (No seriously try going on the forums and claiming that "Mercy isn't fun to play" is a good enough reason to change her. You'll be buried in replies of "but she's BaLaNcEd! Fun is SuBjEcTiVe! Therefore Mercy is FiNe and needs nO cHaNgEs"

  36. The game really started going downhill after introducing Brig. The beautiful thing about the dive meta was each character required skill (maybe excluding mercy). I recently just stopped playing. I genuinely don't have fun anymore, I just get so frustrated. I climbed to GM as Zarya before role queue and am losing GAMES (plural btw) playing her in low diamond on a smurf account. In what world does that make sense? Ranked is still broken and has many players where they don't belong because the kits of low skilled heroes (Doomfist, Moira) carry the player. Its upsetting, but it is what it is.

  37. The past week I have been in the USA forums and I just found incredible the lvl of hate towards Moira these days. Tried to respond objectively the complains because I was afrad that all these topics could end in "killing" Moira (And I don't even like Moira, I want Ana to be meta but I think it's unfair the whole situation towards Moira). But that clip from Jeff years ago, actually reassured me.

  38. Sorry but balancing around lower level players has almost single handedly ruined the game for high level players. Moira,brig and orisa are the result of making easy characters too rewarding. Counters should be based on skill not on which hero you pick.

  39. I can’t see through all of the deployed abilities. It’s not fun being blind although I prefer to be blinded by Mavae In Paladins because it’s intentional. It’s also not that enjoyable to shoot at shields non stop only for a new on to pop up. I feel like the sheilds and overwhelming clutter is a huge turn off to new players and old just because we are at a loss when trying to deal with them. Sure we can be doomfist but how do our enemies stop doomfist?

  40. Ok… playing against Moira isn’t fun because she’s way too annoying and easy to play, which frustrates me. It’s the exact same criticism but this time I’m saying it’s not fun. So this video is virtually useless in the parts where it talks about asking for hero balances because they are only asked for when they aren’t fun.

  41. LOUDER FOR THE TOXIC IDIOTS WHO THINK 1V1 IS DESIGNED NOT FOR FUN, BUT FOR PROVING DOMINANCE. When people try to prove they're better than me by challenging me to a 1v1, I already know I have better game sense overall.

  42. I agree, accessibility is the keyword here. I think what gets lost in all the discussion is that easy heros are good for the community. They enable us to balance ourselve. I can play a easy moira with my high rank friends and play hanzo in solo q (and thanks to role q I do need less alt accounts…;P). Its funny to see hanzo players being offended by moira players being on the same SR as they are but not realizing…they are on that SR WITH HANZO….(pls feel free to replace hanzo with whatever hero you think is hard)

  43. Great video. Imo, heroes that are really un-fun to play against shouldn't be as powerful as heroes that are fun to play against. Please share your thoughts about this in the replies guys ^^

  44. Amen to this video.. it's such a shame people are constantly just focusing on "hero takes mechanical skill/aim -> hero needs to be better than any who doesn't take as much "

  45. Blizzard cares a lot about accessibility. Except of course if you're in Hong Kong

    Then don't expect Blizzard to care lmao

  46. I really like how each character can be good in certain situations, I think characters that require more skill should be more viable on more maps if you have the skill. My biggest problem of the game is the speed of the balancing, they take months and months to increase a shield cool down by 1 second, it makes no sense and it just kills the game, and the seem to be buffing weaknesses instead of strengths and the heroes seem to be meshing together more and more. this is just all my opinion btw, it's just what I feel, and also I think they should just stop the ptr, maybe make quickplay only changes but what useful data actually comes from the ptr

  47. People who think of themselves as high players always seem to hate the characters that have some form of auto lock. I remember the hate towards Symmetra’s gun cause she auto locked. As if newcomers don’t deserve a character that was easier to pick up. And now they hate on Moira for the same thing. Mercy gets a lot of shit for being ‘easy to play,’ but then a second later those same DPS mains are yelling into the mic for some healing. Their complaints are garbage 90% of the time and should be treated as such.

  48. Ana IS a viable counter pick to Moira. The problem currently isn’t Moira, it’s double shields preventing Ana from doing well.

  49. There can be no "skill" in overwatch as long as you have those huge hard counters in it. If someone wins by default before fight even starts its annoying. Yes, you can switch, but for that you are punished and enemy can later switch as well, which defeats the purpose of switching in 1st place. If anyone want Overwatch to be competetive and skill rewarding, hard counters should be removed from game and every character should have some universal or semi-universal counterplay.

  50. Like in Smash?

    It is kinda sad that OW left its fun first phylosophy. Smash still has it and Sakurai even said that the reason was that he humiliated a newbie in a KoF arcade.

  51. It's basically all about admitting you just hate the characters who hard counter your favorite. I play Baptiste, and I want Doom nerfed more than anyone. Not a coincidence.

  52. Like Taimou said a long time ago, the game canto be balanced but al least they could make it fun for the majority of the playerbase

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *