General Discussion - Page 103

On December 08 2015 04:51 Redox wrote:
Great news I guess. Although I think it was expected that new heroes would be added free as you already paid for the game and having all heroes is essential with how the game works.

That they dont want to add a scoreboard is weird to me though. Never seen a multiplayer fps without it.

On December 08 2015 04:57 Plansix wrote:

I think that is sort of the thought process behind it, that just because it has been done in every other game doesn’t mean it is necessary for theirs. No one builds a fps without one, so how does Blizzard know if its necessary for this game without assuming? Kills are not the metric that victory is achieved in Overwatch, so do people need that information? Even in dota “hero damage” is more accurate metric for who contributed most to team fights. So I get their idea of not including it since its not really measuring anything beyond who scored the last hit on a target.

On December 08 2015 05:23 Redox wrote:

And yet they give you all kind of other information completely randomly with the cards.

Lets face it they are witholding information to not hurt people's feelings when they have to realize they are last on scoreboard. Which is why they are only telling you if you are doing well. Its utterly ridiculous.

On December 08 2015 05:28 Plansix wrote:

And lets be clear, you claim that peoples feelings will be hurt by a kill leader board. But right now your feelings are hurt because they won't include it and you want it. The stats are available after the match, but you want other people to see your kills during the match.

Really the score board isn't useful since there are dedicated healers and tank cases to round out a team.

On December 08 2015 06:21 Hider wrote:


I think its about information. As a bit of a side-topic one thing I enjoy about Sc2 is that I after a game can load up a replay, and then exactly see why I lost/won that game and identify further improvements.

With more information you give players the tools to analyze why X happened/didn't happen. And yes sometimes that infromation is a stat that clearly tells you that you didn't accomplish it because one of the teammates sucked. Losing and not knowing why you lose is inheriently more demotivating than losing and knowing why you lost and how you can improve going into the next game.

On December 08 2015 06:48 Plansix wrote:

Information is fine, but it is about where it is presented. They can provide all the data points in the would in the out of match UI for people to comb over. But Blizzard is also making a mass market game that they want everyone to play and they don't think an in-game has enough benefits to outweighs some of the problems it creates in less competitive matches. And that is going to be the vast majority of their player base.

On December 08 2015 07:27 Hider wrote:


Kill-death-assist doesn't seem like excessive information for me. I think it could be there for all players when you tab. And yes "toxicity" can happen, but its a lesser evil than being unknowledable about what actually happened. (it's a lesser evil becasue the most succesful games in the world has this - LOL/CS/DOTA, and it doens't prevent them from being very popular).

For instance kill participation can give you information towards if one member of the team just solo'ed/did his own stuff. In that case you know you are playing almost 4v5.

The lesser evil for you. For Blizzard, the greatest evil is every person who doesn't buy and play their game because of an aggressive player base.

On December 08 2015 07:49 Hider wrote:


Which is why I referred to the most succesful (compettive) games in the world, CS, LOL and Dota. If making the information on who is bad/good available to all was a huge disadvatange, I believe that the above games wouldn't be so succesful.

Further, OW also has an advantage (in terms of minimizing toxicicity) in that the gamelenght is so brief + it's not snowbally. MOBA's are naturally very toxic as one mistake from a teamember can make the playing experience for the other teamembers alot worse over the next 20 minutes.

I think it is better to have a strict system in terms of giving people who flame others warnings/chat-bans rather than preventing them the information.

On December 08 2015 07:49 Hider wrote:


Which is why I referred to the most succesful (compettive) games in the world, CS, LOL and Dota. If making the information on who is bad/good available to all was a huge disadvatange, I believe that the above games wouldn't be so succesful.

Further, OW also has an advantage (in terms of minimizing toxicicity) in that the gamelenght is so brief + it's not snowbally. MOBA's are naturally very toxic as one mistake from a teamember can make the playing experience for the other teamembers alot worse over the next 20 minutes.

I think it is better to have a strict system in terms of giving people who flame others warnings/chat-bans rather than preventing them the information.

CS, LOL and DotA were also 3 games that were never designed as "competitive" games. They were designed to be fun.

The only reason you should ever blindly mimic predecessors is when you're making an HD rerelease.

On December 08 2015 17:33 Hider wrote:


In this context competitive games is added to differentiate it from a game like Minecraft or singleplayer games. And those games certainly have stuff in them to keep competitive players happy.

And besides, your post doesn't really seem to have any point at all. My point was that the fear of toxicity because other people can see your stats isn't particularly problematic because otherwise those games wouldn't have been so big.