|
Please be advised:
We will be closing this General thread in 24 hours. It will remain searchable.
After that we will require new threads to discuss topics.
Questions should go in the stickied Q&A thread, screenshots and PotG will go in the PotG sticky, QQ/Rage/Complaints should go in the QQ/Rage thread. If you want to talk about maps or strategies open a new thread.
Any comments or concerns will be logged please forward them to ZeromuS. This new forum is still fluid so we will try this out. General TL rules will still apply to new threads. |
On March 20 2016 12:27 lestye wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2016 09:57 Salazarz wrote:On March 19 2016 15:15 lestye wrote:
The difference, WHOS' asking for World of tanks tournaments? Who's putting them on? No one. There's no one talking about WoT like people are for Overwatch. There's no esports orgs that have even touched WoT. There's 0 hype or competitive interest around it. There's a big difference there.
That's why I say, I'm sure it's not going to be an A-tier esport, but C or B Tier is almost guaranteed at this point. WoT has kept a very large player base that is willing to keep spending serious money on it despite the game being 6 years old. I don't know if there are any big name sponsors behind WoT tournaments but who cares -- if anything, I would rather have a competitive scene that is funded by the playerbase than outside sponsors. Just because Adidas doesn't sponsor your tournaments doesn't mean the scene isn't "healthy" or that nobody cares about your game. A lot of big name esports teams have WoT divisions, too. I mean, Wargaming has grown from what was barely more than a basement office into a massive company with like a dozen offices and a bunch of projects released / in the works pretty much off the back of WoT's success. THAT'S THE PROBLEM. What sponsors do mean is that the audience and interest is big enough for sponsors to invest in the organizer to put on a great tournament. That's mostly for "professional" esports, there are plenty of competittive game with like 0 viewerbase, doesn't mean it's not competitive or whatever, it just means it' doesnt have an audience to be "professional". and back to Wargaming, the game is incredibly sucessful, there's no dispute in that. However, all the tournaments are put on aren't by the communtiy, it's just Wargaming writing a blank check. Sure most companies nowadays help the scene, but in WoT's case they're just throwing money at esports for the sake of it when there is not really an audience for professional WoT. That's why I bring up organizers, and how many people are actually participating in running tournaments
I'm really not up to scratch on this but I remember seeing WoT tournaments having 50k+ viewers a couple years back which was massive for that time. No idea how are they doing now, but most sponsors aren't really interested in 'second tier' games anyway, why would you want to sponsor a tournament for X game when you can get more views from LoL / CS / DotA. From marketing perspective, the audiences / demographics are more or less the same behind each game so you'd better just target whichever will bring in the most viewers.
|
On March 21 2016 00:30 Salazarz wrote:
I'm really not up to scratch on this but I remember seeing WoT tournaments having 50k+ viewers a couple years back which was massive for that time. No idea how are they doing now, but most sponsors aren't really interested in 'second tier' games anyway, why would you want to sponsor a tournament for X game when you can get more views from LoL / CS / DotA. From marketing perspective, the audiences / demographics are more or less the same behind each game so you'd better just target whichever will bring in the most viewers.
Because you don't have to invest that much. Look at sports, there are also sponsors for handball for example.
|
On March 21 2016 01:25 TerransHill wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2016 00:30 Salazarz wrote:
I'm really not up to scratch on this but I remember seeing WoT tournaments having 50k+ viewers a couple years back which was massive for that time. No idea how are they doing now, but most sponsors aren't really interested in 'second tier' games anyway, why would you want to sponsor a tournament for X game when you can get more views from LoL / CS / DotA. From marketing perspective, the audiences / demographics are more or less the same behind each game so you'd better just target whichever will bring in the most viewers. Because you don't have to invest that much. Look at sports, there are also sponsors for handball for example.
That's not at all comparable to esports. The difference of money invested between the more / less popular sports are huge compared to what you'd need to get your name out in a esports tourney, also far more market research goes into it to research demographics and potential ad viewers. Handball and football don't have the same fanbases; plus a lot of sponsors just want to support their local teams and so on and so on.
|
Overwatch is fun to play, but I really doubt it will be a fun spectator game.
Nothing is gonna be impressive to watch about counter picking heroes and abusing escort positions down a choke hold.
That said, I don't think this game needs to be an esport to do well. Its so fun and stand alone on its own.
But Blizzard will be Blizzard and try to push esports on it, and hold awkward tournaments. That's what I'm guessing at least.
|
On March 21 2016 04:16 Emnjay808 wrote:
Overwatch is fun to play, but I really doubt it will be a fun spectator game.
Nothing is gonna be impressive to watch about counter picking heroes and abusing escort positions down a choke hold.
That said, I don't think this game needs to be an esport to do well. Its so fun and stand alone on its own.
But Blizzard will be Blizzard and try to push esports on it, and hold awkward tournaments. That's what I'm guessing at least.
Blizzard only pushes WoW that no one wants, and that is only for Blizzcon. The community does it all for HotS and HS.
|
On March 20 2016 23:47 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
Based on the Tim Morten interview it appears all 6 Blizzard titles now run in a "software as a service" business model. That includes Overwatch. I'm excited for the launch of the game; i'm just as excited to see what Blizzard's Overwatch team comes up with over the next year as they continue to add to the Overwatch experience.
That's actually pretty interesting. I wonder after Overwatch is released, if we're going to enter another period like 2004-2010 where there will be no games released outside of WoW expansions (well obviously Hearthstone expansions). Maybe Diablo will get an expansion, but also maybe they're working on a bigger Diablo game.
|
China6330 Posts
On March 21 2016 06:40 lestye wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2016 23:47 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
Based on the Tim Morten interview it appears all 6 Blizzard titles now run in a "software as a service" business model. That includes Overwatch. I'm excited for the launch of the game; i'm just as excited to see what Blizzard's Overwatch team comes up with over the next year as they continue to add to the Overwatch experience. That's actually pretty interesting. I wonder after Overwatch is released, if we're going to enter another period like 2004-2010 where there will be no games released outside of WoW expansions (well obviously Hearthstone expansions). Maybe Diablo will get an expansion, but also maybe they're working on a bigger Diablo game.
The new Diablo project is very likely Diablo 4, from the job description they are using new engine tech which don't usually appear on expansion level projects.
|
So when I hook someone as Roadhog; do I left-click or right-click?
|
On March 21 2016 17:37 Torte de Lini wrote:
So when I hook someone as Roadhog; do I left-click or right-click?
I only watched stream (mainly Seagull) and he said right, hook, left, melee is optimal. Right click does most dmg on medium distance where the shell explodes, left is more dmg than right on melee distance. So it is actually quite tricky.
|
the right click + hook + left + melee is the most damage and can even take down tanks. For 200 hp heroes its a bit of overkill, so you can drop the right click if its a really fast hero.
But in general right click before the hook left click after it. Melee nerf is a bit annoying. But every move of this combo animations cancels thats why it can be done so rapidly. (I hope it still does animation cancel, haven't played him post last patch and Blizzard is removing those combos out of the game for some reason)
Its also good to learn the distance when your right click explodes. Because if it explodes right before someone it is as if you are standing right in front of them. Which can one shot some heroes.
|
I think Overwatch has potential to be a decent spectator game. The casters and observers just need to get better at doing it. Watching a competitive Tracer or Genji completely outplaying and breaking ankles is pretty fun to watch. It also gives the feeling of "I could do that" which I think is somewhat important for a good spectator game. Honestly the latest GosuGamers cups the casting and obs is getting better. I honestly don't know if they have a dedicated observer but I feel it is almost required for a game with this much going on. Maybe even a few. Like I think optimal production would be one observer on blue team's offensive heroes, another observer on red team's offensive heroes and a third observer in 3rd person observing action at the various chokes with production switching between the three as required.
-edit-
Also I know it is an unpopular opinion but to really succeed as a spectator sport they may need to address some of the rule sets. Competitive Overwatch at the moment is "find the most broken stack and do that." They seem to nerf one stack and another stack rises from the changes. I know they've said time and time again that OW is about hero switching and all that but possibly they need to re-evaluate that stance now that actual competitive games are being played. I'm not saying address it immediately, either. Let the game simmer for a few month or so after release and see if maybe a mode is required which features static heroes and disallows stacking.
|
I think 3rd person spectating is completely lame. Maybe only short shots to demonstrate the overall positioning of the players. But it should mostly be first person to be able to appreciate plays.
|
On March 21 2016 23:53 Redox wrote:
I think 3rd person spectating is completely lame. Maybe only short shots to demonstrate the overall positioning of the players. But it should mostly be first person to be able to appreciate plays.
I think you need to blend to two. Saying you need to be in first person to appreciate the plays is almost like saying you need to watch Starcraft from a FPVOD to appreciate the APM. From a third person you can try and understand the over arching strategy the two teams are attempting because ideally in a competitive environment you shouldn't be seeing wild outplays or anything. You'd expect everyone to more or less be playing very well.
Which does come back to a suggestion I heard which would be give observers the ability to simulate almost like a "POTG" but in real-time. Where if you weren't observing a Reaper vs Genji duel and the Genji did something crazy to win it you could hop into his first person and hit a key to rewind the past 10 seconds a-la POTG and observe it.
|
First Person is CS spectating works because its a slow setup followed by a quick execution, for the pace of overwatch first person feels terrible to me. You lack way to much of the overall picture to actually see the flow of the game.
Yes it means you cant 'appreciate' all the plays but a clear view of the state of the game is imo much more important.
|
On March 22 2016 00:01 Tenks wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2016 23:53 Redox wrote:
I think 3rd person spectating is completely lame. Maybe only short shots to demonstrate the overall positioning of the players. But it should mostly be first person to be able to appreciate plays. I think you need to blend to two. Saying you need to be in first person to appreciate the plays is almost like saying you need to watch Starcraft from a FPVOD to appreciate the APM.
This is a not a good comparison. First person and spectating pov in sc2, League etc are very similar to each other. You really should only compare fps with other fps. In fps from 3rd person you can not see a players crosshair or his field of view, obviously both crucial in this genre. Also first person gives the viewer the oportunity to identify with the player and it feels more "intense" to watch. You want to watch like you play. Which is why Quake, CS, Halo are usually spectated first person.
Look at the reaction to the Seagull first person tournament VOD currently on reddit. People just like to watch it more than regular spectator VODs.
I get that you can not understand the whole teamplay from first person. You need to make short cuts showing 3rd person then. But I am sure overall people want to see first person more. In the end Overwatch is still an fps and not a "moba".
|
As I said it works in CS because you can (normally) see the push on to a site clearly coming as spectator and you can go to the first man's cam and see the push happen, you still catch most of the action.
1v1 games are completely incomparable because again, your not going to miss the action unless someone gets shot in the back.
I think Overwatch is much more comparable to Halo and CoD and those to me are frankly unwatchable as first person spectating outside of pubs.
|
On March 21 2016 23:53 Redox wrote:
I think 3rd person spectating is completely lame. Maybe only short shots to demonstrate the overall positioning of the players. But it should mostly be first person to be able to appreciate plays.
A mix between 3rd and 1st person is the way to go for me. Team engagements are an important aspect in a game like this.
The 1st person limits you to a single player, whereas the 3rd person allows you to experience both teams executing their plays.
|
On March 22 2016 01:43 Redox wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2016 00:01 Tenks wrote:On March 21 2016 23:53 Redox wrote:
I think 3rd person spectating is completely lame. Maybe only short shots to demonstrate the overall positioning of the players. But it should mostly be first person to be able to appreciate plays. I think you need to blend to two. Saying you need to be in first person to appreciate the plays is almost like saying you need to watch Starcraft from a FPVOD to appreciate the APM. Look at the reaction to the Seagull first person tournament VOD currently on reddit. People just like to watch it more than regular spectator VODs.
I think that is more because it is a somewhat rare insight into organized comms. I'm sure if Seagull streamed his scrims it wouldn't be nearly as popular because people would be used to a popular streamer in an organized environment. I would be more interested in the FP of the Tracer that was decimating their back line the first part of the game.
Also this leads me to another point. People on reddit are acting like the game is figured out. Hardly. These may be the best teams and players at the moment but come on Cloud9 refused to get off their double Tracer picks. Even I as a casual player know on the 3rd phase of Lijiang you only stay on Tracer if your team has the point captured and you can disrupt their spawns. If not you just race in like their Tracers into a defensible location and die over and over. They really, really needed to adjust their lineup but -- like most competitive teams -- they just pick their initial lineup and deviate hardly any throughout the match.
|
United States12240 Posts
On March 22 2016 02:08 Tenks wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2016 01:43 Redox wrote:On March 22 2016 00:01 Tenks wrote:On March 21 2016 23:53 Redox wrote:
I think 3rd person spectating is completely lame. Maybe only short shots to demonstrate the overall positioning of the players. But it should mostly be first person to be able to appreciate plays. I think you need to blend to two. Saying you need to be in first person to appreciate the plays is almost like saying you need to watch Starcraft from a FPVOD to appreciate the APM. Look at the reaction to the Seagull first person tournament VOD currently on reddit. People just like to watch it more than regular spectator VODs. I think that is more because it is a somewhat rare insight into organized comms. I'm sure if Seagull streamed his scrims it wouldn't be nearly as popular because people would be used to a popular streamer in an organized environment. I would be more interested in the FP of the Tracer that was decimating their back line the first part of the game. Also this leads me to another point. People on reddit are acting like the game is figured out. Hardly. These may be the best teams and players at the moment but come on Cloud9 refused to get off their double Tracer picks. Even I as a casual player know on the 3rd phase of Lijiang you only stay on Tracer if your team has the point captured and you can disrupt their spawns. If not you just race in like their Tracers into a defensible location and die over and over. They really, really needed to adjust their lineup but -- like most competitive teams -- they just pick their initial lineup and deviate hardly any throughout the match.
I haven't spent a whole lot of time checking out the competitive side of Overwatch, but just a few notes I had:
- Versatility is going to be the most prized asset of individual players, and that's ultimately what's going to win tournaments. I've seen the really good Genji and Tracer and Soldier-76 players, and that's fine in pubs, but as the scene evolves, players are going to have to counterpick each other to make forward progress on the objective. It's similar to what eventually happens in fighting games (or mobas to some extent) where players have to expand their character pool to be able to compete because they'll get targeted and counterpicked by a more versatile player. It's better to have a slightly advantageous matchup playing at 90% fighting strength by playing a secondary or tertiary character than to have a slightly disadvantageous matchup playing at 100% on your main. The Overwatch scene is still very young, but this is where I anticipate things will head after a few months or a year.
- I've watched a bit of competitive CS, but that game can be hard to follow for a few reasons:
1. Gunfights are over quick. Real quick. This makes a first-person perspective almost mandatory because it's the only way to communicate why a player won or lost a fight. There's some information that helps foreshadow a fight, like being able to see the other players through walls, but you also inherently lose some information because you're locked into a single player's perspective.
2. The map is secondary and it's hard to measure what a team's strategy is without commentator help, and even then it's not easy. The map familiarity issue could be a problem for Overwatch as well, but it might be more manageable because much of the fighting will be focused on a few fixed areas (the payload, capture points).
3. The economy layer adds complexity that can alienate the casual viewer. Commentators usually do a good job of explaining why players or teams aren't spending their money this round, or why they're picking the guns they are, but it can be a little confusing without that context.
|
I feel like observing in CSGO is pretty different than observing in OW. In CSGO since most maps (all?) are de_ maps it is pretty easy to see how the CTs are setting up their defense, talk about that a second, and see how the T's are setting up their offense. Call in the rotations and the action all *generally* happens in around the same area each round and then the rounds reset. It makes it much more logical. With OW since it is more action oriented and where engagements can and do happen is a bit more all over the place (again this possibly is because teams don't have it figured out) it makes observing and commentating a bit more difficult.
Even as a casual eco rounds never seemed that confusing they just seemed boring to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
