Overwatch: HYPETRAIN HAS LEFT THE STATION Spring 2016 Release Confirmed!

[AgentPaper]

"It will never be fair" is a piss-poor excuse not to try. It's weighted too heavily in favor of classes that can rack up bodycount right now, whether that bodycount ultimately helps the mission succeed or not.

If they're not going to fix it, they should at least have the name reflect what it actually is - "Multikill of the game" or "Killstreak of the game" or something else.

"It can't be done" is a good reason not to do something. Trying to factor in all the kinds of things you're talking about isn't really possible without some kind of serious AI that I don't think even exists yet. Much better to have it competently and consistently show off cool moments where someone gets a bunch of kills all at once. And I say this as someone who consistently plays support/tank heroes. As much as it may be true that me healing everyone at a key moment or covering an assault with my shield might be more instrumental to winning the game rather than that one time Junkrat blew up 3 random enemies who where nowhere near the action, I would rather see the latter as the PotG since watching Lucio sit in a corner taking potshots while his aura does its work, or watching Reinhardt slowly walk forward in front of the cart is not fun or exciting. Explosions, even if they are pointless and not as helpful as they could have been, are at least explosions, and watching them blow up a bunch of hapless fools is always going to be more satisfying.

[huttj509]

I've seen some good PotG picks. One game near the end of things as soon as it showed my team's Pharah I paused, then thought "oooooh, I know the play."

Nepal(?) temple capturing the exposed zone (with ledges round and such, no cover on zone). Pharah leaps up from behind a wall, unloads her Q (while the enemy was distracted by another attacker, might have been me, I died right round then), and kills 3-4 of their team while the others scurry for what cover they can find. That play completely turned the game around, and let us take and hold the point for the win.

[Psyren]

I would much rather have focus put in 1) Making sure PotG are full of cool action and in 2) properly balancing classes, maps and game modes than trying to enforce some kind of PotG parity system, which must necessarily always be subjective and can never satisfy everyone.

I don't expect it to satisfy *everyone*, but perfect shouldn't be the enemy of better either. Only rewarding one playstyle above all others (shoot all the things) is not conducive to the long-term health of the game. Overwatch is built around balanced team compositions, and that includes healers and tanks; they deserve as much recognition for the group success as any other role. It's the vanilla/BC WoW problem all over again - if you make the game less fun for those types, they get used less, which makes the pick-up game that much worse. And the pick-up game is where the growth and accessibility lie.

"It can't be done" is a good reason not to do something. Trying to factor in all the kinds of things you're talking about isn't really possible without some kind of serious AI that I don't think even exists yet. Much better to have it competently and consistently show off cool moments where someone gets a bunch of kills all at once. And I say this as someone who consistently plays support/tank heroes. As much as it may be true that me healing everyone at a key moment or covering an assault with my shield might be more instrumental to winning the game rather than that one time Junkrat blew up 3 random enemies who where nowhere near the action, I would rather see the latter as the PotG since watching Lucio sit in a corner taking potshots while his aura does its work, or watching Reinhardt slowly walk forward in front of the cart is not fun or exciting. Explosions, even if they are pointless and not as helpful as they could have been, are at least explosions, and watching them blow up a bunch of hapless fools is always going to be more satisfying.

I never said anything about awarding PotG for "Lucio taking potshots while sitting in a corner"

Instead, a massive pitched firefight on the objective, where Lucio or Zenyatta ult and negate a metric ton of incoming damage in one swoop, would simultaneously be (a) a game-changer, (b) easily tracked by the game, AND (c) exciting to watch.

Keep in mind also that PotG is where those shiny animations we're all trying to dig out of the lootboxes get shown off. If I play Lucio but can't ever see my animations because I'm actually playing him well and not trying to go rambo/lone wolf on the enemy, where would they show up?

[boomwolf]

Nope, sorry you are just wrong.

Supports and tanks can be vital to the team, they could even win games by themselves, but rarely they make a play worth WATCHING.

Watching a mercy doing a mass rez, or lucio blocking a ton of damage, despite it being potentially gamechanging moment and a blast to play, is not interesting at all to observe. and PotM is all about giving you that awesome moment of "dang, that was a good game", watching somebody heal or block a barrage of shots, even if it was you, just don't give you that feeling of watching sombody take down 4-5 guys a row, shutting down ults or doing other flashy moves.


PotM is not about what moment changed the game, because honestly no AI could figure that out with current tech, PotM is about the most flashy moments it could find, and support/tanks just don't often DO flashy moves. blocking shots, healing and giving shields is simply not flashy.

[Psyren]

Nope, sorry you are just wrong.

I continue to disagree, so we'll have to leave it there.

If Blizzard ends up tweaking it at some point, I look forward to the ensuing rage

[AgentPaper]

I continue to disagree, so we'll have to leave it there.

If Blizzard ends up tweaking it at some point, I look forward to the ensuing rage

Nobody is saying that supports or tanks getting PotG is a bad thing. If Blizzard can figure out a way to make it work while still having PotG be fun and exciting even just most of the time, then that'd be great. Nobody here is disagreeing with that.

The place where we disagree, is whether they should try to force PotGs for support and tank heroes even if that results in a lot of boring PotGs, just for the sake of having supports and tanks get PotG more often. You're acting like the match is a competition to do the coolest thing, and whoever gets PotG is the winner, which is really not what the PotG system is about. The point of the PotG is to highlight a cool and fun moment, like, "Hey, remember that time when Genji went nuts and took out half the enemy team? How cool was that!" not, "Ok, so we crunched the stats, and the person most responsible for winning this game was...Lucio!"

The kind of recognition you seem to be asking for from PotG is I think much better shown with the card/vote system already in place. And indeed, I see more often than not everyone throws their votes to the support and/or tank heroes most of the time, unless one of the other characters was truly spectacular.

And it's not like Support and Tank classes can't get PotG right now, either. Sure, it's less common, but it happens all the time, and the fact that it's rare only makes it more impressive and awesome when it does happen.

[Psyren]

The place where we disagree, is whether they should try to force PotGs for support and tank heroes even if that results in a lot of boring PotGs, just for the sake of having supports and tanks get PotG more often.

Well, I don't recall saying anything about wanting boring PotG's, so I guess we're on the same page then?

You're acting like the match is a competition to do the coolest thing, and whoever gets PotG is the winner, which is really not what the PotG system is about. The point of the PotG is to highlight a cool and fun moment, like, "Hey, remember that time when Genji went nuts and took out half the enemy team? How cool was that!" not, "Ok, so we crunched the stats, and the person most responsible for winning this game was...Lucio!"

Which implies that tanks and support can't have cool and fun moments, unless they do so by not tanking or supporting, which is flat wrong.

The kind of recognition you seem to be asking for from PotG is I think much better shown with the card/vote system already in place. And indeed, I see more often than not everyone throws their votes to the support and/or tank heroes most of the time, unless one of the other characters was truly spectacular.

And I'm happy for the vote card system. It doesn't do jack to show off the cosmetics which are the game's primary reward scheme, but sure, much better than nothing.

[AgentPaper]

Well, I don't recall saying anything about wanting boring PotG's, so I guess we're on the same page then?

You did though. You said "'It will never be fair' is a piss-poor excuse not to try.", and other things along those lines. The end result of trying to do something that can't be done is to do a bad job at it. Which in this case leads to a lot of boring PotGs of Lucio standing behind everyone shooting at whoever and not really killing anyone, or watch Mercy sit behind a corner healing someone she's not even looking at, because that's what the game looks like most of the time when you get a ton of healing. That's the kind of PotG you will get more often than not by valuing just straight healing done.

Which implies that tanks and support can't have cool and fun moments, unless they do so by not tanking or supporting, which is flat wrong.

I never said that, and didn't imply it either. In fact, I specifically pointed out that tanks and support do have cool and fun moments, and I've seen every hero in the game get PotG at least a few times. All of those times, however, is them either getting a bunch of kills or using an ult, just like any other class. Those are often cool and fun moments to have a PotG for.

And I'm happy for the vote card system. It doesn't do jack to show off the cosmetics which are the game's primary reward scheme, but sure, much better than nothing.

The PotG cutscenes are just one small part of the reward scheme, and making them show up more often to stroke the ego of support players doesn't sound like a good reason to make everyone sit though a bunch of boring PotGs. In fact, that's more likely to make people resent the players of support heroes and make fun of them for their "crummy PotG" than anything else, especially if you tried to make support PotGs as common as any other role.

[Artanis]

The PotG cutscenes are just one small part of the reward scheme, and making them show up more often to stroke the ego of support players doesn't sound like a good reason to make everyone sit though a bunch of boring PotGs. In fact, that's more likely to make people resent the players of support heroes and make fun of them for their "crummy PotG" than anything else, especially if you tried to make support PotGs as common as any other role.

Agreed. The amount of resentment that a Bastion or Torbjorn generates by killing five people who are pushing a payload is nothing compared to the vitriol that would result from a Lucio racking up PotG score just from being in the vicinity of his team.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

Nope, sorry you are just wrong.

Supports and tanks can be vital to the team, they could even win games by themselves, but rarely they make a play worth WATCHING.

Depends on how you define "worth watching." I think, for example, the Winston play I had the other day where I saw a Parah rise to altitude, predicted the ultimate, leaped into the fight, and shielded my team on the point could count as "flashy" or as the play of the game.

It would be more complicated, definitely, but I'd like to see the system built around a mix of healing, damage absorbed, damage dealt, headshots, in-combat markers (and in-combat with YOU markers), miss percentage, kills, and objectives, with the last one fairly low on the list.

Widowmaker taking three shots and getting three headshots on moving targets fighting low-health allies? Play of the game. Reinhardt charging in and absorbing a Parah ultimate for his team while four people are on the objective? Play of the game. Reaper tearing through four people single-handed? Play of the game. Mercy managing to keep a team fighting through a Bastion ult, then reviving the two guys who died to contest the point? Play of the game. Tracer drawing enough attention that the entire enemy team turns to her, letting them be slain by an incoming advance (done by checking the number of guys who fire at you)? Possible play of the game -- she's a distraction character, after all!

It's more complicated, but most of that stuff (healing, damage absorbed, damage dealt, headshot triggers, miss percentage, kills, objective contesting, etc) is already built into the game, so the overhead is fairly low, and line-of-sight and combat markers are really just a few quick variables to store at every frame.

I think you can easily build a MUCH more robust (obviously not perfect) system. Hell, with a bit of proximity and timing added in you could even tell when a Hanzo ultimate kills that 12-0 Bastion who has been sitting on the point mowing down everyone coming in only a second before his team enters the objective area. Play of the game? In certain games, YES. And everyone would know it.

[Psyren]

You did though. You said "'It will never be fair' is a piss-poor excuse not to try.", and other things along those lines.

Right, that is what I said. How in the name of Ra does that lead you to "boring PotGs?"

The end result of trying to do something that can't be done is to do a bad job at it. Which in this case leads to a lot of boring PotGs of Lucio standing behind everyone shooting at whoever and not really killing anyone, or watch Mercy sit behind a corner healing someone she's not even looking at, because that's what the game looks like most of the time when you get a ton of healing. That's the kind of PotG you will get more often than not by valuing just straight healing done.

For healing to be big, there needs to be a lot of damage coming in that the healing is repairing. Which means an exciting firefight.

I never said that, and didn't imply it either. In fact, I specifically pointed out that tanks and support do have cool and fun moments, and I've seen every hero in the game get PotG at least a few times. All of those times, however, is them either getting a bunch of kills or using an ult, just like any other class. Those are often cool and fun moments to have a PotG for.

I've seen PotG for everyone too. But I've seen it far, far more for Bastion/Torbjorn/Reaper than I ever have for Lucio/Mercy/Reinhardt. For those players to get it usually requires them not doing their jobs, and that's a problem.

The PotG cutscenes are just one small part of the reward scheme, and making them show up more often to stroke the ego of support players doesn't sound like a good reason to make everyone sit though a bunch of boring PotGs. In fact, that's more likely to make people resent the players of support heroes and make fun of them for their "crummy PotG" than anything else, especially if you tried to make support PotGs as common as any other role.

See above - only a lack of imagination would mandate PotG for those classes having to be boring. I'd like to think Blizzard is more savvy/creative than that.

I think you can easily build a MUCH more robust (obviously not perfect) system. Hell, with a bit of proximity and timing added in you could even tell when a Hanzo ultimate kills that 12-0 Bastion who has been sitting on the point mowing down everyone coming in only a second before his team enters the objective area. Play of the game? In certain games, YES. And everyone would know it.

This too - or the Lucio/Zenyatta that makes the mass charge against that entrenched foe possible. Say, if your team is able to push onto the objective, and everyone on your team kills at least one person on theirs because of Lucio's barrier with nobody getting that big multikill/streak the PotG should default to him. And it shouldn't be difficult for the system to realize that, because it's already counting how much spike damage his ultimate absorbed at that moment.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

This too - or the Lucio/Zenyatta that makes the mass charge against that entrenched foe possible. Say, if your team is able to push onto the objective, and everyone on your team kills at least one person on theirs because of Lucio's barrier with nobody getting that big multikill/streak the PotG should default to him. And it shouldn't be difficult for the system to realize that, because it's already counting how much spike damage his ultimate absorbed at that moment.

I might go a step further and have highlights display a tally of damage absorbed or healing done in big text, just to really showcase a player's contribution. See a Reinhardt absorb 2000 damage and then lay down a three-man ult, but grab no kills? You still know how awesome he was. That Lucio delivering 400 healing and having his shield absorb 900 damage during a firefight while only killing one guy? Now you can SEE how much he's saving his team in real-time.

[Delusion]

I kinda wish that assists would count towards eliminations. It would be fun having a chance at more than one (or well two with the objective time, but I tend to hover near the objective and not on top of it) as Mercy. It gets bit boring have just 1 gold medal everygame :P

[Gandariel]

Apparently 9.7 million people played the Overwatch beta.

Wow.

Also no, I'm not the slightest annoyed because they didn't release on Mac :P

[Delusion]

Apparently 9.7 million people played the Overwatch beta.

Wow.

Also no, I'm not the slightest annoyed because they didn't release on Mac :P

Thats 0.13% of the worlds total population. I think thats really impressive.

[Artanis]

Before I start this post, I want to make something absolutely clear: I do think that the PotG system could use some tweaks. Anybody who accuses me of arguing otherwise is absolutely wrong, because I do NOT think that it is perfect.


Now, with that out of the way...

The problem I have with many arguments in this thread is that they seem to assume a lot of common sense. A Lucio ult that blocks eleventy-three gajillion damage to help secure a contested point is obviously the deciding factor in a close-fought battle. That's just common sense. But computers don't do common sense. Computers don't do obvious. Computers don't do judgement calls. Computers do absolute number calculations, and the more factors that go into those calculations, the more things that are added in to get it closer to "common sense", the harder it is to get it to not utterly f*** it up.


To use a couple of Djinn's examples: (just as a note, I'm NOT using these to specifically contradict Djinn, it's just that he gave really good examples to use )

-Reinhardt charging in and absorbing a Parah ultimate for his team while four people are on the objective?
--What about the Bastion who killed the Pharah and three of her teammates afterwards, allowing him and Reinhardt's team to get enough control over the area to actually try to capture the point? Or the Reaper who then immediately killed off Pharah's targets single-handedly and captured the point for the win, making Reinhardt's and Bastion's plays meaningless in the grand scheme of things? Who, exactly, gets PotG: the guy who absorbed the ult, the guy who quadrakilled four high-health enemies while on the point, or the guy who took the last 50hp off of six people to secure the win? And more importantly, how exactly would one have the computer decide?

-Widowmaker taking three shots and getting three headshots on moving targets fighting low-health allies?
--Define exact numbers for "low health". Will you tell the computer to, say, consider <50% to be low health, in which case saving a single 299hp Roadhog is worth more than saving four teammates with a combined 300hp? Will you make a special case to factor in number of allies, total hp, and so on? And even if you do that, what about two headshots and four almost-but-not-quite-lethal bodyshots?

-Mercy managing to keep a team fighting through a Bastion ult, then reviving the two guys who died to contest the point?
--What about the Bastion who forced the Mercy ult and then immediately killed three more people, allowing his team to easily bludgeon the enemy back off the point anyways once his buddies respawned? Are you going to penalize the Bastion because Bastion (which seems to be a common sentiment), or are you going to penalize Mercy because the rez gained her team a whopping 4% on the scoreboard? How exactly would you have it define what numbers to use to decide between the two?


It's THESE sorts of situations that make me leery of just saying, "they should do X and Y and Z" without factoring in the work involved in getting computers to do what they really don't like to do, and the difficulty in getting it to satisfy everybody. It seems simple to us, but it is not simple, it is not easy, and the more factors you try to make it consider, the more likely it is to give BS PotGs that piss off everybody.


As a final note, say they do figure out how to do it. Say they do come up with a way to make the computer smart enough to actually do things right. What should they value when balancing out the numbers? Should mechanical skill go into it? Should a Bastion or Torbjorn be disqualified from getting PotG just because they require a lot less aiming than getting headshots with Widowmaker does? What about map knowledge? Should a Widowmaker be disqualified from getting PotG just because "find a random rooftop" is a lot easier than it is for Bastion or Torbjorn to find a spot to set up where they will actually be able to accomplish something without getting killed? How about situational awareness? Properly timing ults? Actually getting the kills?

[Psyren]

How exactly would one have the computer decide?

It doesn't have to be "exact." Just more equitable. To use your "eleventy-gajillion Lucio" example - the computer can recognize, even roughly, situations where his ultimate was impactful because it's already calculating % of incoming damage blocked by his barriers. In short, it knows how much damage would have gotten through without him.

For a Lucio PotG, I would use quantitative factors like:

- Were at least 3 players protected by his ult
- Did it happen on top of or very close to the objective/payload
- How much total damage did it absorb/how much damage would have gotten through without it
- Were at least 3 enemies contesting the objective when it was used

Combine all of those ingredients and you have a pretty good shot of snapshotting a pitched firefight, rather than a boring post-battle breather, all with no human judgment required. And of course, the Ult itself (also a dramatic moment) would be part of the footage. Again, these are all metrics they're already capturing, and more importantly, that computers can recognize, because they're quantitative.

As a final note, say they do figure out how to do it. Say they do come up with a way to make the computer smart enough to actually do things right. What should they value when balancing out the numbers? Should mechanical skill go into it? Should a Bastion or Torbjorn be disqualified from getting PotG just because they require a lot less aiming than getting headshots with Widowmaker does? What about map knowledge? Should a Widowmaker be disqualified from getting PotG just because "find a random rooftop" is a lot easier than it is for Bastion or Torbjorn to find a spot to set up where they will actually be able to accomplish something without getting killed? How about situational awareness? Properly timing ults? Actually getting the kills?

Pretty much all of that is qualitative, so obviously not. How are they deciding between Bastion and Tobjorn now? Whatever numbers they use to figure out can be applied here.

[Artanis]

It doesn't have to be "exact." Just more equitable. To use your "eleventy-gajillion Lucio" example - the computer can recognize, even roughly, situations where his ultimate was impactful because it's already calculating % of incoming damage blocked by his barriers. In short, it knows how much damage would have gotten through without him.

For a Lucio PotG, I would use quantitative factors like:

- Were at least 3 players protected by his ult
- Did it happen on top of or very close to the objective/payload
- How much total damage did it absorb/how much damage would have gotten through without it
- Were at least 3 enemies contesting the objective when it was used

Combine all of those ingredients and you have a pretty good shot of snapshotting a pitched firefight, rather than a boring post-battle breather, all with no human judgment required. And of course, the Ult itself (also a dramatic moment) would be part of the footage. Again, these are all metrics they're already capturing, and more importantly, that computers can recognize, because they're quantitative.

The computer knows the numbers. What the computer is bad at is judging "impactful". You are drastically overestimating the computer's ability to do that.

You say you want an exciting, pitched firefight to be shown, but at the same time, you ALSO say that you want something that impacted the course of the game. You can't always have both.

What if six people were protected by his ult, but only two enemies were on the point with the other four ulting from just off of it? How "close" is "close": would it be better to have one person on the point or five people who are just slightly farther away from it than the precise number that you define as "close"? Did it actually help hold the objective, or was it wasted because the entire team died a few seconds later anyways because nobody had the DPS to kill off the enemy before it ended anyways?

Computers can't handle vague. Computers can't handle judgement. Computers need to be told exactly which numbers to use at exactly which time.

The Lucio ult you refrence would be great, sure. Might even win PotG. Unless the people he shielded were 0.000001m too far from the point, in which case it fails the "close to the objective" requirement. Prevent 5000 damage? Too bad, your team was three pixels too far to the left, better luck next time. Have fun watching the Reinhardt "prevent" 2500 damage while walking through a door 1v6.

Pretty much all of that is qualitative, so obviously not. How are they deciding between Bastion and Tobjorn now? Whatever numbers they use to figure out can be applied here.

"Obviously not" what? The numbers they're using now are exactly what you're saying are wrong, and now you're saying they should keep using them?

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

*snip*

I can address this in more detail if you want, but I don't think a bit of uncertainty I'm who gets Play of the Game is bad in your examples, as MOST of them sound like they could be the play of the game. I've already seen games where it has to decide between three-five impressive plays, seemingly randomly.

Plus, I'm a Comp Sci major: I know how hard exact rules can be to implement. The current system is all variables though, so adding more just makes the equation more complex, not any more or less reliable. How do they determine how many more points an objective kill is than a kill? Guessing, testing, adjusting, and testing again. That's how you'd expand the system as well.

[Psyren]

The computer knows the numbers. What the computer is bad at is judging "impactful". You are drastically overestimating the computer's ability to do that.

Stopping damage is impactful, just as causing damage is impactful. It seems pretty simple to me.

You say you want an exciting, pitched firefight to be shown, but at the same time, you ALSO say that you want something that impacted the course of the game. You can't always have both.

And sometimes you can. It's not even that hard. These games have pretty clear objectives, and if the majority or entirety of both teams are fighting it out on top of said objectives, that obviously matters to the game as a whole.

What if six people were protected by his ult, but only two enemies were on the point with the other four ulting from just off of it? How "close" is "close": would it be better to have one person on the point or five people who are just slightly farther away from it than the precise number that you define as "close"? Did it actually help hold the objective, or was it wasted because the entire team died a few seconds later anyways because nobody had the DPS to kill off the enemy before it ended anyways?

If you can get PotG by racking up a big killstreak but you lose the match anyway, why can't you get it by blocking a ton of damage and losing the match anyway? Why is the first better in your eyes?

Computers can't handle vague. Computers can't handle judgement. Computers need to be told exactly which numbers to use at exactly which time.

I'm aware of how computers work, thank you.

The Lucio ult you refrence would be great, sure. Might even win PotG. Unless the people he shielded were 0.000001m too far from the point, in which case it fails the "close to the objective" requirement. Prevent 5000 damage? Too bad, your team was three pixels too far to the left, better luck next time. Have fun watching the Reinhardt "prevent" 2500 damage while walking through a door 1v6.

This is where I come back to "it doesn't have to be exact." Yeah, you might pull off a great Lucio ult but miss PotG because you were just outside of the sweet spot on the objective where it starts counting. But you'd still get more Lucio PotGs this way than you do now, when kills are the only things that matter. Perfect should not be the enemy of better.

"Obviously not" what? The numbers they're using now are exactly what you're saying are wrong, and now you're saying they should keep using them?

What I meant was that obviously, metrics like "map knowledge" and "situational awareness" - terms you used, not me - are qualitative and cannot/should not be considered.

[NeoVid]

I think we can all agree that it should be improved enough that we stop seeing the archetypal Torbjorn PotG.

[The_Jackal]

Stopping damage is impactful, just as causing damage is impactful. It seems pretty simple to me.

Circumstance is everything. A Reinhardt getting gunned down while sitting on the payload can absorb 2,500 damage. Whether someone else would have eaten that damage requires considerably more CPU overhead, that I'd just assume not be calculated, in lieu of actually letting the physics engine do its job: Making the game work.

And sometimes you can. It's not even that hard. These games have pretty clear objectives, and if the majority or entirety of both teams are fighting it out on top of said objectives, that obviously matters to the game as a whole.

Objective proximity we've already agreed is a pretty important factor, and MIGHT be easy to code, except that it completely dis-incentivizes flanking maneuvers and other completely legitimate tactics. Let me put it another way: A Genji or Tracer who did nothing all game but dash in to assassinate the opposing team's Mercy before getting unceremoniously executed is actually likely contributing enormously to his team's success, but will likely NEVER get PotG, even according your your system, because what's often most impactful can't occur inside a 15 second window. That's fine, that's what medals and commendations are for.

If you can get PotG by racking up a big killstreak but you lose the match anyway, why can't you get it by blocking a ton of damage and losing the match anyway? Why is the first better in your eyes?

I know which one is more entertaining to watch. Blocking a ton of damage doesn't actually require ANY skill, it just requires getting SHOT. Well, who's doing a better job of protecting the payload now? The Reinhardt who sits and gets his face pummelled for 15 seconds straight, or one who hides behind the payload keeping it from being pushed back while actually avoiding being gunned down?

I'm aware of how computers work, thank you.

Then why are we having this conversation? What you're asking for would require an immense amount of development effort for negligible gain, because, as I've said before, EVERYONE thinks they deserve to get player of the game. Even if they didn't, and all were capable of being objective, there's still a reason that SportCenter doesn't show lots of highlight footage of offensive linemen doing pass blocking. It IS NOT INTERESTING, no matter how crucial or effective it is.

This is where I come back to "it doesn't have to be exact." Yeah, you might pull off a great Lucio ult but miss PotG because you were just outside of the sweet spot on the objective where it starts counting. But you'd still get more Lucio PotGs this way than you do now, when kills are the only things that matter. Perfect should not be the enemy of better.

Except that 'better' is completely subjective. What I'm saying is that a 'better' PotG is one that shows a bunch of kills, because it's more consistently likely to show something interesting than watching Mercy pop her ult on a team that just got blown-up by rip-tire.

I think we can all agree that it should be improved enough that we stop seeing the archetypal Torbjorn PotG.

We DO. But that's an easy fix: Turret Kills shouldn't count towards PotG at all.

[NeoVid]

That would make it totally impossible for Symmetra to get PotG, instead of just almost impossible.

I see what people mean about how painful it will be to code this.

[Manticoran]

Also... Torbjorn doesn't see play at all basically at the higher ranks from what I understand, so like... I expect people will get significantly better at dealing with him as the game gets older.

[Psyren]

Circumstance is everything. A Reinhardt getting gunned down while sitting on the payload can absorb 2,500 damage. Whether someone else would have eaten that damage requires considerably more CPU overhead, that I'd just assume not be calculated, in lieu of actually letting the physics engine do its job: Making the game work.

You do realize they're already tracking this? Next time you play and Reinhardt or Winston show up in the vote cards, read what you're actually voting for.

Objective proximity we've already agreed is a pretty important factor, and MIGHT be easy to code, except that it completely dis-incentivizes flanking maneuvers and other completely legitimate tactics.

For objective proximity, I meant specifically for healers. Flankers/snipers/whoevers that dps regardless of location are already able to get PotG. Nothing has to change there.

I know which one is more entertaining to watch. Blocking a ton of damage doesn't actually require ANY skill, it just requires getting SHOT.

> Implying the current rash of Bastion and Torbjorn PotGs require skill.

What you're asking for would require an immense amount of development effort for negligible gain, because, as I've said before, EVERYONE thinks they deserve to get player of the game.

No. Please say it with me:

They're already tracking this.
They're already tracking this.
They're already tracking this.

Sound Barrier absorbs: tracked.
Transcendence heals: tracked.
Reinhardt and Winston barrier absorbs: tracked.

All you have to do is watch for spikes in those things (indicating a firefight), and apply a multiplier if it happens on top of the objective. That's it. And even then they may not get PotG anyway, but at least they'd have a shot. It's more than they're getting now.

[huttj509]

On a side note, it's amusing how often I hear some variation of:

"Heroes never die die die die!"

It's also amusing how often I hear "Die di-" when I'm bastion and a reaper hops in front of me to ult my team. Nice try bud, but you ain't invincible during the ult.

[Ionbound]

I hear the opposite of that a lot, actually. "DIE DIE DIE!" "Heroes never die~!" I like it better that way too.

[Psyren]

I hear the opposite of that a lot, actually. "DIE DIE DIE!" "Heroes never die~!" I like it better that way too.

That is amusing when that happens

[Legoshrimp]

You do realize they're already tracking this? Next time you play and Reinhardt or Winston show up in the vote cards, read what you're actually voting for.



For objective proximity, I meant specifically for healers. Flankers/snipers/whoevers that dps regardless of location are already able to get PotG. Nothing has to change there.



> Implying the current rash of Bastion and Torbjorn PotGs require skill.



No. Please say it with me:

They're already tracking this.
They're already tracking this.
They're already tracking this.

Sound Barrier absorbs: tracked.
Transcendence heals: tracked.
Reinhardt and Winston barrier absorbs: tracked.

All you have to do is watch for spikes in those things (indicating a firefight), and apply a multiplier if it happens on top of the objective. That's it. And even then they may not get PotG anyway, but at least they'd have a shot. It's more than they're getting now.

They might be tracking it in a way that lets this happen, but they could just be keeping track of a total. If it is just a total it does require some effort to start tracking it in a way that lets you see spikes.

Also they should just use machine learning to decide PotGs

I think the problem with what you want is it would lead to boring PotGs. Sure lucio pressing q can impact the game a lot, but that doesn't mean it is a good highlight.
The point of PotG isn't showing what the most impact single play was. It is to show a cool flashy play.

Also that torb clip shows he placed his turret in a decent place and the enemy team is so bad they can't kill an unprotected torbjorn turret.
I think if you don't like torb play of the games lucio ult play of the games won't be much better.

Also arguing that torb turrets shouldn't be counted is like saying healing shouldn't be counted. You are just targeting a different set of characters.

Edit: Also I think people are assuming that the system is really stupid. It already does account for healing and rezs at least. I think the most likely thing is that it uses fire which was mentioned already. I think there is a chance pretty much all of the things you are arguing for are already taken into account, but blizzard has decided tuning it so that you see regular play of the games based on shielding or healing are boring so they are really hard to get. Mercy PotGs are only cool because they happen rarely and showcase really good ults.

[AgentPaper]

You do realize they're already tracking this? Next time you play and Reinhardt or Winston show up in the vote cards, read what you're actually voting for.

...

No. Please say it with me:

They're already tracking this.
They're already tracking this.
They're already tracking this.

Sound Barrier absorbs: tracked.
Transcendence heals: tracked.
Reinhardt and Winston barrier absorbs: tracked.

All you have to do is watch for spikes in those things (indicating a firefight), and apply a multiplier if it happens on top of the objective. That's it. And even then they may not get PotG anyway, but at least they'd have a shot. It's more than they're getting now.

You didn't read what he wrote. He was talking about tracking Reinhardt barrier absorption that would have hit another player, as opposed to absorbed damage that would have just hit a wall because there was nobody behind him. The damage absorbed value shown in the final tally just raw amount of damage that his shield took, which isn't a very good indicator of Reinhardt playing well. Sometimes it means he's done well, other times it just means that he was consistently pushing too far forward and getting his shield broken by the whole enemy team over and over without actually helping his team all that much. Which is what you'll likely see most of the time if you try to give Reinhardt PotG for blocking damage.

I'm saying this as someone who mains Reinhardt: Don't give me PotG for blocking damage. Those are not the cool and interesting moments. I'd rather get PotG for stunning the whole enemy team with my ult, then blasting and smashing them into bits, even if I don't get the chance to do that in most games.