Overwatch: Boop!

[The_Jackal]

You disagree with CCGs on principle. That's totally fine, I dislike MOBAs myself, but "I don't like this kind of game" and "this is exploitative" are not at all the same thing. Free To Play can be done right, and Hearthstone is one of the games that pulls it off. (LoL is another.)

I like card games just fine. Explain to me please what part of 'I'm going to make you gamble to obtain cards' is crucial to the design or play of the game? It is exploitative and cynical, and there's no reason they couldn't just give players access to the full library of cards for a flat fee, save that they make a lot more money the other way.

Your opinion is not fact. I find Arena to be very fun and interesting, and many others do too.

Is Arena identical to Constructed? Then I guess that is a fact, not an opinion. It is a fact that Arena focuses on raw card value in lieu of card synergies and combos. Now you're right in so far as whether you care about card synergies and combos is a matter of taste, so yes, my opinion is that 'is this card bigger than the other one' makes Arena a dumb and bad mode of play.

You're also forgetting Tavern Brawl, particularly the frequent Brawls that outright give you a premade deck to play with, rendering your collection (and your opponent's) irrelevant. Best of all, in both Arena and Brawl you can still complete quests, which give you even more free cards and currency. You literally never have to play "constructed" if you don't want to, or worry about what the meta is. I've spent my entire time in Hearthstone without ever encountering one of those meta decks simply because I don't play Ladder, and I've opened dozens of card packs to date.

Yes, and yet tavern brawl has also featured some of the laziest, most utterly random and skill free game modes ever presented in HS. Randomonium, Portal Roulette, or Battle at the Crossroads? Seriously, shoot me in the face. Evidently you have a lot more patience with your odds of victory being governed by dumb luck than I have.

That's not what "pay-to-win" means. P2W is where you are forced to pony up to compete, rather than it merely being more convenient. Again, they have two whole game modes where paying is not only unnecessary, it's largely irrelevant. I have beaten people in both modes who, judging by their other cosmetics, play the game at a competitive level.

I don't think you get arbitrary authority to decide what pay to win means. P2W means that if you pay money, you get in game power, faster and more easily than if you didn't pay, which is a feature I have come to despise every time I encounter it, because it means that your play experience, should you choose to go free-tier, will be dominated by having your face stomped in by wallet warriors.

The tragedy of Hearthstone is that they've designed a really cool, interesting game (constructed play), and then shackled competing in that game to drudgery (Arena, Quests, Tavern Brawl, or Cash).

[The_Jackal]

I have long since stopped buying loot boxes in Overwatch because I'm pretty much guaranteed not to get what I'm hoping for, and to feel that whatever I do end up with isn't worth the money I spent on it. However, I do have to say that I appreciate this business model because it means that they do not charge for the new characters and maps. Sure, it looks greedy when you compare it to freemium games (that are nominally free, but in practice the most successful players are always the ones that invest tons of money into the game), but I look at it as an improvement over most games that put all the important content like new maps, new characters, etc. behind the DLC paywall. If the loot box system means that we get new characters and maps for free, then I'm glad it's there.

Yup. The compromise I made is that I buy $10.00 worth of packs when they put out co-op or PvE content, because that's what I want to encourage. That is the sole virtue I can find in a micro-transaction based game, that I can choose to selectively offer rewards for content I like, while still getting access to content I don't care so much about (Mystery Heroes, Lucioball, virtually anything in the Arcade). That said, I would vastly prefer that Blizzard went the Gearbox route, and just let you pay for new maps/heroes/content with a single DLC purchase. I do accept, however, that that has the problem of fragmenting the player base, so I abide. Really, I just long for a return to the good old days of the 'expansion pack' where you put out a game which you sell for retail, then release 1-3 expansion packs for just over half the price of the retail game. The reason they don't do that anymore is because of the small percentage of players who will dump tons of cash on gambling. Hence my original remark.

[The_Jackal]

The only decks that ever see play with F2P are Pirate Warrior and Midrange Hunter (rip Quest Rogue). Can't deny that buying cards is pretty much necessary to stay on top of the meta, unless you only like playing aggro.

Also, go get anything close to a F2P competitive deck means you've got to disenchant large parts of your collection, so you wind up being rabbit-holed into a small set of cards, which invariably become irrelevant due to counter-cards and power creep in the next content update. F2P is a Sisyphean exercise, unless you're prepared to spend hours upon hours in Arena. If that's what you like doing, good on you. I find it hateful and dull, and a waste of a good game.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

It's really not that hard to succeed in Hearthstone at a F2P level. Sure, you've got to put a little time into it, but play for long enough and it's pretty easy. I don't get very far in ranked because I choose to play non-competitive decks, but I have friends who get much farther because they play semi-decent decks. And cheap tier-1ish decks like pirate warrior make it even easier.

[The_Jackal]

It's really not that hard to succeed in Hearthstone at a F2P level. Sure, you've got to put a little time into it, but play for long enough and it's pretty easy. I don't get very far in ranked because I choose to play non-competitive decks, but I have friends who get much farther because they play semi-decent decks. And cheap tier-1ish decks like pirate warrior make it even easier.

Sure, if you want to play ONE deck, for one expansion. If your aim is to actually build any kind of collection, you're going to be playing lots and lots of hours of Arena, and you do have to actually WIN, which, on average, you will not do. Arena is a zero-sum game. If you win, someone else needs to lose. The gold yield of a 3 win arena run is not enough to queue for another arena run, so you're obliged to wait til a day or two for your next quest to provide some more gold for an Arena run.

I'm not saying you can't succeed as a free-to-play player, I'm saying that that process is necessarily tedious and slow because the designers have made to so, so as to promote the purchase of micro-transactions. Do you remember how quickly rewards come in when you played the starter sequence, unlocking the basic Hero cards and getting those early one-time rewards? Why do they do that, and then pinch off the reward stream once you've gotten somewhat far into the game? Simple: Because they know if they gated the fun of unlocking content at the normal rate, the vast majority of players would never get engrossed in the game, and if they gave out rewards at that pace for the entire game, there would be no incentive to pay for rewards. Overwatch does the same thing, by the way. The first 30 levels feature a much faster influx of levels, with attendant lockbox rewards, before they taper you off, and wait for the subset of players who will pay dollars for cool hats (and then gripe about only getting a bunch of player icons & sprays, Overwatch's equivalent of pack filler).

Look, I'm not saying that either game is bad, I'm saying that the micro-transaction model has made them worse than they'd otherwise be.

[BRC]

I like card games just fine. Explain to me please what part of 'I'm going to make you gamble to obtain cards' is crucial to the design or play of the game? It is exploitative and cynical, and there's no reason they couldn't just give players access to the full library of cards for a flat fee, save that they make a lot more money the other way.

Collectible/Trading card games in particular have always been built on the Card Pack model, as far as I can tell.

The Idea/theory is that, by giving you a semi-randomized selection of cards, your collection, and deck, become Unique, and building the best deck you can out of the cards you have is a special experience, rather than just building "The Best Deck".


In reality, people just buy cards until they can build The Best Deck. You get to the same place as any game with a Meta, but it's a lot more expensive to get there.


As for Overwatch loot boxes, I have a lot of trouble coming up with moral outrage against any form of Hat-Based Economy. Sure, it's just as much a money mill as Pay To Win games, but I've gotten everything I paid for. I bought Overwatch, not "Junkrat Dress-up 2016". You're not really deprived of anything substantial if you don't get loot boxes.

[The_Jackal]

Collectible/Trading card games in particular have always been built on the Card Pack model, as far as I can tell.

Yes, and they've been a gouge since M:tG back in the 1990's. However, there are many other good card games which are 'all in' instead of 'buy packs ad-infinitum', such as Guillotine, Cards Against Humanity, or even a Deck Construction style game like Dominion.

The Idea/theory is that, by giving you a semi-randomized selection of cards, your collection, and deck, become Unique, and building the best deck you can out of the cards you have is a special experience, rather than just building "The Best Deck".

And you can impose that restriction in a 'per-game' environment rather than maintaining a personal collection if you want that style of game. But that's not the game they're making. They're making 'buy cards until you can field a deck worth 10k+ dust worth of cards, until the meta changes, or the next expansion drops, and most of your deck becomes worthless.

In reality, people just buy cards until they can build The Best Deck. You get to the same place as any game with a Meta, but it's a lot more expensive to get there.

Precisely.

As for Overwatch loot boxes, I have a lot of trouble coming up with moral outrage against any form of Hat-Based Economy. Sure, it's just as much a money mill as Pay To Win games, but I've gotten everything I paid for. I bought Overwatch, not "Junkrat Dress-up 2016". You're not really deprived of anything substantial if you don't get loot boxes.

I have no moral outrage, I just think it's less fun than it would otherwise be if they just charged players money at the door and could then give out rewards more liberally, because Blizzard already got their money. Sluggish reward schedules are the price of micro-transactions.

[Psyren]

Spoiler: Hearthstone Stuff

Show

The only decks that ever see play with F2P are Pirate Warrior and Midrange Hunter (rip Quest Rogue). Can't deny that buying cards is pretty much necessary to stay on top of the meta, unless you only like playing aggro.

I do deny it, and quite easily. Try playing something other than ladder.

Is Arena identical to Constructed? Then I guess that is a fact, not an opinion. It is a fact that Arena focuses on raw card value in lieu of card synergies and combos. Now you're right in so far as whether you care about card synergies and combos is a matter of taste, so yes, my opinion is that 'is this card bigger than the other one' makes Arena a dumb and bad mode of play.

"These two things are different" is obviously factual. Your conclusions beyond that are opinion.

I don't think you get arbitrary authority to decide what pay to win means. P2W means that if you pay money, you get in game power, faster and more easily than if you didn't pay, which is a feature I have come to despise every time I encounter it, because it means that your play experience, should you choose to go free-tier, will be dominated by having your face stomped in by wallet warriors.

Except the amount you pay is irrelevant to Arena, and to most Brawls. The few times you get a brawl that relies on your collection, you can simply choose not to play if you think your cards arent up to snuff, though honestly with my F2P cards I've won most of those too.

Arena is a zero-sum game. If you win, someone else needs to lose. The gold yield of a 3 win arena run is not enough to queue for another arena run, so you're obliged to wait til a day or two for your next quest to provide some more gold for an Arena run.

HS is a very lightweight game, as evidenced by the fact it can be played on your cellphone. If I run out of gold for Arena, waiting isn't a problem; I just play something else or Brawl.

[The_Jackal]

Spoiler: Hearthstone Stuff

Show

"These two things are different" is obviously factual. Your conclusions beyond that are opinion.

Sure. So is my opinion that micro-transactions make every game worse. What I'm doing is articulating WHY I think micro-transactions make everything worse. It's not a complicated thesis: The price of micro-transaction content is odious reward schedules. If you don't find the reward schedule obvious, if you find some particular gratification out of getting less cool stuff because the publisher wants to slap a price tag on that stuff, more power to you.

Except the amount you pay is irrelevant to Arena, and to most Brawls. The few times you get a brawl that relies on your collection, you can simply choose not to play if you think your cards arent up to snuff, though honestly with my F2P cards I've won most of those too.

Yet Arena and Brawls themselves are rate-limited, again, by micro-transactions. Now if you're a superlative player and can average 7+ wins per Arena run, then you're going to be able to do as much Arena as you want, but every time you win, someone else loses, which means that your gold stream is being subsidized by someone else's quest gold or cash. And, as I've said before, Arena (and most Brawls) are a sad, watered-down version of the constructed game.

HS is a very lightweight game, as evidenced by the fact it can be played on your cellphone. If I run out of gold for Arena, waiting isn't a problem; I just play something else or Brawl.

That strategy won't let you catch up to a cash-paying player any more quickly. Effectively your advice to adapt to the parsimonious reward schedule imposed by the micro-transaction model is "Don't play the game, play this other, much duller game, or do something else." Not exactly a stirring endorsement of the payment model, imo.

Looks like the D.va nerfs are really getting the masses on tilt. I'm surprised, I'd have though there would be far more non D.va mains in favor of nerfing Matrix than D.va mains desperate to keep the status quo. I for one won't miss matrix, though perhaps a reversion to a 'one button' DM (ie: you use the cooldown, get 4 seconds of immunity, then go on cooldown, no reservoir mechanic) might work better than just cutting the DM budget in half. Feathering DM is just too effective, when paired with a barrier, imo.

[Winthur]

Spoiler: hearthstone

Show

Spoiler: Hearthstone Stuff

Show

I do deny it, and quite easily. Try playing something other than ladder.

Oh yeah? What level of serious competition am I on when playing Tavern Brawl Rehash that often relies on boring RNG or some gimmick that gets boring after 3 games? What sorta meta is there in Arena, other than "pick Mage, Rogue or Paladin and pick cards to fit your curve"? Sure, arena is fun, playing the hand you're dealt and all, but it still doesn't feel like I have my own deck with its own identity.

I've had plenty of fun with my janky constructed decks - all of them variations on aggro, because nothing else works if your legendary budget is Lorewalker Cho and the Karazhan adventure; I had an oldschool Zoolock, a Burn Mage, a Steward of Darkshire-Moroes Paladin, Token Druid and Shaman. But I never climbed much and after a while it became apparent that I would just have to dust everything and put everything into a single deck (like all "f2p-to-legend" accounts ever), and I just didn't want that because the idea was boring and I'd probably still end up relying on just netdecking.

[The_Jackal]

Look, let's drop the HS sidebar, it's not productive, or on-topic, and at any rate, I was mostly trying to put the comparatively mild Overwatch Micro-transaction model into context. I could certainly come up with more uncontroversially egregious examples, like Dungeon Keeper Mobile.

[Psyren]

Spoiler: hearthstone

Show

Oh yeah? What level of serious competition am I on when playing Tavern Brawl Rehash that often relies on boring RNG or some gimmick that gets boring after 3 games? What sorta meta is there in Arena, other than "pick Mage, Rogue or Paladin and pick cards to fit your curve"? Sure, arena is fun, playing the hand you're dealt and all, but it still doesn't feel like I have my own deck with its own identity.

I've had plenty of fun with my janky constructed decks - all of them variations on aggro, because nothing else works if your legendary budget is Lorewalker Cho and the Karazhan adventure; I had an oldschool Zoolock, a Burn Mage, a Steward of Darkshire-Moroes Paladin, Token Druid and Shaman. But I never climbed much and after a while it became apparent that I would just have to dust everything and put everything into a single deck (like all "f2p-to-legend" accounts ever), and I just didn't want that because the idea was boring and I'd probably still end up relying on just netdecking.

I'm sorry your only possible definition of "serious competition" is the ladder. Just know that there are other, less narrow approaches to the game and I'd wager yours is in the minority.

Look, let's drop the HS sidebar, it's not productive, or on-topic, and at any rate, I was mostly trying to put the comparatively mild Overwatch Micro-transaction model into context. I could certainly come up with more uncontroversially egregious examples, like Dungeon Keeper Mobile.

That's indeed an actually good example, for a change.

[Spore]

Random IT rant: Who makes up these patch numbers? 1.14.1.2.B? I get 1.14 but the rest?

Spoiler: hearthstone

Show

Oh yeah? What level of serious competition am I on when playing Tavern Brawl Rehash that often relies on boring RNG or some gimmick that gets boring after 3 games? What sorta meta is there in Arena, other than "pick Mage, Rogue or Paladin and pick cards to fit your curve"? Sure, arena is fun, playing the hand you're dealt and all, but it still doesn't feel like I have my own deck with its own identity.

I've had plenty of fun with my janky constructed decks - all of them variations on aggro, because nothing else works if your legendary budget is Lorewalker Cho and the Karazhan adventure; I had an oldschool Zoolock, a Burn Mage, a Steward of Darkshire-Moroes Paladin, Token Druid and Shaman. But I never climbed much and after a while it became apparent that I would just have to dust everything and put everything into a single deck (like all "f2p-to-legend" accounts ever), and I just didn't want that because the idea was boring and I'd probably still end up relying on just netdecking.

Spoiler: Hearthstone

Show

With its simplified card combat mechanics (attacker chooses target instead of defender like Magic) and small decks it really takes away player agenda to be honest. Arena decks are just "the best you can fit into your curve while drafting" while Ladder boils down to "the most optimized meta decks because you are Rank 15+ and dont deserve variety or fun".

That plus the maximum hero health being 30 and only armor being able to stack on top shortens the game and narrows down the variety (in MTG my friend had a green elf healing deck which consistently healed him for 7-10 health every turn, often ending games with the enemy running out of cards and him sitting on 50ish health).

That's why the game needs more Kiblers and Noxious'es that brew up suboptimal but fun decks. Like trying to make Deathstalker Rexxar work or the Silence Priest joke which evolved into a top tier deck.

[Winthur]

I'm sorry your only possible definition of "serious competition" is the ladder. Just know that there are other, less narrow approaches to the game and I'd wager yours is in the minority.

Spoiler: hearthstone

Show

Rather, the majority, given that no signs in heaven or the earth say that Blizzard gives a crud about the Arena mode (the rewards for a complete 12 win run are often laughable, the cards are obviously never balanced with the Arena mode in mind, what with the supremacy of bonkers stuff like Vicious Fledgling). There's no recognition in being an arena grandmaster who consistently pulls off big wins, and the mode is inherently too random for it to even be quantifiable.

Blizzard also doesn't give a crap about Wild - it's there just because - Tavern Brawls are an obvious fun mode that doesn't track how l33t you are in the game, Heroic Tavern Brawls have an extremely steep entry cost.

I mean, sure, Arena is fun. But it's not something I'd play all the time.

Like The_Jackal, I think I will make this my closing statement, because I don't think this discussion is getting anywhere anyhow.

[BRC]

Looks like the D.va nerfs are really getting the masses on tilt. I'm surprised, I'd have though there would be far more non D.va mains in favor of nerfing Matrix than D.va mains desperate to keep the status quo. I for one won't miss matrix, though perhaps a reversion to a 'one button' DM (ie: you use the cooldown, get 4 seconds of immunity, then go on cooldown, no reservoir mechanic) might work better than just cutting the DM budget in half. Feathering DM is just too effective, when paired with a barrier, imo.

It sounds like they're also increasing the recharge speed, which is good. It still lets her protect her team, but without setting up a NO FUN ZONE for four seconds, and makes her less of a hard counter to Ults.

[Psyren]

Spoiler: hearthstone

Show

Rather, the majority, given that no signs in heaven or the earth say that Blizzard gives a crud about the Arena mode (the rewards for a complete 12 win run are often laughable, the cards are obviously never balanced with the Arena mode in mind, what with the supremacy of bonkers stuff like Vicious Fledgling). There's no recognition in being an arena grandmaster who consistently pulls off big wins, and the mode is inherently too random for it to even be quantifiable.

Blizzard also doesn't give a crap about Wild - it's there just because - Tavern Brawls are an obvious fun mode that doesn't track how l33t you are in the game, Heroic Tavern Brawls have an extremely steep entry cost.

I mean, sure, Arena is fun. But it's not something I'd play all the time.

I don't play for "recognition" - but if I did, I would expect spending money to be part of that. To think otherwise is entitlement, nothing more.

Like The_Jackal, I think I will make this my closing statement, because I don't think this discussion is getting anywhere anyhow.

Very well.

It sounds like they're also increasing the recharge speed, which is good. It still lets her protect her team, but without setting up a NO FUN ZONE for four seconds, and makes her less of a hard counter to Ults.

Short duration with short recharge would be perfect in my opinion. Otherwise just stick her in the dps category.

[Velaryon]

Could you take the Hearthstone discussion to a separate thread if you want to continue it, please?

Looks like the D.va nerfs are really getting the masses on tilt. I'm surprised, I'd have though there would be far more non D.va mains in favor of nerfing Matrix than D.va mains desperate to keep the status quo. I for one won't miss matrix, though perhaps a reversion to a 'one button' DM (ie: you use the cooldown, get 4 seconds of immunity, then go on cooldown, no reservoir mechanic) might work better than just cutting the DM budget in half. Feathering DM is just too effective, when paired with a barrier, imo.

I interpret this as either A) proof that most people don't need/want a Defense Matrix nerf, and that it's another case of Blizzard catering too much to the pro scene, or B) an indication that the idea of tanks who can't do much actual tanking is unpopular.

[Winthur]

A) proof that most people don't need/want a Defense Matrix nerf, and that it's another case of Blizzard catering too much to the pro scene

Well, but who would they cater to otherwise?
If D.Va is the universal second tank because she deletes most ultimates, isn't that a fundamental problem with the game?

[Togath]

So... did Overwatch glitch on my end, or is the Deathmatch update exceptionally large? I've been holding off a few days due to internet troubles.

[Milo v3]

So... did Overwatch glitch on my end, or is the Deathmatch update exceptionally large? I've been holding off a few days due to internet troubles.

From the patch notes:

Developer Comments: Over the past few months, we’ve been working on a number of significant under-the-hood changes that will help us streamline the patching process. This will allow us to reduce the download size in future patches, but it does mean that today’s patch is larger than a traditional patch.

[Velaryon]

Well, but who would they cater to otherwise?
If D.Va is the universal second tank because she deletes most ultimates, isn't that a fundamental problem with the game?

They could cater to... I don't know, normal players who are the ones buying the game and all the loot boxes?

And no, that isn't a fundamental problem with the game because "deletes most ultimates" is a significant exaggeration, because there are already plenty of built-in things that she can't counter, and because blocking attacks (including some ultimates) is literally her job. They cut her armor in half and turned her mech into a giant fabergé egg so that she would actually rely on defense matrix more, instead of being played like a more mobile reaper like she was before. Now that people actually play her as Blizzard wanted, they go and cut D.va's tanking ability in half and give her more offensive options instead. It looks to me like they have no idea what they want her to be.

[The_Jackal]

They could cater to... I don't know, normal players who are the ones buying the game and all the loot boxes?

Normal players can use D.va just as effectively as the Koreans do. It's not like right-click is a really overly technical, highly mechanically challenging exercise. And believe me, the scrub demographic gets plenty of changes. That's why Roadhog was nerfed, in spite of being basically useless in tournament play. That's why Junkrat just got buffed. I don't see the logic in "This change makes D.va non-viable when played by morons" being a legitimate criticism. D.va is not a main tank, she's never been a main tank, not before the nerf, and not after. If you're on a team that won't bring a Winston to pair with your D.va, then guess what? Your team forfeited in the spawn room, and the only thing that alters that is the other team picking a comp just as dumb as the one yours did.

And no, that isn't a fundamental problem with the game because "deletes most ultimates" is a significant exaggeration, because there are already plenty of built-in things that she can't counter, and because blocking attacks (including some ultimates) is literally her job. They cut her armor in half and turned her mech into a giant fabergé egg so that she would actually rely on defense matrix more, instead of being played like a more mobile reaper like she was before. Now that people actually play her as Blizzard wanted, they go and cut D.va's tanking ability in half and give her more offensive options instead. It looks to me like they have no idea what they want her to be.

D.va does more than just 'deletes ults'. Lucio and Zenyatta delete ults too, and nobody's talking about nerfing Sound Barrier or Transcendence. The issue is that D.va as currently designed can delete 40% of the damage the other team inflicts, in addition to neutering a really wide range of ults. A teamfight can be all but over in 4 seconds.

[Velaryon]

Normal players can use D.va just as effectively as the Koreans do. It's not like right-click is a really overly technical, highly mechanically challenging exercise. And believe me, the scrub demographic gets plenty of changes. That's why Roadhog was nerfed, in spite of being basically useless in tournament play. That's why Junkrat just got buffed. I don't see the logic in "This change makes D.va non-viable when played by morons" being a legitimate criticism. D.va is not a main tank, she's never been a main tank, not before the nerf, and not after. If you're on a team that won't bring a Winston to pair with your D.va, then guess what? Your team forfeited in the spawn room, and the only thing that alters that is the other team picking a comp just as dumb as the one yours did.



D.va does more than just 'deletes ults'. Lucio and Zenyatta delete ults too, and nobody's talking about nerfing Sound Barrier or Transcendence. The issue is that D.va as currently designed can delete 40% of the damage the other team inflicts, in addition to neutering a really wide range of ults. A teamfight can be all but over in 4 seconds.

If she's deleting 40% of your entire team's damage, you're engaging her wrong.

[Winthur]

If she's deleting 40% of your entire team's damage, you're engaging her wrong.

Are we assuming perfect play only for the team that engages D.Va and not for D.Va herself? Because "properly" engaging an extremely mobile offtank with a wide-coned delete-projectiles skill that you don't even have to particularly aim, on top of her fairly potent close-range machine guns is a very interesting subject.

Do you realize that, for many characters, "properly engaging" a D.Va includes having to demech her first, because otherwise the payload from ultimates such as Rocket Barrage or Tactical Visor requires gambling on the enemy D.Va's bad reaction speed and situational awareness?

Do you realize that D.Va's design doesn't encourage her staying directly in the frontline, but rather behind her damage dealers, to be able to project her Matrix directly on them?

Do you know that the 600 HP, which dwindles oh so fast when put under the scrutiny of focus fire, is suddenly a much tougher nut to crack for many flankers - the only ones capable of engaging her in an optimal situation - whose damage is vastly cut down by D.Va's layer of armor?

I mean, you're saying "just be better than the enemy D.Va AS A TEAM". What if D.Va's better than you? Then you have to be even better than her. And so on, and so forth, and oh look, we're approaching the territory of perfect play and D.Va is still a top tier off-tank.

If your argument is hinging on "git gud", then it kinda doesn't make sense to balance primarily for lower-level people in the first place, does it? I mean, all they have to do is to git gud and they'll see the problem.

[The_Jackal]

If she's deleting 40% of your entire team's damage, you're engaging her wrong.

You realize we're talking about the tournament scene, right?

[Geno9999]

If she's deleting 40% of your entire team's damage, you're engaging her wrong.

Are we assuming perfect play only for the team that engages D.Va and not for D.Va herself? Because "properly" engaging an extremely mobile offtank with a wide-coned delete-projectiles skill that you don't even have to particularly aim, on top of her fairly potent close-range machine guns is a very interesting subject.

Do you realize that, for many characters, "properly engaging" a D.Va includes having to demech her first, because otherwise the payload from ultimates such as Rocket Barrage or Tactical Visor requires gambling on the enemy D.Va's bad reaction speed and situational awareness?

Do you realize that D.Va's design doesn't encourage her staying directly in the frontline, but rather behind her damage dealers, to be able to project her Matrix directly on them?

Do you know that the 600 HP, which dwindles oh so fast when put under the scrutiny of focus fire, is suddenly a much tougher nut to crack for many flankers - the only ones capable of engaging her in an optimal situation - whose damage is vastly cut down by D.Va's layer of armor?

I mean, you're saying "just be better than the enemy D.Va AS A TEAM". What if D.Va's better than you? Then you have to be even better than her. And so on, and so forth, and oh look, we're approaching the territory of perfect play and D.Va is still a top tier off-tank.

If your argument is hinging on "git gud", then it kinda doesn't make sense to balance primarily for lower-level people in the first place, does it? I mean, all they have to do is to git gud and they'll see the problem.

In other words, if the enemy D.va is deleting 40% of your team's damage, the D.va is doing her goddamn job.

Also I consider D.va's guns to be less of a machine gun and more of an automatic shotgun.

[The_Jackal]

In other words, if the enemy D.va is deleting 40% of your team's damage, the D.va is doing her goddamn job.

It's actually far better than 40% in practice, because you're assuming that the enemy team's incoming damage comes at no risk. Nothing could be further from the truth. In reality, 4 seconds is an eternity of battle in an organized teamfight. Now, if one side is taking NO damage, and the other side isn't, how do you think that teamfight is going to go? So, they lose the teamfight, regroup, during which D.va, if you haven't managed to de-suit her, will have a full tank of Matrix once again.

Also I consider D.va's guns to be less of a machine gun and more of an automatic shotgun.

D.va's guns are kinda garbage. She's got a shotgun, right? Reaper's shotgun does up to 140 per shot, 280 DPS until he needs to reload, and 204 DPS sustained. Roadhog's shotgun does up to 150 per shot, 195 DPS until he needs to reload, and 183 DPS sustained. D.va does 22 per shot, 146 DPS sustained, since she never needs to reload. She also attenuates really quickly, can't move and shoot, and has, of course, her giant hitbox. So I'm not surprised that Matrix is on the knife-edge of balance. Too much, and she's an incredibly unbalanced enabler that gives your team immunity to everything except melee and Roadhog's hook, not enough, and she's a slow, underpowered Roadhog with no hook.

Look, I like D.va, I want her to be effective, but I do think Matrix needs to be toned down. Give her something else to compensate sure, whether that's more armor, or more damage, but I'd just assume that the pro teams know what they're talking about when they point out a balance problem.

[Psyren]

You realize we're talking about the tournament scene, right?

Blizzard's (unenviable) job is to balance for both.

[The_Jackal]

Blizzard's (unenviable) job is to balance for both.

Precisely, and all the while making a roster of accessible heroes who don't require nearly so much mechanical skill as you'd expect from a typical FPS. But the point is when the argument is 'Nerfing D.va for the tournament scene kills her for casual play', you can't really recruit "If she's deleting 40% of your entire team's damage, you're engaging her wrong." into that argument. Here's the thing: Velaryon *might* be right, the D.va changes may hurt her utilization and/or succcess at low SR. But as you say, Blizzard's job is to balance for both. I'm hoping that her re-design will make her still useful in the low-SR clownfiesta, where some extra personal DPS will make up for a Defense Matrix where nobody is likely anywhere near you anyhow.

[The_Jackal]

In an unrelated note, I decided to push a large number of games in competitive this week, and wow, does my SR hurt. I know it's just a number, but I'm really feeling the ELO Hell. Threw 7/10 placements, and dropped another 100 or so SR since then, and while I'm not going to say my play was superlative by any stretch I feel like so little of my own contribution actually swings games, there's no point in even playing competitive (besides Gold Weapon Skins). When you're fortunate enough to get a team of people that communicate and play competitively the games go fairly well. The rest of the time, it's just Quick play all over again. Mute players, bad comps, trickling in (fortunately, only one actual thrower/troll this weekend).

I know I shouldn't care so much about the SR, but it's really disheartening to play so many games where nothing I can do can swing the game in my favor.