Any Other Barb Bros Try OVERWATCH BETA?

Barbarian
05/09/2016 12:58 PMPosted by Shady
For the games you detest
The formula would be
Performance = Keyboard skills% X Brain Work%^2

For the games you like
The formula becomes
Performance = Keyboard skills%^2 X Brain Work%


Where are you getting these formulas? This is getting ridiculous.

Yes, in certain instances, the games I mentioned limit you based on your keyboard skills. But even that varies from game to game and circumstance to circumstance. A SC player with less APM than his rival is not necessarily at a disadvantage depending on build, map, style of play. A Medic in TF2 relies less on aim and fine micro control than on team management, making calls, and working in conjunction with his pocket.

I may be wrong, but based on your comments, I don't think you've played any of these games at a high level.

05/09/2016 12:58 PMPosted by Shady
SC2 audience is not that big compared to MOBAs. I don't think CS:GO can compete with MOBAs either.


You have a point there, particularly when comparing either game to LoL. But the audiences for SC and CS are by no means small. Nor does it dictate the relative skill required to play the game.

But here my bias is strong. I detest MOBAs. I think they're the disgusting slop of video games, horrible, ugly turds, and I rue the day -- RUE THE DAY -- they came into existence.
A SC player with less APM than his rival is not necessarily at a disadvantage depending on build, map, style of play.


Unless you play Zerg...then God help you lol.
I don't think you understand that formula......

The exponent doesn't have to be 2. it can be any positive number.

Any game can be dissected into factors with different exponents.

a^m X b^n X c^o.

If factor a is nonexistent then m is simply 0 for that game.

How much people like certain games depend on m, n, o and so on.

Grinding for better performance is nonexistent for MOBAs. so it would be Grinding^0 for that game.

If a game like Diablo favors Grinding and give people advantage with higher paragon for better performance in game then one of the factor is Grinding^m (m>0). The bigger the reward from grinding, the bigger the number m is.

For you, the exponent for keyboard skills are higher than the general gaming population. If you cant find certain character, race, or whatever that rewards you enough for keyboard skills, you dislike them.

I'm just pointing out how things work and why they are like that.

I quit playing RTS games when WC3 died and FPS games when CS died. There were no ranks or anything for me to use to prove myself. But I played very well in the competitive sense. You don't have to believe me.
05/09/2016 02:33 PMPosted by Pri
Unless you play Zerg...then God help you lol.


The Grand Finals from DH Austin aren't on YouTube yet, but I was really pulling for Neeb on this one.

:(

05/09/2016 04:17 PMPosted by Shady
Any game can be dissected into factors with different exponents.


No, you can't take the many variables and break them down into equations. I'm sorry, but it doesn't work like that.

But does it matter? That part of the discussion is purely academic. If you like Overwatch, you like it for what it is. Faced with the crushing disappointment of the DOOM beta, I wanted Overwatch to be an heir to Quake and TF2. It's not. Oh well. At least it's going to give a lot of people some hefty bang for the buck.

05/09/2016 04:17 PMPosted by Shady
I quit playing RTS games when WC3 died and FPS games when CS died. There were no ranks or anything for me to use to prove myself. But I played very well in the competitive sense. You don't have to believe me.


Huh? CS hasn't died. It's more popular than ever. CS:GO has expanded the game's competitive appeal and brought in droves of new players. It's more successful than Source by a mile, and arguably more successful than 1.6.

I'm not a CS player -- never really dug it, personally -- but if it's your cup of tea, now's a perfect time to jump back in.
05/09/2016 05:55 PMPosted by Free
Huh? CS hasn't died. It's more popular than ever. CS:GO has expanded the game's competitive appeal and brought in droves of new players. It's more successful than Source by a mile, and arguably more successful than 1.6.


Should've been more specific. Since CS1.5 died (in China).

I'm getting old. :(
Looks like a good game but I'm not paying $60 for it. It should be free to play.
A person who loaths the word "meta" will def not like this game. lol.

Played 3 Reinhards with buddies. lol. GG
I'm happy to purchase it. it seems fun and different, they can easily revamp it with new maps and character updates. and besides, i've been playing blizzard games for 10 years +++ so i guess i owe the a bit of coin anyways.
also for the record, with RTS games like the original SC:BW , where APM mattered alot, people think its just about button mashing and all that. and that automation of these activities is a good thing. but no it isn't the high manual upkeep required to play these games meant that a superior gamer could literally just play a lesser game out of the game. they had no ability to compete because they were just simply not on the level of the faster, smarter and more efficient gamer.

Thats why SC:BW was a strategical masterpiece, because there was so many avenues of competition available. it was a constant mind game of baiting the enemy, faking strategies, countering. you had to make decisions based on not only your current army and position within the game compared to your opponent, but to trade off on your production and resources. it was a constant war of attrition.

you had to learn to multitask and make smart strategic moves to outplay your opponent, and there were soo many ways to fight back or regain your advantage through just playing more efficiently, or smarter then your opponent, or controlling them.

with the new games, they started favoring higher HP units, slower movement speeds, less intense mechanics, and macro easing additions such as mass selections, mass building, automated mining. and while some of these seem like good additions that make things easier, they actually lower the skill ceiling significantly because now you dont have to learn to do those things, dont have to devote time to doing those things, and thus the gap between a professional gamer and a lesser gamer has become much much less.

that was the greatest thing about broodwar, is that it had literally perfect balance. it had an unlimited skill ceiling, in that there was always another way to improve or ascend your playstyle. there was always a higher level of game play to achieve. with the newer iterations of blizzard based RTS games, the skill ceiling is more or less capped at a level where you cant really progress too much.

i could rant alot more about these kinds of things tbh but i'll leave it there.

rip the era of professional gaming jedis
Try Paragon.
05/09/2016 09:44 PMPosted by Warrior
Looks like a good game but I'm not paying $60 for it. It should be free to play.


It's actually only $40 unless you're an idiot like me and went for the D3 wing edition which is 60 lol.
05/07/2016 01:27 PMPosted by Samir
D3 is a casualization of D2


And hota is a casualization of a starch that is mainly grown in Idaho and Ireland.
Came for the wings. Stayed for the headshots.

I bought the game prior to beta just for the mercy wings.

I enjoyed beta. And will continue to play Overwatch til WoW:Legion comes out. Then it'll be sporatic gameplay at best.

I think they've done a great job for what it is.

I understand it grew from salvaged "Titan" assets. I hope to hear the full story on that someday (if true). And what it all originally looked liked before it developed into this.

On a somewhat silly? side note:

It's strange to me that the Overwatch UI had such an affect on my appreciation of the experience. After having experienced the modern responsiveness of the Overwatch UI which has a very "console" feel to it. It will be painful going back to WoW's archaic UI for Legion. Even D3's feels just as ancient as WoW's and feels rather bland.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum