New Widowmaker Scope

PTR Bug Report
Prev 1 5 6 7 8 Next
10/01/2016 01:55 AMPosted by Kwacker

You expect a response to a popular, well thought out and perfectly reasonable Widow thread?
The last few posts as well as apparently ignoring the one person who took the time to explain your presumed problem away (not talking about myself) seems far from perfectly reasonable to me. If I was a community manager type, I'd consider it a waste of time to try and convince anyone around here of anything at this point.
Just because a popular name posted doesn't make the overall tone look any less like a bunch of people just wanting someone more 'official' to vent at without any intention of having an actual discussion.
Just check out all the downvotes this post is due to receive because I said something other than "you're all totally right and deserve an apology because you said so."

For what it's worth, "reduced scope-in time" is technically an accurate description of what has changed. It's not the devs' fault everyone presumed it wouldn't be compensated for in the charge time. In fact, it seems counterintuitive to presume they'd do anything to reduce the actual charge time, considering it's historically the most consistently nerfed aspect of the character since before the big nerf even happened.
@Icefrost
Firstly, I can understand that the sarcastic tone of my post may have come across childish but frankly, repeatedly checking on threads and taking considerable amounts of time to give reasoned, thought out responses (as I have done in the past) and being totally ignored the devs whilst they focus on responses to threads about "Action Figures" (http://us.battle.net/forums/en/overwatch/topic/20745055313) or a post with 28 downvotes about 'when we'll see a Finish Overwatch hero' (http://us.battle.net/forums/en/overwatch/topic/20749145820#post-11) is exhausting. I considered not making the post I did but ended up deciding that the devs need to know that there are people who have lost a lot of faith in them over the way they've treated Widow's situation.

I'm not the sort of person who goes about blindly being critical, if anything I'm the opposite. If you take a glimpse over my post history you'll see generally positive posts and praise for the devs. If you were to bother going back even further you would find responses of mine on the old "Widow clunk" thread 4 months ago telling people to have faith in the devs, that even though they're not responding they've seen the feedback and will find a way to sort out the problems they've caused expediently. But honestly, I'm done having faith in the balance team until they show they deserve it; they've screwed up, ignored one of the most popular topics on the forums for 4 months and then when they've attempted a fix, they've either knowingly hidden one of the changes they made in the hope we don't notice, or it's a bug (which would be fine if they actually communicated for once and confirmed it).

With that explained, I'll go over your post:
The last few posts as well as apparently ignoring the one person who took the time to explain your presumed problem away (not talking about myself) seems far from perfectly reasonable to me.

Kephrii's post explains, with detailed numbers, how Widow is not functioning as the patch notes would lead us to believe. He posted this in the PTR bug report forums as the patch notes seem to suggest that this is an unintended change - to me that is perfectly reasonable. If I understand which post you mean, then you're talking about the post which says that you're still shooting 150ms faster so it's still a buff. I would be inclined to agree that it's still a buff however: A) That's not black and white as explained by Astrallas and B) It still doesn't address the fact that this appears to be an unintended change.
If I was a community manager type, I'd consider it a waste of time to try and convince anyone around here of anything at this point.

The only reason it's got to this point is because they've neglected a large group of people for 4 months as explained - people are pissed off and I can understand why. However, the only way to fix that is to start communicating now and the reasonable ones among us will respond positively. Continuing to ignore everyone will only serve to exacerbate the problem. Also, they don't need to try and convince anyone of anything here, they can just say either "this is not a bug" or "yes, this is a bug and will be fixed".
Just because a popular name posted doesn't make the overall tone look any less like a bunch of people just wanting someone more 'official' to vent at without any intention of having an actual discussion.
Just check out all the downvotes this post is due to receive because I said something other than "you're all totally right and deserve an apology because you said so."

I don't think the fact that it's Kephrii who posted it changes anything. As stated, it's a seemingly unintended change posted in the bug report section. The reasonable ones among us (and every group has people who don't fit under that title) aren't asking for someone to vent at, we're asking for answers. In this case answers to the questions "Was this change intended?" and "If not, is it going to get fixed before this change makes it to live?".
For what it's worth, "reduced scope-in time" is technically an accurate description of what has changed. It's not the devs' fault everyone presumed it wouldn't be compensated for in the charge time.

Reduced scope in time is absolutely an accurate description of one of the changes which has happened they just failed to mention increased charge time. We shouldn't have to presume either way since the patch notes should be there to tell us what changes have taken place and if they don't mention something in the patch notes then I think it's absolutely fair to assume that nothing else has been deliberately changed.

Anyway, it's turned out to be a long post but I figured after posting something which could come across as unreasonable/childish, it would be unconducive to the whole situation to leave it at that without explaining what drove me to it. Well done to anyone with attention span to read it all.
Reduced scope in time is absolutely an accurate description of one of the changes which has happened they just failed to mention increased charge time. We shouldn't have to presume either way since the patch notes should be there to tell us what changes have taken place and if they don't mention something in the patch notes then I think it's absolutely fair to assume that nothing else has been deliberately changed.
As I tried to already put across, I think the default assumption shouldn't include faster charging since the official wording only mentions scoping, particularly since you can more than offset it by taking your shot earlier than full charge - which in turn seems a fair thing to assume if you're in a spot where that faster scoping ought to make much of a difference anyway. Just to be clear on this, I'm not trying to pull a technicality in defense of the patch notes. I straight up intuitively disagree that the "stealth nerf" discussed here should constitute a separate note in the first place.

Anyway, it's turned out to be a long post but I figured after posting something which could come across as unreasonable/childish, it would be unconducive to the whole situation to leave it at that without explaining what drove me to it. Well done to anyone with attention span to read it all.
With my above mentioned sentiment clarified, you can see why the tone most people took here so far seems rather unfair from where I'm standing, to the point where I'm inclined to think that even a simple "it's intended and not a bug" from a Blizzard blue would simply result in people throwing hate and not wanting to hear about it and basically insisting that they are owed not just a response, but one that they like, at that.
Wouldn't be the first time I see that happen on a Blizzard forum somewhere, trust me.

It doesn't help either that people are making it out to sound like it's only the devs wanting to keep the resident hitscan sniper on an especially tight leash balance wise. My money is on dislike of such characters being a vast majority audience opinion, what with Overwatch trying to be new and different from the last decade or two of FPS games and attracting a much wider audience than just the shooter veterans used to dealing with such mechanics, as opposed to seeing them as fundamentally and categorically unfair and overpowered due to being a newcomer to the genre, or older gamers like myself who have been to the iD software classics and back again who find it a critical selling point of Overwatch that it doesn't feel like a quickscoping aimduel arena half as much as many other titles regardless of ability to play those too.

Thank you for taking the time to write a response that helps make the thread seem more receptive again.
As I tried to already put across, I think the default assumption shouldn't include faster charging since the official wording only mentions scoping, particularly since you can more than offset it by taking your shot earlier than full charge - which in turn seems a fair thing to assume if you're in a spot where that faster scoping ought to make much of a difference anyway. Just to be clear on this, I'm not trying to pull a technicality in defense of the patch notes. I straight up intuitively disagree that the "stealth nerf" discussed here should constitute a separate note in the first place.

I think there's a misundertanding here, either on my side or yours, which is resulting in our disagreement. From my understanding, the patch notes said that scope-in time had been reduced by 200 milliseconds which would lead to the total time from unscoped -> full charge reducing from 1400ms to 1200ms. However, in the PTR it has only reduced to 1250ms which means either:

A) The scope in time has only reduced by 150ms
B) The charge time on Widow's shot has been increased by 50ms

We're not asking for Widow's shot charge time to be sped up when compared to live, only for it to remain the same. I'm sorry if I haven't understood your point here, like I said, the misunderstanding could just as likely be on my end.
With my above mentioned sentiment clarified, you can see why the tone most people took here so far seems rather unfair from where I'm standing, to the point where I'm inclined to think that even a simple "it's intended and not a bug" from a blizzard blue would simply result in people throwing hate and not wanting to hear about it and basically insisting that they are owed not just a response, but one that they like, at that.

I absolutely see the unfortunate reality of the fact that a blue post on a Widow thread is likely to be responded to unreasonably by many. On the other hand, I think that the developers have to take partial responsibility for the atmosphere they've cultivated through the way they've seemingly totally ignored the Widow threads that have had really positive discussion whilst replying to menial threads as well as similar threads about other heroes. The way the McCree/Widow nerfs came at the same time but they buffed McCree back up to viability within weeks whilst continuing to nerf Widow further. All of these sorts of things have led to a real feeling of neglect towards Widow and have left a sour taste in a lot of people's mouths. They have to understand that after 3/4 months of high effort posts being ignored, many of the people putting effort into their posts give up whilst those who just flame/troll stick around as they're not as invested.

This isn't to take responsibility out of the hands of us, the people in these threads, to remain reasonable since - even looking at it selfishly - it's better for everyone; it's more to give perspective on why these threads often come across unreceptive and, best case, for the devs to reflect on if they happen to read it so as to help prevent the same thing happening again.

Thank you for taking the time to write a response that helps make the thread seem more receptive again.

And thank you for taking the time to actually read what I wrote and attempting to look at things from another perspective - it's a great quality to have and one many people on the internet seem to lack.
10/02/2016 06:50 PMPosted by Kwacker

I think there's a misundertanding here, either on my side or yours, which is resulting in our disagreement. From my understanding, the patch notes said that scope-in time had been reduced by 200 milliseconds which would lead to the total time from unscoped -> full charge reducing from 1400ms to 1200ms. However, in the PTR it has only reduced to 1250ms which means either:

A) The scope in time has only reduced by 150ms
B) The charge time on Widow's shot has been increased by 50ms

We're not asking for Widow's shot charge time to be sped up when compared to live, only for it to remain the same. I'm sorry if I haven't understood your point here, like I said, the misunderstanding could just as likely be on my end.


Let me give this one more shot then, in a really short manner this time:

Patch notes say: scope-in time reduced to buff character's mobility a bit.

You read: "time to first fully charged shot reduced by exactly that amount, giving a head start dps wise. Anything else would be inaccurate information in the patch notes."

I read: "time to first possible moment to shoot at all reduced in every scenario where that .2 seconds applies in the context of mobility, therefore patch notes are accurate."
This seems intended Jeff is a !@#$ing %^-*!@#
Would you please just fix her already...
We are talking about milisecs that are not gamebreaking in power level but annoying from gameplay perspective.

Is there any chance to correct her right-first-time?

Thank you

Note: its pretty disturbing that the community knows these details better than blizz itself
I am seriously disappointed at Blizzard. Seriously, what is your problem with Widowmaker? Everyone is her counter in this game, she has no mobility and a clunky scope, a useless mine that does damage to herself (does that make any sense? I wonder why McCree's flash bomb doesn't stun himself as well), she's nothing like the character you showed us in the cinematics. Hanzo's projectile hitbox is insane, his damage is higher, he kills people aiming at their feet, he has her ultimate in his shift skill, you can barely track his arrows while widows shots look like !@#$ing lasers across the map, he can spam his arrows and he's much faster overwall... and you nerf Widow? Seriously? If you are not going to take her seriously just remove her from the game so us Widow lovers can move on. Quick scoping is not enough when %^-*ing tanks have greater mobility than you.
Bump for Blue Post
Bumping for blue post
10/03/2016 11:34 AMPosted by Kephrii
Bump for Blue Post
double !@#$ing bump bump for blue post i want answers now. I feel cheated after waiting four months to have widow buffed! I was already unpleased about that fact that it took four entire month (after ignoring every single post about widowmaker needing to be buffed after a very vague response) to just buff the scope in animation by 0.2 seconds which you could have done for us in a tiny hot fix patch like you've done with mccree every single %^-*ing patch. I know you guys are cats when it comes to trying balance widowmaker your own freaking creation. Now that you finally buffed her you announce the buff so everyone can just shut up so they annoy you less while putting in a very inteneded nerf without even mentioning it to the player base who happened to pay 60 dollars or more to play your game??? is this how blizzard treats their costumer?

Just admit that you guys screwed up and rever the animation cancle change. I am not asking for 150 body shot back. I am not asking for grappling hook cool down. I am not asking for a useful mine. I am not asking for shorter cool down on her ultimate. I am not asking for her super noticible red trail of "o here i am. Come kill me winston" line. I am merely asking for quickscoping to make the character feel smoother so i can keep up with other freaking clying, teleporting, dashing, wall climbing, and rocket jumping characters.

Jesus you guys are stubborn about your own changes that clearly does not work.

Delete her if you are just ganan toy around with our desperation to have her viable again so I can just give up.

Sincerely, a very dissapoitned 24 year old player who has been enjoying your game since the release of starcraft 1.
So we went digging into the scripts pretty hard after reviewing this thread, and we did find one bug that is probably causing some confusion for you guys. The bug is this: The first shot she ever charged would take 0.1s longer to charge than any subsequent shot for the rest of the match. Keep in mind this bug as been in forever, this isn't a new bug to the PTR.

We'll have a fix up soon, thanks for checking this out!
10/03/2016 04:35 PMPosted by Geoff Goodman
So we went digging into the scripts pretty hard after reviewing this thread, and we did find one bug that is probably causing some confusion for you guys. The bug is this: The first shot she ever charged would take 0.1s longer to charge than any subsequent shot for the rest of the match. Keep in mind this bug as been in forever, this isn't a new bug to the PTR.

We'll have a fix up soon, thanks for checking this out!


so wut he is saying is that the research we did is completely false?
10/03/2016 04:35 PMPosted by Geoff Goodman
So we went digging into the scripts pretty hard after reviewing this thread, and we did find one bug that is probably causing some confusion for you guys. The bug is this: The first shot she ever charged would take 0.1s longer to charge than any subsequent shot for the rest of the match. Keep in mind this bug as been in forever, this isn't a new bug to the PTR.

We'll have a fix up soon, thanks for checking this out!


I would like you guys for getting back this this roaring crowd and I atleast would like to say thank you!
10/03/2016 04:35 PMPosted by Geoff Goodman
So we went digging into the scripts pretty hard after reviewing this thread, and we did find one bug that is probably causing some confusion for you guys. The bug is this: The first shot she ever charged would take 0.1s longer to charge than any subsequent shot for the rest of the match. Keep in mind this bug as been in forever, this isn't a new bug to the PTR.

We'll have a fix up soon, thanks for checking this out!


Thank you so much for responding. This is ALMOST what I was talking about. Could you please review the scripts and your numbers? I'm experiencing this on EVERY first charged shot when scoping in.

Additionally, there was no way to know for sure that Live servers had a .1s delay because I had nothing to compare it to (since it's likely been that way since launch. I did however instantly notice it on PTR which lead to my conclusion that it was PTR related. Thank you very much for looking into my concern and fixing it!
10/03/2016 04:35 PMPosted by Geoff Goodman
So we went digging into the scripts pretty hard after reviewing this thread, and we did find one bug that is probably causing some confusion for you guys. The bug is this: The first shot she ever charged would take 0.1s longer to charge than any subsequent shot for the rest of the match. Keep in mind this bug as been in forever, this isn't a new bug to the PTR.

We'll have a fix up soon, thanks for checking this out!
I don't think this is what we meant but thanks anyway
10/03/2016 04:35 PMPosted by Geoff Goodman
So we went digging into the scripts pretty hard after reviewing this thread, and we did find one bug that is probably causing some confusion for you guys. The bug is this: The first shot she ever charged would take 0.1s longer to charge than any subsequent shot for the rest of the match. Keep in mind this bug as been in forever, this isn't a new bug to the PTR.

We'll have a fix up soon, thanks for checking this out!


Thats not what this thread is about at all.. Its about a delay on every first shot.
10/03/2016 04:35 PMPosted by Geoff Goodman
So we went digging into the scripts pretty hard after reviewing this thread, and we did find one bug that is probably causing some confusion for you guys. The bug is this: The first shot she ever charged would take 0.1s longer to charge than any subsequent shot for the rest of the match. Keep in mind this bug as been in forever, this isn't a new bug to the PTR.

We'll have a fix up soon, thanks for checking this out!
I appreciate the response, but I don't think that is the issue that has been observed. Could you confirm the hard numbers for us? On paper and as it's been relayed to us:
scope is now 0.3sec
.9sec charge
1.2sec total to first fully charged shot.

Whereas what has been observed and recorded is a .95 sec charge on every shot.

Thanks again for looking into this, Geoff.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum