I remember hearing from a game designer who said that the testers of this shooter, I think it was one of Wolfensteins, were saying that a gun felt weak so they just got their audio guy to slap on some extra bass to the shooting sound and the testers when prompted again said they felt the difference and I hope I never forget this because it's a great example of game design being a slippery slope full of surprise twists and turns :)
Omg, thank you - As a hobbyist game designer with some formal teaching, this whole video is so well put. It's always driven me crazy when high level players speak about game design as if it's so obvious how to fix whatever issue, but with no real understanding or analysis of what the knock-on effects of such a change would be within the entire ecosystem. Game design changes are like getting on a new medication: You often do it to solve a specific problem, but it will inevitably lead to more system-wide changes that will result in other side effects - and, sometimes the side effects are worse than the problem you tried to solve!
This specific framing is actually something I was thinking of for a future video! People don’t really reckon with the butterfly effect nature of balance, and the medication example was something that I was thinking of because of my own experience with it (all of this to say, I’m taking this as a sign that I should bump that topic up the priority list lmao)
@@TheViveros That sounds awesome! I'm really looking forward to it =D I love that you cover these game design topics with such nuance - something I feel is generally lacking in these kinds of discussions. It gives greater visibility to the complexities of (game) design, and hopefully helps to foster better informed discussions within the community
that metaphor is really good, especially in the context of overwatch. Kiriko's Suzu was meant to solve the problem of Anti-nade being too strong, but instead caused Season 2 Roadhog which borderline made the game unplayable entirely, especially for lower ranks/quickplay. They overtuned supports to deal with the complaints that they were too weak in beta and up until season 2, and the game has been suffering from the conseequences of that ever since. The butterfly effects of the balance is what makes overwatch 2 worse overtime.
I cackled seeing the thumbnail, and you did not disappoint. This is a great breakdown of the inherent problem with the question of "who do we listen to". Also a great compliment to your "Why don't game developers fix obvious problems" video, where you also tackle the issue of people giving bad advice. Hope you get passed your writer's block. Here's to a new year!
That "hating minority" post is insane, I know it's not really the point but why would Jeff Bezos hate on Capitalism???? Hes a fucking billionaire!!! Like at least Oprah hating on Patriarchy and JayZ "pulling the racism card" make sense, but Jeff Bezos actively benefits from capitalism.
Figuring out the science of Combustion > Designing a functional Engine under those principles > Designing a Car to put that Engine into > understanding the mechanisms of the Engine in relation to the car in order to make it safe, functional, and affordable > Getting a License that in way no informs you of all the previous steps, just that "someone says you can drive now"- I will offer that a lot of these conversations are informed by frustration in a playerbase that does not have the vocabulary (design vocab. is filtered on multiple levels) to specify that frustration. Awkward's takes should not be taken as a standard, but as an extreme. That take was so far removed from any semblance of what goes into a game as complex as OW, even at the Balance level, nevermind in it's Design. Great breakdown video with a lot of insight! Glad to see you're still in great form
I’m glad someone finally said something I would always see high-level players, especially streamers talk down on low level players for even trying to have an opinion on balance it’s so weird
I've dealing with it for 5 yrs. It's been quite the show too, ever since nerfs have been introduced to a video game I've always thought about leaving the strong characters alone and buffing or reworking the weaker ones so they can have a chance to compete with the already good characters. I've also have it in my mind that if you cry out for nerfs you just got your ass handed to you buy a better player at that point you've got choices either take the L or use that as a motive to get better.
First: thank you for making this video! I’ve played a few games competitively, and it’s all too common for top players to call for changes that would absolutely butcher the majority of the player base. Second, and this is a bit of an aside: this video reminded me of being in college. Not everyone can afford it, and it’s fine if that’s not a viable option for most people. This isn’t an indictment on you if college wasn’t the right path for you specifically. But even with the debt, I’m grateful that I was able to get my degree for one reason: it proved to me that I don’t know shit. There’s something very formative about graduating high school, getting all high and mighty about your maturity and intelligence, and then having a professor give you a C- on a paper riddled with red marks. Not just red marks, but red marks that call you out every step of the way. Why did you make X assumption? Why did you source X claim and not Y claim? Why did you make this logical leap without first establishing a strong foundation that supports your position? Many college students get emotional whiplash from this, and it’s honestly a good thing. I came from a tiny, underfunded religious school that only managed to offer two AP classes by the time I was a junior, one of which I took. I had no access to the vast range of AP classes, IB classes, and extracurriculars that my new college peers had. They showed up at the same university as me, subtly bragged about their advanced courses from high school at every opportunity, and often treated me with condescension. To them, it wasn’t a matter of me lacking access to the same opportunities; I was clearly just lazy. Less ambitious. Less intelligent. So why should I be listened to? And you know what happened to those students? The exact. Same. Thing. Suddenly, they weren’t special. The professors couldn’t have cared less about their advanced high school courses. If those formerly-advanced students didn’t support their claims or made leaps in logic, they would be handed a C- like everyone else. By the time I entered my second year, I rarely heard my peers bragging about their high school achievements. And you know what? Good for them! That’s growth! I think the advanced students are a pretty good analogue for top players in an esport. In the case of Overwatch, high-ranked players tend to have a history of playing FPS games since childhood. They’ve built up years of experience and now only know the microcosm of their rank, leading them to view lower-ranked players as lazy and unworthy. But what if those lower-ranked players have experience in RTS games? Fighting games? MMOs? Games that heavily rely on teamwork and strategy but not on intense mechanical skill? They may not exist at the top levels of FPS games, but they might have a more nuanced understanding of why heroes are balanced the way they are. They might suck at Widow, but they also understand why the Overwatch Team would be hesitant to buff her because of her strength at GM and Top 500. Anyway, I know that was a ramble, but all of that is to say that you made some excellent points!
As a GM peak support with amateur team experience, I truly don't know a thing about balance or even coding in general. Not to mention that a lot of GM players are 100% the exact same accountability-dodging clueless toxic a-holes they were before their last few rank ups. There's no knowledge test to get there, you just have to be really good at a few things. For example, some people excel at ult tracking. That person shouldn't suddenly be trusted with knowing every aspect of the game. Though, they might have a unique perspective on ults charge rates. Even then, they might work around it if it's not too ridiculous.
You can be the best driver in the world, and teach others how to get better at driving, but just because you know how to operate the vehicle doesn't mean you know how to fix it if it breaks down. That's what the mechanics are for, and they don't need a driver's license to know how to fix a machine. The same applies to Overwatch, and any other game for that matter. Just because you're the best at playing the game doesn't mean you know how to make the game be its absolute best.
Yup. I mean, as a chemical engineer I know how to design chemical plants. Operate specific parts? Maintenaince? Oh hell no. I’m not nearly as qualified to attempt that. It might actually be a disaster, so I quite agree. You can be top 500 and still be incompetent when it comes to game design and/or balancing. Lmao
This. I'm a personal trainer and there is so much about the human body that requires specialist knowledge in. There's a reason why athletes require multiple different coaches in different expertise in order to get the best results. Likewise, game balance requires multiple different opinions taken into account to get the best results.
I love when I don't have the right idea on how to verbalize an idea about public sentiment but then someone chimes in so, so wrong that it immediately makes me understand how to formulate my counterargument.
Trying to gatekeep who is and isn't allowed to have an opinion is usually a very slippery slope towards having some questionable beliefs just asking to be exposed. Like, for example, if we kept moving the goalpost, and pushed it into "Oh yeah you may be top 500 but you don't play in an esports circuit, so your opinion isn't as valid as theirs". which is basically saying "Only men can have an opinion"; which gives me the ick. All feedback should be listened to and considered. No matter how many viewers/followers a person has, they're still just one person, who has one opinion. When designing a game for supposed 10s of millions, you shouldn't listen to one person. One of the hardest steps isn't even designing changes in response to feedback; it's turning the qualitative data of how things "feel", and pooling all that surplus of info, and turning it into something quantitative that -can- be used to determine what should be done next.
i have to agree with the other person here. while yes, there are a few female teams for ow and esports in general, it’s nowhere near enough. i think aiming to tackle the misogyny in gaming spaces would definitely improve the not only the numbers, but the QOL of existing teams.
Man did I ever tell you why soldier 76 shoots in a straight line? Some streamer bitched about his RNG spread because it got him and he died. And soon after the big content creators also where complaining about his spread and I'm just here thinking to myself "y'all never fired full auto before?" It was crazy man 🍿
I also feel like it isn't said enough that Overwatch isn't designed around being the highest rank, it's designed to be enjoyed by a wide variety of people. The way heroes are designed means that there will always be some heroes dominating lower ranks or casual play but having no impact on high ranked competitive play. That doesn't mean those characters should continue to noobstomp, it means that those heroes should be explicitly designed in a way that's fun for everyone, which is a concept people like Awkward fail to grasp. (I'd point fingers at Bastion if he weren't also causing higher ranked players issues, but typically Bastion tends to be a noobstomper) If we were to refine the car analogy to better fit what Overwatch is trying to achieve, each hero is like a multipurpose car designed for both casual usage, unprofessional racing, and professional racing. In order to properly design such a car, feedback is needed from all perspectives.
Okay, but I think you struck a super important point with "in real world sports have different rules in different settings" that, IMHO should be implemented in e-sports and competitive gaming. And to an extent it already is. Like how there is a "competitive ruleset" vs quickplay and arcade (mind you those were later additions to the game by popular demand if I am not mistaken). More recently in OW2 the devs thankfully realized the megabuffed tanks absolutely ruin game modes like deathmatch and open queue, so they introduced a smaller healthpool version for those game modes. And I think that philosophy should be extended on further. Because it is doable. Needs caution, but totally doable and good for the game.
I think if you had many rulesets then only the one used at the top level would be seen as the "legitimate" one. Its certainly the only one I'd play. Similar to how open queue isn't seen to be par with role queue. It would also make rank mobility worse if you made a ruleset for metal players that all the plants were great at but when they tried to play in diamond they had to learn a completely different system. As viv says I don't think multiple rulesets can work for any competitive game.
I'd play the one I find to be the most fun, but I do understand the mindset that people would have regarding it if it weren't considered "the best"@@rnd.0m458
reminds me of what Pokemon Smogon community does, they do not know game balance and created their own format with certain banned pokemon with and tiers what ended up happening was they banned pokemon that was anti-meta, which just ends up with the same stale meta or banning pokemon that have 'too many combinations of moves' that could theoratically have a move for every situations PROVIDED that pokemon could use more than 6+ moves, but since they dont want to learn to adapt or feel like they can't predict what the opponent will do, they just ban it (greninja).
you have to be one of my favorite content creators for this game. you always produce high-quality videos and you actually have palpable, real opinions. not some regurgitated stuff from a twitter echo chamber.
honestly a lot of americans do act like having a driver's license means they have good opinions about traffic engineering and planning. the metaphor was fine, it just says the opposite of what he thinks it does
We honestly needed this back in like 2017 when streamers began to run rampant with their irresponsible opinions, along with the OW devs thinking streams are indicative of game balance.
I love the seething anger coming from this video lmao. I’m masters in LoR. I cannot IMAGINE saying that qualifies me to make/balance cards. I can barely build a deck. I just understand how to work with what’s given to me and don’t know how people can make such leaps in logic.
A lot of OW content creators had awful takes that seriously damaged parts of the community beyond recognition. XQC, Flats, Sinatraa, Emongg, and Blame the Controller are a couple that come to mind. They have long since tried to rebrand themselves as "reformed," but I remember how much they trash-talked Support players and advocated for Mercy to be in the sorry state she is ever since 2019.
I LOVE this topic, it seriously needs to be shared, I have not ever seen a competitive game community which acts worse than ow one when it comes to this. This is partially why I really enjoyed val character design devs stream when valorant was just coming out sharing all the design details and actively responding to peoples concerns and critiques, sometimes people pointed out the right things and they were addressed but sometimes devs werent afraid to say X is wrong and people just havent learned how to play against it or utylize it and would leave those things as it is. I so often see people share feedback for devs in high elo and then come off so CLEARLY biased that it hurts, and also people need to remember that game being changed actually doesnt benefit pros in most cases as they usually are flexible with their picks and will play based on meta. A game being constantly updated and changed requires them to change and adapt to new metas and play styles which obviously isnt as easy as just repeating the same thing that works.
Also, I think this is something some gamers don't even realize, but the feedback you're gonna give no matter the rank is of course gonna be biased towards your own preferences. Of course if you play DPS you'd want DPS to be stronger and Tanks to be less effective and vice versa.
isn't awkward the "i don't allow myself to cry, i hit the gym instead" guy? by his logic a ufc referee doesn't understand mma cause they haven't held the championship of any division, or haven't been one of the top pfp fighters in any division. also remember that player who reached top500 on Brig when she first came out? did their input suddenly become of higher value the moment Brig was released?
Nope because their logic would be, "Support players are skill-less and don't know anything, therefore their rank and experience don't count." It's the same song and dance that the OW community has perpetuated and still perpetuates since 2016.
9:23 The next gen cars do actually have a rear camera that is technically the mirror, though most drivers choose to have the physical mirror instead of the digital one. Just wanted to say that cuz I love Nascar and can't shut up about it
the ONLY top 500 player that i think actualy knows about game design and has really cool and interesting opinions on the topic is Pro-like-chro. And he's pretty much a pariah among other content creators lol, the only time he was on SVB twitch channel, his chat was flabergasted because chro was exposing a lot of issues IN GAME DESIGN (not just comp/matchmaking ) and it was pretty obvious that overwatch 1 was POORLY designed in a lot of areas. I highly recomend his channel is very very good
Overall I think I agree with most of your points however some things came to mind: 1) having differences between age groups / leagues / levels in sports do create confusion. But players get used to it. Not only that, but players usually don't go from bronze to GM in 3 months. The changes would be spread over time, making it easier to learn. (Though having to support multiple version of the game for a balancing purpose would be a pain). 2) although top players don't have necessarily something useful to say when it comes to balance, I do think balancing around high ELO plays is important. I'll take League as an example since it's the game I know the best. The reason something seems broken in low ELO but never gets played in high ELO isn't that the character became irrelevant or that top players just never considered it. It's usually because in lower Elmo's, players don't know how to counter such strategies, meanwhile higher elos one will do what's needed to stop said character. (A fed bronze yi will swing a game far more than a challenger one). If something is broken in high ELO plays, it's usually because it's lacking suck counterplay possibilities. That's where balance patches comes in. Nerfing something that's strong in silver but irrelevant in GM doesn't necessarily help the players, it just lets them avoid having to learn how to deal with such picks, ultimately limiting their growth as players. Apart from that I wholeheartedly agree with your points!
What gets abused at the top, trickles to the lowest rank. Most complaints in lower ranks is legitimately just a skill issue that gets solved with playing more and using your head in figuring out what went wrong. Most complaints in highest ranks stem from the best players figuring out the "true" meta of any given point in a competitive season resulting into the sigma-shitfest we've in the previous season. However, complaints by metal ranks are a good indicator of how the game "feels". Whether its fun or not. Nothing to do with balance but more of whether the player feels they have an impact whether its a losing game or a winning game.
What if your already playing at a diamond level, but you only play with your friends, and they don't like comp? Or you just don't have the time to place?
Tbh the opinion of metal ranks is what matters the most imo, because while not everyone is able to reach grandmaster, everyone starts from bronze and if they ignore the bronze rank struggles, then people will be more likely to give up and not even get over those metal rank struggles grandmasters have no trouble in
I should also mention that while being condescending to those who are condescending to others feels good its not how we are going to win, it'll just poison the well of good faith
I'm always here for awkward slander. He's a very egotistical and sexist guy who really needs to take a long break from the internet. It's the same argument I've seen so many times, how high ranked players should be the only opinion or low ranks.
Yeah I am a filthy casual, hardstuck silver, so I might be biased, but I am so darn fed up with the stupid rank elitism many people subscribe to in this game (especially when really what skill/rank is reflective of is how much time you can afford to consistently put into the game and some of us have lives). Viveros talked about some of the points why that is stupid, but it is just so annoying and saddening when you see it pop up all the time. Thankfully there are content creators who are a lot more level headed and humble than awkward, but still.
This reminds me of when Sonic Foxx made his tier list for MK1 after the first balance patch. He called everyone traah and idiot for not agreeing with him. Little did he jnos that a low rier would win a major and a mid rier would make a return after Tekken Master won a major with him. These people might know their stuff about their game but they are not the owners of balance. They know their experience but they don't know all the data the creators gather for balance analysis.
Fun fact: I'm going into game dev, and people claiming rank gives them an authority on game balance bugs me! I have experience in game design via tabletop games, so I generally have a feel for balance. For instance, as a game designer and game dev, I've noticed from the view of a game designer that Zenyatta is EXTREMELY problematic due to his ability to singlehandedly shut down tanks. I am im bronze, and I've streamers in gold and plat and saw the same issue. This is, to be clear, my opinion, formulated upon my experience in game design and as a tank main. I'm not an expert at designing shooters, but I know my stuff well enough due to my tabletop experience and the degree I'm working towards to take an educated stab at a problem I've noticed. My solution for Zenyatta has always been to nerf his Discord Orb from 25% to 15%, but there are other ways, some of which may be better😢. Basically, don't try to argue that rank means in comp means you know how to design a game, and don't try to argue that because you do know how to design a game makes your solution infallible. As someone with tons of tabletop game design experience, I can confirm that there were several pieces of content that seemed fine, only to later realize during playtesting that I made an oopsie in the initial balance phase. Nobody's infallible, and acting like you are tells me that you're probably one of the last people I should get advice from.
"You shouldn't make a Spaceship you've never been to space or driven a rocket" I wonder how we got to space the first time 🤔 Same with observing space or microscopes. All discoveries came from asking questions for something we did not know or have context for and becoming experts in that field. You do not have to be an expert user to be an expert builder and often they don't intersect. Furthermore Game Design is a hard field and generally involves more than number changes. You generally have to reach for solutions others wouldn't have thought of out of thin air. For example, who of anyone ever thought of Virus for Sombra? We saw tons of arguments for remove this or add that or buff/nerf. I at no point saw something even remotely close. That's the product of Game Designers good at their craft and trying options. Experience and knowledge on how players think and feel and what causes frustration vs pleasure. You can be an observer and be WAY more knowledgeable of the way systems work. Maybe you don't have the dexterity for the game but are able to see clearly how the systems and pieces work. Alternatively, maybe you can't see the system but are just very good with your fingers to the point you outskill high enough. There's also a reason why knowledgeable players say there's a difference between T500, T100, T50, and Pro. Noticeable difference. The experience in other ranks is also MUCH more different than higher level players expect. There's one saying that has rang true for a while for me. When people give feedback generally the problem is correct but the solution is incorrect. They see the problem clearly as they're constantly hitting it or involved with it however lack the experience and knowledge to come up with a solution essentially. This is true in a lot of places in life. If someone says something is wrong or bad there's often a reason to dig at. Generally you can put their solution aside and dig into why they feel that and come up with your own solution if it makes more sense. There's some content creators who do it right. Flats, Emongg, and KarQ for the most part I enjoy watching because they acknowledge that they don't know everything and they aren't designers. They state their opinion but say the devs might have other ideas. They acknowledge their position and lack of expertise but give what feedback they can. That being said they're VERY aware of the game from other angles. KarQ often mentions how different the game is at metal ranks and how it's a COMPLETELY different game and you approach it differently. Again none of these should be THE source but you can start to see who is really studied and knowledgeable and also WEIGHING opinions properly versus talking into a megaphone of their singular experience and in an echo chamber. Being a content creator is a skill and that skill is making content that people want to watch and climbing the algorithm ranked ladder. Past that you need to look at what makes them a GOOD source or if they aren't after all. Rank means one thing. Being able to climb. That's it. The only skill you've demonstrated is being able to climb a ladder. There's more that goes into it but it does not substitute getting an education whether formal or informal in the field. Nor does it give you ANY authority. It just means you likely under the game somewhat and understand how to play it to climb. This is why high ranked players often cannot play in pro. Pro play is a COMPLETELY different beast and requires extreme coordination and knowledge granularity. AND EVEN HERE Pros are often wrong because their perspective is skewed or they are so good they get away with things that are wrong. Stuff like item builds and hero picks could be fundamentally flawed for years till either a designer or someone that analyzes picks it up and thinks about it and asks why. You need a baseline of knowledge to offer a nuanced take sure but there's value in unnuanced as well. More than the nuanced often. It's the most raw feedback a designer gets. I hate this is way more readable than this is kinda bad but okay in this scenario. Again just take what they're saying and hear the problem or opinion while ignoring the solution and ask why/how. Think about it critically yourself and compare to other sentiments and yourself. It's okay to not know. It's not okay to scream out of a megaphone and refuse to even attempt to learn or hear other people out past your own ego.
What I have to say is, understanding how to play a game is important for bug testing and stuff because you know how the mechanics of the game works more than the average player does, but it doesn't help you with deciding on how to balance a game. I'm a roblox veteran (mainly an obbyist) and I understand roblox on a deep scale where I understand how most roblox games work because of how long I've been playing the game. I can find glitches/bugs a lot easier due to my skills and gamesense. I haven't played overwatch since 2017 (previously a gold lucio otp) but I now understand how the game works on a general level just by watching overwatch content. It doesn't mean I should be the opinion of how people balance things, neither does gm players. The most useful you will be at deciding how overwatch is balanced is you playing those games and those balance devs deciding on what they should change based on that. You can't directly change the balance of a game with your opinion but rather you are simply a number who is indirectly used to change the balance of a game, if that makes sense. Also if you play overwatch too much, you might have biases on which characters are too op or too bad from personal experience. It's another reason why the average person shouldn't decide balancing of the game. I'd imagine the balancing team HARDLY even plays overwatch at all. Awkward is just a stupid u2gm smurf content farm youtuber. He's the last person they should be trusting with game balance.
ong. Getting a driver's license doesn't mean you can design cars. Love awkward for amount of shitstorm he causes every time he says literally anything, amazing dude
IVE BEEN PLAYING OW SINCE 2018 AND THIS, THIS ARGUMENT IS SOMETHING IVE ALWAYS HATED SINCE IVE STARTED PLAYING!!!! I am not GM, ive played rank many times, but I am not really competitive and enjoy quickplay more. Does that mean I get to have NO opinion? Well if you ask all of the high ranked GM'S then I shouldn't have any opinion at all even though ive been playing since 2018!!! I dont need a degree or be a GM to have an opinion on what feels bad to play against not. Its not that deep. 😵💫
small note soe is a desk host not an analyst or caster so she never really got into the nitty gritty on how the game works, but she was an amazing entertainer and host and definitely knew more than enough to fill her role on the desk which was to ask the right questions to the analysts and casters to break down the action in the halftimes and post-shows. also i love the video! jackson told me to say hi
When I saw the "The higher your damage per second, the more likely you are to win at a game," tweet from Awkward I cringed so hard. I'm not even a game designer or an overwatch player, and I feel like I can break that argument apart from any angle. I feel like balance shouldn't be determined based on kill rate or dps, it should be based on if it makes it so that the opponent can't make meaningful choices.
Every high level player in ow knows more about ow balance and it shotcoming than ow devs. And that is sad. Ow is now developed and balanced by people who have no idea how their own game is played
finally someone actually brung up the point 'how it should be designed' like the many times ive seen people bicker over game balance call eachother delusional because they think eachother wrong, when they are both right, they just have a different view on how the game should be balanced e.g should it feel more impactful to play a big cost card in heartstone or should the game cater more towards death by a thousand cuts design cards, peoppe can have their opinions but at the end the its the game developer's view of how they want to design how impactful eat card should feel i feel like at this point calling out game balance team to be shit at their jobs is just a common cope
In the few games I’m considered above average in I still try and listen to the opinions of those less skilled than me, and sometimes they think of things I’ve never even considered.
I love the smell in the morning of Viveros roasting Awkward for yet another moronic take lmao. This extends to over-egotistical players in general but he's one of the most stereotypical ones.
Urgh something I felt for ages. Everytime I want to bash my head in when some *high rank player* in any game thinks the game should be balanced. I see this a lot in other games like Dead by Daylight where people constantly talk about changes they think are good for the game and that they are right because they have 2000 hours in the game.
I saw that exact same tweet and thought about this problem immediately. Cool to see more emphasis given to casual opinions since they're players too, and overwatch is far from a solidly competitive esport at this point.
i would like to offer the argument that overwatch is almost purely a meritocracy, in terms of skills being expressed in varying degress across mechanics, game sense, etc. so that the players who can protray these traits (sometimes all, sometimes all aim no brain) rise to the top. acknowledging this, anyone who puts in enough time and can undertsand the game critically should rise in rank. therefore people who have these "thousands of hours" of experience should be a high rank by now if this experience actually came from the game itself no? in my opinion a developer who has never played against a top 500 widow player have no idea how powerful that character can be, and how that feels to play against. this applies doubly to more complex heros like winston and tracer. i dont agree with awkward, and i rly respect viv in this argument but i also believe that high level players can offer the most effective advice when it comes to the balance of this game at the end of the day.
The only thing I will say against this is that game knowledge is part of being a skilled player. You say your ability to click heads on widow doesn't really lend any merit to your opinions which I agree with. However your ability to build an effective counter composition that works on the map that you're playing means that: A. You will achieve a higher rank because this will help you win games and B. You, at least to some extent, understand how the game works in its current state. You know what's weak and strong Vs what and why. This knowledge *is* valuable in developing an opinion on changes to the game. Those who know why it sucks playing hog into an ana or Winston into a bastion (and to a greater extent those who can do it and still succeed due to matchup knowledge) are probably more likely to give a good take on changes to sleep dart or assault configuration. Ultimately I think all opinions on the game should be listened to but they should be taken in the context of who is saying them. A casters opinion should be seen as such and a coaches opinion should be seen differently. Both are valuable but offer different insight.
My rank is silver 5. I have friends who have the top 500 that I keep up with. I have a friend who won five games in a row, still bronze 5 and unable to rank up because of elo hell. My rank doesn't invalidate my opinion on my maining of my hero, Reinhart. I don't really change my gameplay depending on who I am with. I play against my "counters" like orisa, and bastion all the time, and know how to deal with them. Anyone can swap, but getting good against your counters is not easy, I plan to get to silver 1 as Rien next year. Rank is meaningless when it still has bugs.
I really enjoy your content. I started watching for a while and alot of what you say is centered around everybody not just a specific audience. Really appreciate your content !!!
yeah that’s the fun thing about writer’s block, one of the best ways around it is working on a different project - and this one just happened to show up at the perfect time. i don’t know what point you’re trying to make here lmao
oh, i thought this was a dig about the topic being picked as a fallback, my bad! trying to keep up with people's tones in the comments on this one has been challenging lol
@@TheViveros Ahhh yes, people do come into RU-vid comments with a variety of tones sometimes. My bad, didn’t know I sounded condescending in my original comment
Theres definitely correlations between rank and knowledge of the game since obviously someone with credentials or education on say.. the jungle could still be outweighed by someone with practical experience living in and interacting with it, but correlation DOESNT equal causation. I think finding a happy medium means adjusting the game for higher levels of play but not to the point of dimenishing value to the casual playerbase. Overwatch in general is a fun and well designed game at its core, but whats going to get the casual playerbase who sees content creators like this gatekeep them from having balance opinions on top of a company that seems to want nothing to do with their consumer-base besides swiping every penny from their pockets... Well, that I don't know.
i love this video, because awkward deserves to be absolutely clowned on, but you have made videos about balance before lol. That's not a bad thing though.
My videos about balance have been focused on why balance is hard to establish, why it's not as simple as people think it is, and discussing balance philosophies - not generally trying to propose actual balance ideas. The closest I've come is in the very first video with Sombra, but the goal of that was less to actually propose a balance change and more to argue that the proposed balance changes to her wouldn't fix the problems people had with her. I only did that because I feel confident knowing enough about her to know what effect a nerf would have on how she plays, and in my defence, I was right about it back then. I don't do it beyond that because I don't want to swing too far outside of where I should.
Soe is gold in case anyone was wondering. She doesnt seem to play a lot, at least not stream it. I think Bren and Sideshow were Masters early on when they played a lot and that was with a lot of trolling each other. I believe all the coaches have been GM. There has been a noticeable difference in casting the game between pro casters and pro players though.
Funny thing but in starcraft after the devs left to go make stormgate blizzard got a bunch if pros to make a balance patch. And what they did was: get rid of race identity making units feel the same. Make it so armor classes are inconsistent so light armor means that they might have an armor stat. Rework a unit so its worse without solving the base issue. This patch is one of the worst patches i have seen for a competitive video game. All made by pros not game designers.
my problem with Awkward is that his philosophy on doing more damage is just get in the right position and don't die but never has advice about how to get there. like with Kiriko "close the distance and then TP out" but i take one step and I'm dead before i get any closer. i think he's right about how to get better as a sniper, but its advice for good players to get better, not new players to get good. I do watch his videos and I'm constantly saying to myself "stay in the back behind cover and do more damage" but what if your teammates don't engage? how do you get closer without moving in front of them? what if you successfully get lots of kills and no one pushes the load? It's good advice and I've thank him in the comments, but it's not the complete advice someone needs to get better.
Even though Awkward's tweet is awful, the way this video is presented really does a disservice to the point you're trying to make. Just felt like 16 minutes of being angry and ranting about the awkward (heh) car analogy. I think Awkward's tweet is wrong because every player's opinion and experiences with the game matters, not just top players'. Balance should take into consideration every level of play and understand *why* things are strong/weak in each respective level, else we end up with tone deaf changes like the recent illari nerf on pylon which was good for nobody (and there's no need for a degree in game design to see that!).
You debated against an easy target. What Awkward said was dumb, agreed. But because he sucks at portraying the argument doesn't mean the argument is bad. I don't think ranked players should be listened to at all. But especially low ranked players should think about self censoring a little bit.
I think its important to listen to higher level players on what is causing problems because they can recognize the problems because if they didn't they wouldn't be at a high skill level. But the ideas they have are as good as any random person in regards to game design, because as you said, they have experience in playing the game not designing it.
send this to akward most OWL coaches are plat ide listen to them before a gm top500 any day. their are some bronze players who understand balance more then a top 500\gm
