Torb doesn't work, he drinks that shit.
But then who will play second tank?!So, McCree minor nerf and Ana buff. She is my strongest support now. I need some practice but I might be able to play something other than a tank in ranked soon.
I like the McCree nerf. I didn't really understand the buff to 32m. It made it kind of awkward choosing between him and 76. I felt that he was supposed to be a mid to close range assassin and the buff turned him into a bit of a sniper/counter pharah. If they had just left him at 18m and buffed the damage a little I think he would have been in a better place.[DOUBLEPOST=1469631995,1469631961][/DOUBLEPOST]People are already whining about the McCree nerf since it only increases his range by 4m over what it was before his buff. His old falloff range was 18, was buffed to 32, and is now down to 22. Personally, I think he is in a good place now. His LMB has enough extra range to be used as a softener without sniping, allowing the McCree to pop in some damage before getting close enough to utilize the new FTH buffs, he also out-ranges Roadhogs hook by 1m.
But but but...okBut then who will play second tank?!
That would have just made him redundant to reaper instead of 76.I like the McCree nerf. I didn't really understand the buff the 32m. It made it kind of awkward choosing between him and 76. I felt that he was supposed to be a mid to close range assassin and the buff turned him into a bit of a sniper/counter pharah. If they had just left him at 18m and buffed the damage a little I think he would have been in a better place.
Maybe a little, but playing Reaper it feels like you have to be hugging people to do any damage.[DOUBLEPOST=1469632220,1469632126][/DOUBLEPOST]Also, playing Roadhog, my anti-Reaper agenda is strong.That would have just made him redundant to reaper instead of 76.
I noticed that too, it's much easier to compensate now if you have a steady hand, since you know the cursor will drop back down to the original spot you fired the last shot, as long as you don't attempt to overcompensate by the kickback by following the cursor. It's much easier to do that rather then the old method of counter-compensating (which is why I still suck at FTH).I was happy to see the blowback had been reduced when the buff went in. The reticle manages to return all the way back to its starting position before the next round fires.
Yeah, but at least the reduced muzzle rise carries over to FTH now, which makes it easier to compensate FTH also.It's much easier to do that rather then the old method of counter-compensating (which is why I still suck at FTH).
To be honest, I've never really thought ELO hell was real until last night. It's hard to justify getting 3/4 golds and never being able to capture an objective. The drop from 41 to 38 was only 3 games.I have heard whispers of "The Pit", the low ranked hell at which you get put with all the players that just run around like idiots.
Welcome to my life. :/ Though, when Terrik and I play together, we get grouped with all those people and we can usually carry.To be honest, I've never really thought ELO hell was real until last night. It's hard to justify getting 3/4 golds and never being able to capture an objective. The drop from 41 to 38 was only 3 games.
Honestly, I am not even sure why they changed it from what it was in the beta. The competitive system they had back then had named ranks. You started out in the "low" ranks, called Challenger. At Challenger rank you get points for wins but didn't lose points for losses. Once you moved into the higher ranks you started getting 20 points for a win and lost 20 points for a loss, UNLESS the game was close. Losing a tie-breaking round, the losing team would only lose 10 points, and if you get consecutive wins, you would gain 40 points each win. Only the highest rank tier, Master, was a pure 20/20 on win/loss. It was a pretty good system that promoted wins but made close games sting way less.Another thing that needs to happen - exp loss/gain needs to be throttled by how close the match is. Blizzard wants to know why their data was different on what games people like (They polled people early, the poll said "I prefer games where, win or lose, it is close" then the game came out and the match rating data said "I only like games where I win, be it close or by a mile")? I think a lot of it, in competitive, is that when we struggle our damnedest and lose on Ilios 2-2 in 99%-99% overtime, we lose just as much exp as if we'd just never left the fucking spawn room. We shouldn't be losing entire fucking levels when the other team got 3 points on Route 66 and we got only a meter shy of the third point. THAT'S why I hate games that are "close losses."
I'm gonna have to start doing that, if I'm going to be able to play competitive. I haven't even hit rank 20 yet.when I do log on and notice you guys playing competitive I just start up Quick Play.
Honestly I have more fun in quick play. I don't feel like I get treated fairly by the system in competitive. I'm about to the point where I've decided I don't give a shit about golden guns anymore.But no one should care about the number when all we want is golden guns. Not a single one of us is trying to be super leet esports caliber. The only thing that frustrates me is people getting super salty. #omgcasual
Yeah but QP balance is borked, filled with cheese strategies, 2x attack bastions and people treating it as a joke.Honestly I have more fun in quick play. I don't feel like I get treated fairly by the system in competitive. I'm about to the point where I've decided I don't give a shit about golden guns anymore.
And yet I still have more fun every time we try it.Yeah but QP balance is borked, filled with cheese strategies, 2x attack bastions and people treating it as a joke.
Why is this necessarily a bad thing?Yeah but QP balance is borked, filled with cheese strategies, 2x attack bastions and people treating it as a joke.