#they could have fixed ow1

[clownaddict]

(My disappointment is immeasurable, and my day is ruined)

So I downloaded Overwatch2 to see what’s new and what’s not and... welp

So you can only buy the “new” skins, aka the skins that came out after the game was released/every skin not included in the base game/event skins, with a special battle-pass currency. This battle-pass currency can only be obtained through doing weekly challenges where you get a sum total of 60 coins a week.

A legendary skin costs you about 1900 coins.

Which means that you need to do weekly challenges for 8 MONTHS STRAIGHT before you can buy a SINGLE LEGENDARY SKIN.

This, however, can all be bypassed by simply buying the coins off the store, where you can buy 100 coins for a dollar. Which means you are rewarded less than a dollars worth of coins for a whole week of playing. 60 cent for a week of your time, if you are a free-to-play player.

“bUh iTs fReE tO plAy nOw!”

Yeah, but what the fuck am I playing for? I paid for the game when it came out, and now there are NO REWARDS AT ALL for playing the game! Back in OW1, I could play 3-4 matches and get a free box with 4 cosmetics, a simple dopamine fix that kept me hooked so I would play some more. But now all you get is a battle-pass level and maybe a sticker every 5 levels unless you wanna pay for the premium pass. I don’t get a feeling of satisfaction from seeing an imaginary number go up, I get it from looking good and having fun emotes and sprays while I’m being really bad at FPS games.

The loot-box system WAS fucked up purely because you could buy the boxes for real money. If the loot-boxes was only obtainable though playing the game, leveling up and doing event challenges, that would be perfectly fine! That is how I got all my cosmetics, because I dedicated myself to the game!

Now, all I get for that dedication is a slightly higher number on a wall that no-one else but me sees and a shitty little icon.

#long rant #overwatch2 #a burning pile of a shitshow #literally half a dollar for a week of my time #fuck off blizzard #blizzard activision

[alchemicaldesignquery]

The "Fix" for 6v6

"6v6 this, 5v5 that. How do we fix this? Can it be fixed? I long for the days of OW1-"

Alright! Alright.

Fine.

I am a shameless 6v6 advocate (an Oldhead, if you will) and miss the days of double Tank that expressly allowed me to work with a Teammate to keep my squishies alive-

-or feed my brains out charging the front lines as a giant 9f armoured mess of a german yelling "Beer!" just before I'm flayed by focus fire.

That very specific feeling is a microcosm of all that it meant to Tank in a game like Overwatch. It is a feeling that celebrated the comforts and joys of limited engagement onto the enemy, so that you could provide maximum protection and safeguarding for your team.

There's nothing quite like pulling off a Winston Bubble-Nuke, Earthshattering a nano'ing Genji in your backline for the split second he's forced to touch the ground, or Halting some poor schmuck off the map as Orisa (the only vaguely enjoyable mechanic out of her Overwatch 1 kit).

And when I say "There's nothing" I genuinely mean, nothing.

None of that made the transfer over to Overwatch 2 for a variety of reasons. Damage Mitigation resources just can't be spent in those flashy ways anymore, while Support abilities make a mockery of every Earthshatter you might throw out there.

And Halt? Well that's just not in the game anymore.

sigh

This is Nostalgia, mind you. Nothing to be done there, beyond reminisce. A bit of the old ways while I dribble around looking for my first rocking chair and the inevitable shotgun to be wielded against future zombies/mutants/guvernmints on my lawn-

-except that would just keep my awake for the next few years trying to appease the Neurodivergence, screaming about pattern recognition and Game Design using as many firing neurons as possible.

So!

How to Build out a proper 6v6 Foundation:

The following is a small list of foundational changes from which, a Development Team could easily explore a re-structured 6v6 format that would also account for re-works and re-designs of varying quality.

(Or at least, the sorts of re-designs and re-works I would personally love to see but, would require this foundation to be possible.)

Each of these is meant to work in conjunction with one another, relaxing the more restrictive elements of the game to return a lot of the design potential needed to make really creative and engaging hero designs. Too much of that potential is locked up in large health, healing, and (potential) damage values.

(Note: Beyond the below changes, removing any and all Role Passives while reverting the Season 9 changes, except for the projectile sizes, would be necessary for any of this to work as intended.)

Let's get stuck in:

1 - Decrease Hitboxes for Hero models

This one is fairly simple. Reduce visual clutter by decreasing the over all volume of hitboxes within any given match. This would include not just the hitboxes of the Heroes themselves, but also any deployables and visual effects for abilities they would have.

It would not need to be drastic.

5% for Supports, DPS, and Junkerqueen (except for those whose hitboxes are already small I.E - Kiriko, Baby Dva, Illari, and Tracer).

10% for all other Tanks.

Maintaining the projectile size increase from Season 9 + reducing overall Hitboxes, allows for body shot potential to remain relatively easy, while increasing Critical Shot difficulty slightly.

2 - Provide all Heroes with 'Squishy' Health

Rather than attempt to reduce Tank Health (which promotes a lopsided degree of survival across individual Tanks), all Heroes in every Role should be given somewhere between 50 - 250 standard health

This sets a firm, reflexive, understanding whenever a hero is vulnerable; either by operating in a vulnerable state to begin with in the case of many DPS and most Supports?

Or by damaging a Tank enough to put that Tank into their vulnerable or 'Squishy' health.

If all heroes can be measured inside the Squishy range, then every player in a given match has the potential to calculate the use of resources and values necessary to secure an elimination. Tanks are no longer relegated to such an extreme separation in Health states that they require their own separate calculations from enemies and allies.

With standard health universalized, Tanks are now free to be Tanks based on what type of Damage Adjustment Health they have (Armour, Shield, Overhealth, etc.)

Turn Overhealth into a Damage Adjustment Health type as well (call it Resilience or something) and give it to any Tank that uses Healing as a sustain mechanic (Roadhog, Junkerqueen, Mauga, any future Tanks with Healing Sustain).

Give Damage Adjustment Health different sound effects for when they take damage (metallic pings for Armour, digital 'woops' for Shields, etc.), to easily tell when dealing damage switches between the Tank's protective health and their Squishy health.

What this accomplishes:

Healers use less resources to get their Tanks back into their Damage Adjustment Health, increasing independence for Tanks and Supports both.

Tanks have significantly more Damage Adjustment Health, but, overall, less total Health (Rein would be 200 Health + 250armour = 450 Total Health).

Damage Mitigation design can be strengthened, improving Tank's active survival mechanics, rather than the boring/sustain of high health pools

Increased health consistency across all Roles, improves both player understanding and learning of the game's basics.

Reduced need for heavy handed CC/Debuff effects to punish Tanks.

3 - Universalize AoE Healing with Single Target

All Healing should have a percentage decrease, depending on how many Heroes are receiving healing from the same source.

Single Target healing will always receive 100% of the healing source

Ex. Ana Biotic Rifle or Mercy Healing Beam will always do 100% of their healing, before modifiers.

If a source of healing would affect multiple heroes, the source is reduced by 15% per target included in the Area of Effect.

Ex. Baptiste's Regenerative Burst would do 100% of the healing if no one but Baptiste is in the Area of Effect. It would do 85% with one(1) other Teammate in the AoE, and 70% if two(2) other teammates were in the AoE.

The lowest any healing could go (before modifiers) would be 50%.

Ult charge would remain largely unchanged, making AoE Healing's benefit fixed more on building more ult charge off of multiple heroes affected, while single target healing would benefit from higher healing output at source.

What this accomplishes:

Reflexive counterplay embedded in Damage vs. Healing values, further prioritizing of targets for both sides, that rewards good choices, positioning, and resource management.

Promotes the use of utility, alternative sustain mechanics, and survivability effects and their executions in non-Tanks.

Alleviates the stat creep of Healing, both in speed of application and total amount delivered.

And lastly (DPS players, the spoiled brats that they are, will probably hate this, but it's necessary):

4 - Turn Critical Modifiers into a Percentage based on Range (maybe, Travel Speed as well)

Critical hits will now be measured based on where a Hero's fall off range begins and provided a certain percentage based on that range (adjusted based on kit and Design Structure).

Falloff below 20 metres = 30 - 50% critical modifier

Falloff between 20 - 40 metres = 50 - 75% critical modifier

Falloff between 40 - 60 metres = 75 - 90% critical modifier

All damage output with Critical Option, will now be subject to the range at which the Hero doing the damage, operates at across all Roles.

Close ranged DPS (Reaper, Tracer, etc.), benefit from a larger critical hitbox on their opponent and do not need excessive critical damage to be a threat.

Longer ranged DPS, must hit a smaller critical hitbox on their opponent, rewarding higher critical damage for successful shots.

(Note: Projectiles will always be 100% of damage, due to travel speed and the more inconsistent nature of their application, though it might be worth testing this out using the above values as a range measurement)

What this accomplishes:

The lowering of Potential Damage, rather than Base Damage, strengthens access between lower level and higher level play, rewarding better positioning, game-sense, and non-mechanical knowledge, much earlier in the rankings.

Skillful play is segregated based on value extracted across Heroes (and Players) and their preferences, rather than on general optimization. Hero skill expression is much more rewarding, rather than Hero selection.

One-shots are heavily reduced to only the highest ends of Hero/Kit expression, allowing for significantly improved Kit Design for those heroes who relied on them to be useful (Widow, Hanzo, Roadhog, etc.)

Non-critical option Heroes no longer need excessive Damage output to compensate for the missing Potential Damage (Junkrat, Pharah, etc.).

Base Damage can be balanced across a wider range of numbers from patch to patch, hero to hero (no more 0.5 adjustments).

Damage Modifiers are now universalized with Critical hits as a total percentage, easing the calculations needed during fights.

Damage Amplification effects are far more tolerable for all heroes and can be much more easily balanced

Whew! A lot to work with, but overall, the above should be codable based on a variety of other examples that have already been included in the game at one point or another in it's history.

As a foundation, this would serve to place the entire cast into a baseline state of

"Everyone can be vulnerable, everyone can be healed, every can do damage, but it's up to the Player to execute for the win."

All while maintaining their Role's preference for How to execute.

#overwatch 2 #6v6 #overwatch #game design #game theory #That was way longer than I expected #Seriously #Tank Health being the main culprit mind you #All of this is a baseline #it isn't about fixes it's about builds

[ganon-binary]

Overwatch Heroes Ranking & Honest Opinions part 3

Part 3 of my ranking and opinions of the playable characters of Overwatch. Last one started a bit negatively but i'll make up for it with this one. Parts 1, 2 and 4.

Mako "Roadhog" Rutledge: 8/10

A great contrast to his best buddy, Junkrat. Rich backstory and great personality, He is the grumpy and cool uncle of this group. Really interested to see what they decide to do with his story, especially if the Junker Queen will actually be in the game. His design is very iconic, from the scary hog mask to his cute pig tattoo. He is my least favorite character gameplay wise, but i'll excuse that bc he is so cool. 8/10, i should eat less pork.

Siebren "Sigma" de Kuiper: 3/10

I'll admit to first liking his origin story, which was beautifully produced. Cosmic horror was something that we didn't have in Overwatch yet so his reveal was super exciting. However as a character, Sigma's design is so problematic. Stigmatizing mentally ill people in 2019 was so low. I think they will "fix" his character in OW2 due to backlash so I'll be looking forward to that. Personality wise, he seems like a lovely man, but I am not happy with his personality in his origin story video. Big scary mentally ill villain? Ugh. In game he can be a bit frustrating. 3/10, put those feet away.

Jack "Soldier: 76" Morrison: 6-/10

He is the generic vigilante character. I really like his backstory involving Ana and Gabriel, those 3 have a really good dynamic. Personality wise he is so generic but i think that was the point? Oh and he is gay i guess.. they could have explored that a bit more even though it's not a really big and important part of his character. Kinda bland in the game, i never play him. 6-/10, good on you, gramps.

Sombra: 9+/10

I don't like her fanon portrayal. I get that she has really funny lines but can we stop acting like she is a gremlin and not an actual threat. I really like her personality and her snarky and belittling comments, she clearly sees herself so much superior than everyone else. She is unapologetically a bastard. That being said, I truly think she cares for other people, maybe not many people, but still some people. Was not a big fan of her "portrayal in the "Searching" comic. I really love her OW1 design, a stealth character being covered in neon LED lights is so funny. Not that big of a fan of her OW2 design though. She is my 3rd most played character and i love her kit, and i am anxiously waiting for her rework. 9+/10, never change you magnificent bastard

Satya "Symmetra" Vaswani: 10/10

This character is so important to me, and i love her a lot. She is the character that got me into Overwatch, so she kinda changed my life lmao. She is such a multi dimensional character and i am eagerly awaiting for her storyline in OW2. She is a really beautiful character, but i think her design could be improved in OW2. She is my 2nd most played character and my controversial opinion is that she deserves another rework, she feels so clunky to play compared to other characters. 10/10, you deserve way more love.

Torbjörn Lindholm: 8/10

The meme man himself, Torbjörn is a surprisingly well written character. Being one of the creators of the omnics, his viewpoint of this whole charade is super interesting. He is a hilarious and nasty old man, with the most memeable voice lines in the game. His OW2 design has such nordic dad vibes, i appreciate it a lot. I almost never play him, but he is very fun. 8/10, don't get caught with your beard in the letterbox.

Lena "Tracer" Oxton: 7/10

Culturally a very iconic character, seeing a lesbian character being the poster girl for one of the biggest games in the world was so cool. She is such a energetic ray of sunshine. She just makes me happy. Really dig her design, they really nailed her vibe. The "London Calling" comics were a waste of comics imo. Nothing else to say, she is funky in and out of the game. 7/10, her death screams sound like Link from The Legend Of Zelda.

Amélie "Widowmaker" Lacroix: 9+/10

Widowmaker really is held back by being called "emotionless", because she is not. Detached of her sentiment is much more accurate way of describing her. She is a really proud and boastful lady with an ego the size of Reinhardt. In my opinion her design fits her, because she is so prideful and she definitely thinks herself as the sexiest being in the world. Nobody can tell her shit. Really interested to see what they will do with her in OW2, but personally i don't think she needs a redemption. She is my most played character with almost 500 hours for her. 9+/10, je ne parle pas français.

Winston: 8/10

A scientist. Everyone loves Winston Overwatch. He is such a really cool dude and he really pulls you into the story in every animated short he is in. Can't believe his siblings killed his dad.. that's brutal, man. I never play him. 8/10, no monkey business.

Hammond "Wrecking Ball": 0/10

Literally such a pointless character, he doesn't need to exist. They could have released Sojourn instead of him. Convinced the only reason he exists is because of the plushies. I hope he gets eaten by a snake in OW2. He is so annoying in the game and i love ruining people's day who play him by playing Sombra. 0/10, go away, snake food.

#overwatch #overwatch 2 #roadhog #sigma #soldier: 76 #sombra #symmetra #torbjörn #widowmaker #winston #wrecking ball

[megamikethomson]

Ravencoin — ASIC Considerations — Cycle Two

lnnosilscon A10 ETHMaster

It is apparent that there are ASICs mining Ravencoin. As I've expressed ordinarily, there is nothing amiss with particular equipment mining on the Ravencoin arrange. Truth be told, a case can be made that specific equipment adds dependability to the hash rate in light of the fact that their equipment isn't valuable anyplace else. This makes a kind of lock-in to the coin.

lnnosiliscon A10 ETHMaster

Things being what they are, the reason the anxiety about ASICs? Since the Ravencoin's whitepaper talked about ASIC obstruction and the craving to keep ASICs off the system. For what reason was that in the whitepaper? Since there's likewise a solid contention that wide dispersion of a coin (RVN) is sound for the system. Envision if everybody on the planet had one RVN. That would be a close flawless dispersion, and by then, every individual could conclude whether to hold, spend, or exchange their RVN. Permitting shopper grade equipment (CPU or GPU) to mine is nearer to the dissemination perfect.

Now, we have these two beliefs in pressure. We have devoted equipment, which is useful for pledge to the Ravencoin organize in pressure with the wide circulation standards of beneficially mining RVN on customer grade equipment.

An explanation I'm not excessively worried about the current CPU/GPU/ASIC mining proportion and mining trouble. Is anything but an existential danger to the Ravencoin environment. For contention, suppose that the algo never shows signs of change from here. The most dire outcome imaginable is that Ravencoin begins to look progressively like Bitcoin with some convergence of mining power in the hands of information ranches with particular equipment and low force rates. These business activities are for the most part worried about benefit, so they will sell the RVN on the open market. This includes descending value pressure more so than GPU excavators that hold, yet on the other side, it permits anybody to economically get a stake in RVN in these early days. What might you provide for have the option to return so as to 2011 and get Bitcoin knowing what you know now?

lnnosilicon A10 ETHMaster

To start with, let me address the past algo change. The expectation was initially to have something more ASIC safe, however there were different conditions that required quickening the change to address two basic bugs. For anybody that missed it, more information is in the update here. https://medium.com/@tronblack/ravencoin-redesign review 705707b4b51

Alright, so shouldn't something be said about changing the mining algo once more? We have an enormous network of excavators and most are GPU diggers that might want to mine productively. Things being what they are, how might we make mining productive on GPUs? All things considered, there are various good natured people that express it is difficult to keep ASICs off the system. They might be correct, however I'm persuaded that there are calculations that utilization a sufficient GPU's capacities and qualities, that creation an ASIC for the calculation will make it look, and perform particularly like a GPU. So how about we set that as our objective.

Another issue to consider is the practicality of the algo for a versatile wallet that must approve squares. There are two alternatives: 1) Ensure the algo can be actualized for versatile (iOS and Android), or; 2) lose oneself approving SPV wallet choice. The present portable wallet checks each square to ensure that the squares are substantial and fastened together. This is incredible for security and a best practice, however may not be carefully fundamental. In the event that a versatile wallet is satirize, it prompts an awful encounter yet doesn't permit falsifying of RVN. Most versatile wallets are Programming interface based and don't have to approve hinders by executing the mining calculation. The two exemptions I'm mindful of are tZero Wallet and the RVN Wallet which do approve each square. The iOS rendition of tZero wallet has been changed over to a Programming interface based wallet to improve client experience.

There are different pundits that point out that its absolutely impossible to take out FPGAs or ASICs, and that with enough motivator, they are fit for everything that a CPU or GPU can do. I concur with this, however as a calculation pushes the limits of the CPU or GPU, the ASIC loses its preferences as it resembles a broadly useful PC or a designs card. The objective at that point is to fix the extraordinary favorable circumstances of exceptional fabricated equipment.

I have likewise gotten analysis, some private and some open, that the current proposition in the #algos channel of the Ravencoin People group Friction is to a great extent driven by those with FPGA-driven inspirations. From my viewpoint, that doesn't appear to be the situation, however it is hard to vet an untested calculation and how well it would oppose the building endeavors of FPGA engineers.

Alright, so we should accept that we change the versatile wallets to Programming interface based or evacuate obstruct and open most extreme adaptability for an elective mining calculation.

Moving to a CPU-just algo is an alternative, however most of the Ravencoin people group is GPU, so consequently, the objective is to support GPUs.

Which calculation to utilize?

Keep x16r variation (roots and marking)

Decrease ASIC to be like GPU.

Have a calculation that isn't indistinguishable from another coin to forestall coin bouncing and diminished security

Considering these objectives, a couple of choices ring a bell. One is to coordinate a current GPU agreeable algo into x16r. There are two different ways of doing this. One is to swap out one of the current calculations with something GPU inviting like progPOW or Ethash. The main issue with this is there is a huge speed dissimilarity between the current 16 algos and something like Ethash. This can prompt gaming of the framework by just settling obstructs that do exclude the Ethash in the 16 bytes that decide the algos for the following square. This can be effectively settled by utilizing x16r as-is and afterward continually swapping out one of the algos for Ethash. To build security and forestall pre-reserving of the Ethash arrangements, we could embed Ethash into algo 2 through 15 (when checking beginning at 1).

Bitmain E3 ASIC — 190MH/s @ 760W

Innosilicon A10 ETHMaster — 500MH/s @ 850W — $5000

1070–30MH/s @ 150W

1080Ti — 50MH/s @ 250W

Titan V — 75MH/s @ 250W

At present, the best open ASIC is the Innosilicon A10 and is what could be compared to around 10 1080Ti. This outperforms GPUs

Mining details: https://minerstat.com/coin/RVN

1070Ti 20MH/s @ 150W

1080Ti 35MH/s @ 250W

OW1 182MH/s @ 1400W

Talk 680MH/s @ 800W

As far as anyone is concerned, there at present isn't any cover between the x16r ASIC makers and the Ethash ASIC producers and they appear to utilize changed innovations (Xilinx chips versus custom silicon). I'm available to being remedied on this.

Alright, there are a large number of opportunities for consolidating algos. I will propose one that meets the objectives laid out above.

Codename: x16rE

It starts with the first x16r. x16r is very much recorded.

The main stage is x16r, yet before the hashing starts, the 16 snack are summarized, giving a number somewhere in the range of 0 and 256. Take the mod 14 of this number, which will give a number somewhere in the range of 0 and 13, and afterward include 1, giving a number X somewhere in the range of 1 and 14. At that point supplant the calculation in position X with Ethash.

So there will be 16 hashes tied, and one of them will consistently be Ethash, and it will never be the first or the last hash.

It is a basic merging of two known ASIC safe calculations which powers the FPGAs/ASIC to execute the two calculations where they are just marginally increasingly productive in it is possible that one. The qualities of each (x16r and Ethash) are notable, while the ASICish answer for every ha been extraordinary.

I invite input on this proposition.

Soon after distributing this, there was criticism on twitter and Message addressing why it wasn't progPOW rather than ethash. My reaction was that I had heard that progPOW wasn't as ASIC safe as recently suspected and without a more drawn out reputation, I'd need proof that it is an improvement.

The proof was sent. Here it is:

Hence, progPOW may be a superior decision. The entirety of this accept, obviously, that we lose the immediate square confirmation for the SPV wallets, or add some extra information to permit quick square hash approval. We are investigating the last mentioned.

I've likewise gotten private criticism on Alterhash and why it would be better than progPOW or ethash. Nonetheless, Alterhash was benchmarked by @and we ran into an issue that we got just 66 hashes/sec on a really quick Linux box (single-strung). We figured it out and it would include hours to adjust time a quick machine and conceivably days on a more slow machine just to appropriately approve squares.

At present, we are trying different things with progPOW which is more like 1500 h/s on a quick Linux box. There are a few conversations about including the break hash discovered during the memory-serious bit of the mining so that SPV wallets can confirm squares.

Don't hesitate to DM me  on Friction. I'm searching for reasons that the first proposition (x16rE) is preferable or more terrible over x16r+progPOW (x16rP), or Alterhash which likewise coordinates the two and is passing by xdag16r.

#Innosilicon A10 ETHMaster