LowKeyNerd @lowkeynerdsite - Twitter Profile

over 1 year ago

I think we'd learn more about what Marvel Rivals does well if we stopped pretending that it does every detail better than Overwatch objectively, but why all the eye-check problems don't seem to matter. I'm listening to a lot of podcasts/videos on Rivals, and watching a lot of discussion videos, and the complete cognitive disconnect with what people say and what is actually true about this game is insane, and yet people enjoy the game (myself included). THIS IS NOT A CRITICISM OF RIVALS, BUT A CHALLENGE TO THINK ABOUT WHAT ACTUALLY MAKES RIVALS GREAT, NOT WEAK WILLED AND LAZY COMPARISON. Some examples: - People said for YEARS they didn't want meatslab tanks in Overwatch, and yet in the same breath I hear creators praising Rivals for making tanks "not a fat DPS like Overwatch, if I wanted to play DPS I'd play DPS." There's also a lot of disagreement on this within the community, because certain tanks (Strange) have ridiculous DPS output (and seemingly strong survivability). The question is if the tank survivability is being propped up by sustain! - Many Supports/Tank heroes don't have a lot of solo playmaking potential, and especially in 6v6 your personal carry/impact is more limited. We have simultaneous praises of "actually Marvel Rivals has more carry potential because it's not 5v5 raidboss tank," which is a take that deserves a closer analysis (not enough time for it here), in addition to "in 6v6 one bad teammate is less likely to ruin games," which goes to show the playerbase really doesn't know what they want. And while we're on the 6v6 train... - Almost nothing about Marvel Rivals 6v6 is similar to OW 6v6. People enjoyed the lethality and strategy of tank combos (Marvel Rivals has significantly less of this), people enjoyed the punishing nature a DPS/Support can have on (even a pocketed) tank's pool (Marvel Rivals has significantly less of this). The major things to pull are more congested/busy fights (which has both upsides and downsides), 5v6 situations being more favorable than 4v5 mathematically (Rivals does this more from the sheer sustain and power of Ults, less to do with 6v6 itself, I've already spoken about how map spacing in OW enables 4v5s more than you'd think). - Support design being better than "Moira/Mercy" brainrot. It's true, the kits of most supports have more buttons than some of the more brainrot of OW supports, and some like C&D I find to be quite thoughtful. But, again, it doesn't work in execution. Marvel Rivals has the definition of healbotting in most of its support cast, even in higher elos (sometimes especially in higher elos). If people genuinely love healing, then perhaps the MR developers are more in touch with what we actually like, vs. what we SAY we like, but that's really the point I'm driving at! - Role Queue killed OW, Open Queue is for chads. I've still yet to hear a strong enough argument for full Open Queue beyond queue times. Maybe this will change with time, but there seems to be no situation that doesn't demand at least one tank, at least two supports. The current pro (and ranked) meta backs this up. People praise the flexibility and freedom of Open Queue, and yet 95%+ of games I've played or spectated have been 1-3-2 or 2-2-2, with the other 5% usually involving some very unhappy players on the "offmeta" team. If the creativity was truly viable, wonderful, and brilliant, then why is it that we never see it? It's honestly complete fantasy to say complete Open Queue (not forced 2-2-2, don't think it's necessary) is REALLY a creative stroke of genius, UNLESS it's what's keeping the queue times short. I think people are more forgiving of Open Queue because it's nice to insta-queue, AND (unlike early OW especially) most of the tanks/supports have a nice fat bunch of buttons to push, so you're not stuck in a strictly boring gameplay loop if you have to fill. Again, what's the REAL core victory for Rivals here, and that's where I think people need to think a lot harder. - Balance is better in Rivals. I mean, I've been repeatedly critical of OW2 balance/patch decisions in the past two years. Overall I think it's improved, but it's still probably the games weakest aspect (showcasing an inconsistent vision of what they want their game to be), and I think that's really where Rivals has OW beat. Marvel Rivals balance is horrific- there are currently heroes that are so far and away superior to 90% of the cast, that it makes you question what was the purpose of letting it go live as is. Sustain is off the charts, support ults are broken, there are a handful of completely untouchable DPS at every range, etc. It's absurd to criticize Overwatch for their balance while in the same breath Marvel Rivals. Instead, we should praise Marvel Rivals for a (fairly) consistent balance PHILOSOPHY (that we don't really care if stuff is broken, everything has their own OP moments, generally higher skill characters have higher potential to be OP), and their inclusion of Hero Bans to allow ranked players to balance for themselves. Overall, I think Marvel Rivals has done a great job at confidently setting their game philosophy at the forefront, while still being willing to take feedback and adjustments that fit their vision for the game. I think we as a community can learn a lot about why it works well for them, and doesn't work as well in Overwatch. Oh yeah, and the novelty of Marvel Rivals definitely helps!

Coach_Spilo's tweet photo. I think we'd learn more about what Marvel Rivals does well if we stopped pretending that it does every detail better than Overwatch objectively, but why all the eye-check problems don't seem to matter.

I'm listening to a lot of podcasts/videos on Rivals, and watching a lot of discussion videos, and the complete cognitive disconnect with what people say and what is actually true about this game is insane, and yet people enjoy the game (myself included). THIS IS NOT A CRITICISM OF RIVALS, BUT A CHALLENGE TO THINK ABOUT WHAT ACTUALLY MAKES RIVALS GREAT, NOT WEAK WILLED AND LAZY COMPARISON. Some examples:

- People said for YEARS they didn't want meatslab tanks in Overwatch, and yet in the same breath I hear creators praising Rivals for making tanks "not a fat DPS like Overwatch, if I wanted to play DPS I'd play DPS." There's also a lot of disagreement on this within the community, because certain tanks (Strange) have ridiculous DPS output (and seemingly strong survivability). The question is if the tank survivability is being propped up by sustain!

- Many Supports/Tank heroes don't have a lot of solo playmaking potential, and especially in 6v6 your personal carry/impact is more limited. We have simultaneous praises of "actually Marvel Rivals has more carry potential because it's not 5v5 raidboss tank," which is a take that deserves a closer analysis (not enough time for it here), in addition to "in 6v6 one bad teammate is less likely to ruin games," which goes to show the playerbase really doesn't know what they want. And while we're on the 6v6 train...

- Almost nothing about Marvel Rivals 6v6 is similar to OW 6v6. People enjoyed the lethality and strategy of tank combos (Marvel Rivals has significantly less of this), people enjoyed the punishing nature a DPS/Support can have on (even a pocketed) tank's pool (Marvel Rivals has significantly less of this).

The major things to pull are more congested/busy fights (which has both upsides and downsides), 5v6 situations being more favorable than 4v5 mathematically (Rivals does this more from the sheer sustain and power of Ults, less to do with 6v6 itself, I've already spoken about how map spacing in OW enables 4v5s more than you'd think).

- Support design being better than "Moira/Mercy" brainrot. It's true, the kits of most supports have more buttons than some of the more brainrot of OW supports, and some like C&D I find to be quite thoughtful. But, again, it doesn't work in execution. Marvel Rivals has the definition of healbotting in most of its support cast, even in higher elos (sometimes especially in higher elos). If people genuinely love healing, then perhaps the MR developers are more in touch with what we actually like, vs. what we SAY we like, but that's really the point I'm driving at!

- Role Queue killed OW, Open Queue is for chads. I've still yet to hear a strong enough argument for full Open Queue beyond queue times. Maybe this will change with time, but there seems to be no situation that doesn't demand at least one tank, at least two supports. The current pro (and ranked) meta backs this up. People praise the flexibility and freedom of Open Queue, and yet 95%+ of games I've played or spectated have been 1-3-2 or 2-2-2, with the other 5% usually involving some very unhappy players on the "offmeta" team. If the creativity was truly viable, wonderful, and brilliant, then why is it that we never see it? It's honestly complete fantasy to say complete Open Queue (not forced 2-2-2, don't think it's necessary) is REALLY a creative stroke of genius, UNLESS it's what's keeping the queue times short.
I think people are more forgiving of Open Queue because it's nice to insta-queue, AND (unlike early OW especially) most of the tanks/supports have a nice fat bunch of buttons to push, so you're not stuck in a strictly boring gameplay loop if you have to fill. Again, what's the REAL core victory for Rivals here, and that's where I think people need to think a lot harder.

- Balance is better in Rivals. I mean, I've been repeatedly critical of OW2 balance/patch decisions in the past two years. Overall I think it's improved, but it's still probably the games weakest aspect (showcasing an inconsistent vision of what they want their game to be), and I think that's really where Rivals has OW beat. Marvel Rivals balance is horrific- there are currently heroes that are so far and away superior to 90% of the cast, that it makes you question what was the purpose of letting it go live as is. Sustain is off the charts, support ults are broken, there are a handful of completely untouchable DPS at every range, etc. It's absurd to criticize Overwatch for their balance while in the same breath Marvel Rivals.

Instead, we should praise Marvel Rivals for a (fairly) consistent balance PHILOSOPHY (that we don't really care if stuff is broken, everything has their own OP moments, generally higher skill characters have higher potential to be OP), and their inclusion of Hero Bans to allow ranked players to balance for themselves.

Overall, I think Marvel Rivals has done a great job at confidently setting their game philosophy at the forefront, while still being willing to take feedback and adjustments that fit their vision for the game. I think we as a community can learn a lot about why it works well for them, and doesn't work as well in Overwatch. Oh yeah, and the novelty of Marvel Rivals definitely helps!

193

4K

251

555

246K

LowKeyNerdsite retweeted

Spacestation Gaming

@Spacestation

almost 2 years ago

. I WANT ONE OF YOU LUCKY GAMERS TO HAVE THIS SSG @ScufGaming CONTROLLER (signed by the entire spacestation halo squad) Like 💛 + Retweet 🔄 for a chance to win picking the winner tomorrow… GOOD LUCK

Spacestation's tweet photo. . I WANT ONE OF YOU LUCKY GAMERS
TO HAVE THIS SSG @ScufGaming CONTROLLER
(signed by the entire spacestation halo squad)

Like 💛 + Retweet 🔄 for a chance to win
picking the winner tomorrow… GOOD LUCK https://t.co/m9AQtE5BQJ

170

2K

1K

14

92K

LowKeyNerd

@LowKeyNerdsite

Who to follow

Last Seen Users on Sotwe

Trends for you

Most Popular Users