I don’t mean to be a dick but without giving actual reasons all you’re saying is “I preferred ow1”, which is kind of what my original comment was referring to. Tank synergies is definitely something that was lost with ow1, rein/zarya and dive comps were very fun and definitely something I miss. But it was also a major source of balance issues and player frustration.

Two tank team composition was a consistent balance issue and severely restricted the design of tank heroes. Sigma is a really fun and interesting hero, but when he was added overwatch entered a prolonged two shield meta which was incredibly boring. The devs added a cool hero, and he made the game worse. Not only did he make the game worse, but there was no obvious or easy solution, because sigma wasn’t the problem, two shields was the problem. In my opinion that exemplifies how bad of an issue the game was facing and justifies the changes made.

There’s nothing wrong with preferring ow1 but the person I responded to called it “a terrible game compared to the original” which is just blatantly incorrect in my opinion.

I agree. I was a die-hard ow1 fan and quit because of the absolute disgrace that was the transition from OW1 -> OW2. I have every reason to hate OW2 but I don’t because it’s a fine game and improves on OW1 in every way that is important to me (gameplay and balance).

In my opinion, anyone saying OW2 is worse than the original is saying this for personal reasons and not trying to be objective. OW2 is, in my experience, much more balanced than OW1. Many of the more frustrating aspects of the game have been fixed or removed, and most of the characters added since OW1 seem fun to play and not frustrating to play against.

There are very many valid criticisms one can make of Blizzard. The history of being a shitty workplace, the objectively awful decision to make OW2 a sequel, the treatment of Jeff Kaplan by execs, the monetization, and probably more. None of those criticisms (except monetization to a limited degree) have anything to do with whether or not OW2 is a bad game or not.

But I’m speculating since the person you responded to has not elaborated on any of their views.

Why? I played OW from beta, stopped playing after all the shitty workplace accusations came out, then played again for 10 or so hours last month.

I didn’t play much competitive (in my recent sessions) but the game seemed like it was in a pretty solid place. The only “major” issue I can think of is that the tank role is incredibly important, which creates a bit of a toxic environment where people are scared to play tank because they get flamed if the team gets rolled. But I think the downsides are worth the benefits, with tank being so important it’s become the core that the rest of the game balances around. Healers have more agency and dealing damage/contributing to elims is a vital part of the role. A lot of the frustrating/cheesy aspects of the game have been removed, scattershot, damage-doomfist, mercy 5-man-res, goats, double shield.

Again, I took a long break from the game, but before that I clocked a lot of hours in competitive. Personally the game feels about as balanced and enjoyable as it’s ever been.

Obviously the monetization is gross and that entire side of the game sucks now but that’s an entirely different conversation.

The response Harris made to the protestors at the DNC is the best example I can think of. I’m probably exaggerating how much the Harris campaign is relying on this strategy because lemmy is inundated with “DO YOU WANT TRUMP TO WIN???” commenters,

They aren’t even trying to win the messaging war. Instead of pointing out how unbelievably horrible the republican plan of deporting 20 million undocumented migrants, they capitulated and moved further right on immigration.

ignoring a lot of the advice from Hillary Clinton strategists (thank fuck)

idk. They seem to be running on the “if you don’t vote dems you hate black people” shtick that didn’t work in 2016. Lemmy users are eating it up though.

I miss u bukkit ;-;

You’re not engaging with what I’m saying in the slightest.

I’m not being nihilistic. Voting for the lesser of two evils is a short sighted strategy that results in politicians like Hillary, Biden, and Harris. I’m arguing that withholding your vote until it’s earned is an effective strategy to bring about change.

Before Biden dropped out everyone on this website was repeating this point over and over, “vote for Biden or we get Trump”. The average voter is not going to respond to that argument, and we know this because the polling for dems skyrocketed when Biden dropped out. Look at Walz’s polling compared to Harris. Despite all the right wing fear mongering, people like and respond to a progressive politician. Stop enabling the dems and hold a fire to their feet. Show them that if they want to get elected all they need to do is put forward policies that actually help people.

I no longer agree with this argument. Dems told voters to vote for Hillary in 2016 to avoid Trump and look what happened. Stop blaming voters and hold dems responsible for their shitty politics. If they want to win the election they need to earn the votes.

They won’t go further left unless we shove them that way.

We have very different opinions on how best to accomplish that. Voting for them unconditionally seems like a bad strategy.

Whats your argument? Everyone should have their sport at the Olympics even if it’s problematic?

You’re not engaging with the conversation, you’re just saying people will be disappointed if break isn’t an olympic sport.

Which one? I see one study saying only 13% of dems have any confidence in Bibi.

To be clear. I’m not suggesting Biden should turn on Israel, he won’t. I’m suggesting he threaten to cut support to Israel unless Bibi stops doing a genocide. If you can find me a study that says most americans don’t support a ceasefire then maybe I’ll change my position.

Copy pasting a previous comment:

I used to agree that people should vote blue if they are pro-Palestine, because Trump will obviously be worse, but I no longer think that. If democrats can rely on simply being better than republicans to win elections, what motivation do they have to shift to better policies? If americans will elect democrats despite them supporting a genocidal dictator, what motivation do they have to stop supporting that genocidal dictator?

What’s the use of having a vote if politicians don’t have to earn it?

I don’t understand what you’re saying. Just days ago the US sent weapons and money to Israel. Within a day Israel used american bombs to kill 93 palestinians while they prayed.

Just off the top of my head, within the past few weeks: Israel assasinated the Hamas negotiator in the midst of negotions. An IDF soldiers raped a palestinian prisoner to death and when they were arrested there were literal riots demanding their release.

Why the fuck is the american government supporting a genocidal dictator like Bibi? It’s actually fucking insane. All Biden needs to do is threaten to stop sending weapons and the genocide ends.

“I live in a must-win swing state. If you promise to end a genocide I will 100% vote for you”

If democrats want to win the election they need to earn votes, it’s as simple as that. If all dems have to do to win elections is not be republicans they will have absolutely zero motivation shift policy and earn votes. Withholding votes is a very powerful tool to make political changes happen and berating people for doing so is ridiculous. You’re criticizing people for exercising their democratic right.

People were saying the exact same thing when Biden was running. Everyone on this website shat on the opinion that dems needed to swap out Biden. “Not voting for Biden is like voting for Trump” etc. Lo and behold, Biden drops out and there is a massive swing in momentum.

The narrative that Biden should stay in the race was literally hurting the democrats chance at winning. Despite everyone’s insistence that Biden was the best chance at beating Trump, it just wasn’t true. Why do operate under the assumption that americans want their leader to suckle Bibi’s balls? Blocking weapons transfers until a ceasefire is the right thing to do and is not going to lose democrats the election.

No pro-Palestinian person is capable of being elected president

This is such a weird assumption. Americans support a ceasefire. Why do we think Kamala will lose the election if she says “Weapon transfers will stop until a ceasefire is reached”? She will instantly gain the rabid support of progressives who will fight tooth and nail to get her elected.

You’re also delusional if you think you’d be voting or campaigning for Harris if she about faced on current Israel policy

This is a strange assumption. I don’t fault anyone for refusing to vote for a party that is complicit in genocide.

I used to agree that people should vote blue if they are pro-Palestine, because Trump will obviously be worse, but I no longer think that. If democrats can rely on simply being better than republicans to win elections, what motivation do they have to shift to better policies? If americans will elect democrats despite them supporting a genocidal dictator, what motivation do they have to stop supporting that genocidal dictator?

What’s the use of having a vote if politicians don’t have to earn it?

Israel cannot survive without US support. I didn’t realize that would be a contentious statement.