Blizzard Raises the Tick Rate of Overwatch on PC

[ffronw]

Blizzard Raises the Tick Rate of Overwatch on PC

//cdn.themis-media.com/media/global/images/library/deriv/1342/1342586.jpgBlizzard is raising the tick rate on the PC version of Overwatch, just as players have hoped they would.

If you follow to Overwatch community at all, chances are you've heard someone complaining about the game's low tick rate. For the uninitiated, tick rate refers to how often the server accepts updates from clients. The tick rate in Overwatch is 21 updates per second, noticeably lower than the tick rate in most shooters, which sit around 60 updates per second.

Blizzard has said in the past that they have predictive tech on the servers to alleviate any issues, but that hasn't stopped player reports of shots that clients see as hits being reported as misses on the server. Hopefully, this will be a thing of the past very soon.

Overwatch has had a higher tick rate option in Custom Games since beta, and now Blizzard is going to make that the default setting for all game modes. The change was announced in a post on the game's official forums [http://us.battle.net/forums/en/overwatch/topic/20748474858]. The post reads in part:

"When we implemented the "High Bandwidth" option to Custom Games back in beta, we also noted that-if the feature performed well and players responded positively to it-we would investigate adding it to other games modes. We're holding to that promise and are currently in the process of rolling out high bandwidth support globally for PC. This process may take a few weeks for all regions, but once fully deployed all games including those in Quick Play and Competitive Play will be running in high bandwidth mode by default."

You should note that the rollout won't be instant, but once it's complete, all servers will be running at 63 updates per second. Blizzard is also implementing tech to scale the update speed back if the updates are more than your internet connection can handle.

This doesn't mean that there won't be any delays, but you should notice the Overwatch servers being much more responsive in the near future. It's a welcome change, but one wonders why it didn't launch this way to start with.

Permalink

 

[Aeshi]

Better late than never I guess. I'm just glad to not be hooked through a wall and 3 bits of terrain anymore.

 

[Frankster]

I'm just glad to not be hooked through a wall and 3 bits of terrain anymore.

This was my first though too, followed by wondering how it's going to affect other heroes.

I often bitched about roadhog because his hook+1shot left click combo felt cheap (and other people's advice like "just play reinhardt" always missed the point, others like "just dance around and he cant hit you" revealed how little they understood about the actual game mechanics and what made roadhog's hook so easy to land), now hopefully when I get hooked I won't wonder why it happened when I was behind good cover and you won't see weird stuff like hooks following people around corners anymore. Thus getting hooked and landing into a combo would seem more fair and less of a wtf moment.

But which other champs are going to be affected I wonder? In general you will have to be more accurate with your shots as there is less of a margin of error for being off target now, thus sniping is going to be heavily affected.
There used to be a myriad of circumstances that made it so that sniping in overwatch is the easiest sniping you'll ever find in an online fps game, but they've gradually been phasing it out, and this just adds more pressure on sniper players to actually have good aim, almost to the level of snipers in other online fps games.

Looking forward to these changes even if I know my sucky aiming is going to be more of a problem for me then it used to be, but at least that works both ways.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

It was 21? Seriously? That's abysmal. I can't play CS GO or TF2 even on 64 tick servers. 128 is a must for me. It makes all the difference. For shame, Blizzard.

 

[Revolutionary]

Good, nice to see Blizzard doesn't just listen to irrational whiners.

 

[Adeptus Aspartem]

And people are complaining about CsGos 64tick not being 128. Well, better late than never and in this case not even that late.

 

[RedDeadFred]

Good. This'll mean I won't be hearing about my bullshit Roadhog hooks nearly as often.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

Better late than never I guess. I'm just glad to not be hooked through a wall and 3 bits of terrain anymore.

this x100000000000000000

if I'm standing still or a good hook lands me, great, but when a hook goes through a floor and around 2 walls to *still* get me, I'm calling horseshit on that combo.

(it's roadhogs bread and butter, he needs to at least work for it.)

OT: will be interesting to see how it affects other heroes as well,

 

[Redryhno]

Good, nice to see Blizzard doesn't just listen to irrational whiners.

To be fair, it took nearly six months of complaints and arguments for them to triple it to the BARE MINIMUM it should've started at. It's still a bit of a joke, but at least it's something.

 

[FalloutJack]

Oh, if only... Still, randomosity aside, this can only make people less-inclined to be pissed off.

Except for those people that got banned, of course. Whoopsy!

 

[Vrach]

It's a welcome change, but one wonders why it didn't launch this way to start with.

Because they have a metric shitton of players and this requires ridiculous amount of really good servers which costs a lot of money? Taking into account also that the game, while ridiculously popular, still probably has much less players than on day 1 (it's a super popular game, lots of people would've tried it out, not all of them will necessarily stick around), they probably saved a bunch of money and hassle (servers crashing etc.) by not implementing this on day 1.

Tbh, Overwatch servers are some of the best I've seen outside of something like CS. Their lag compensation is fantastic too, allowing me to play on US servers from EU with some 100ish ping and still not feel much lag.

The key difference here is time to kill. Since it's typically much higher in OW (barring Widow/Hanzo headshots) than most shooters, the tickrate has not been nearly as big of a deal. Sure, you see some BS moments from time to time, but it's nothing too bad.

Still, welcome change. Nice to see them following through on what they promised, now to see how the game handles it

 

[RaikuFA]

I play on console and main Roadhog, and yet I've never hooked anyone through walls.

 

[elvor0]

I play on console and main Roadhog, and yet I've never hooked anyone through walls.

That's not the thing, it's that to other people /you/ appear to be hooking them through a wall because the tickrate was so low. On their screen they're behind a wall, but on yours you've hooked them before they got behind it.

 

[The_State]

It's a welcome change, but one wonders why it didn't launch this way to start with.

Because they have a metric shitton of players and this requires ridiculous amount of really good servers which costs a lot of money?

Yeah, it's almost as if the fact that private servers go against their business plan (sell more crates) means that they have to do more work to make the game mechanically viable. This isn't a problem for the infrastructure of other FPS because most of them still allow people to make their own servers, and thus bear the brunt of that bandwidth load. But Blizzard/Activision's gotta carry that weight order to bring in that phat microtransaction dollar.

And the fact that they've been bullshitting their way through this, only finally offering what they should have given on day one after they realized that nobody was buying what they were selling, tells me a great deal about how little respect they have for their consumers.

 

[CCLegion]

It's a welcome change, but one wonders why it didn't launch this way to start with.

Because they have a metric shitton of players and this requires ridiculous amount of really good servers which costs a lot of money?

Yeah, it's almost as if the fact that private servers go against their business plan (sell more crates) means that they have to do more work to make the game mechanically viable. This isn't a problem for the infrastructure of other FPS because most of them still allow people to make their own servers, and thus bear the brunt of that bandwidth load. But Blizzard/Activision's gotta carry that weight order to bring in that phat microtransaction dollar.

And the fact that they've been bullshitting their way through this, only finally offering what they should have given on day one after they realized that nobody was buying what they were selling, tells me a great deal about how little respect they have for their consumers.

Wouldn't be surprised if it goes against their design philosophy too as private servers are bad, really bad.
Used to be quite active in the BF community, where private servers are still the go to for most people, especially on PC. Badmins galore who ban weapons and entire categories of equipment with autobans set up for people who do decide to use such things. Some also include an autokick for people reaching a K/D or killstreak that's, according to the admins, too high. And official servers were either extremely rare, nonexistent or permanently full because people did not want to deal with those admins if you could help it.
While private servers may be good for handling bandwidth, they are far from optimal from a gameplay point.
You technically also need a server browser, which circumvents the matchmaking system, thus leading to incredibly imbalanced rounds,, for a private server system to make any sense. Unless you basically want people to pay for the ability to host your servers.
I'm actually really happy that Blizzard decided to not go with private servers for the reasons mentioned above.

 

[The_State]

Wouldn't be surprised if it goes against their design philosophy too as private servers are bad, really bad.
Used to be quite active in the BF community, where private servers are still the go to for most people, especially on PC. Badmins galore who ban weapons and entire categories of equipment with autobans set up for people who do decide to use such things. Some also include an autokick for people reaching a K/D or killstreak that's, according to the admins, too high. And official servers were either extremely rare, nonexistent or permanently full because people did not want to deal with those admins if you could help it.
While private servers may be good for handling bandwidth, they are far from optimal from a gameplay point.
You technically also need a server browser, which circumvents the matchmaking system, thus leading to incredibly imbalanced rounds,, for a private server system to make any sense. Unless you basically want people to pay for the ability to host your servers.
I'm actually really happy that Blizzard decided to not go with private servers for the reasons mentioned above.

The only Battlefield game I played much of was 1942, and I never encountered anything of that nature there. But then again, the game was from a time when a lot of those server scripts didn't exist yet. But that's not the only FPS I've put hundreds of hours into. Team Fortress (QTF-TF2), Unreal Tournament, HLM, copious other Half Life mods, Quake 3 Arena. Mostly all older titles, I admit, so I may be more than a little out of touch with what modern private servers are like.

But I have much fonder memories of private servers. There were bad ones, of course. There are always bad ones. But there were also a LOT of good ones if you were willing to hop around a bit to find them. These were places that built up internal communities where you got to play with and against familiar names and voices. You got to try community made maps, both good and bad (and BAAAAD). Sure, the matches weren't always balanced, but neither are Overwatch matches, even in competitive. I would honestly prefer a drop-in, drop-out style game that scrambles the teams up and allows people to join the team they want to one that enforces strict team sizes, player consistency, and has "balanced" matchmaking in place of player agency.

I can't help but feel that the shift away from allowing dedicated private servers is more a matter of control than a matter of convenience for the players. Even custom games, which don't award achievements or player experience, are strictly required to run through official channels. It does help to prevent cheating, which I appreciate. It also makes it a bit easier to just jump in and play. But it also takes away that sense of community. It stymies the development of community-made content. And most of all it ensures that the player is nothing more than a consumer reliant on the hosting company to do anything at all with the product.

 

[Vrach]

Wouldn't be surprised if it goes against their design philosophy too as private servers are bad, really bad.
Used to be quite active in the BF community, where private servers are still the go to for most people, especially on PC. Badmins galore who ban weapons and entire categories of equipment with autobans set up for people who do decide to use such things. Some also include an autokick for people reaching a K/D or killstreak that's, according to the admins, too high. And official servers were either extremely rare, nonexistent or permanently full because people did not want to deal with those admins if you could help it.
While private servers may be good for handling bandwidth, they are far from optimal from a gameplay point.
You technically also need a server browser, which circumvents the matchmaking system, thus leading to incredibly imbalanced rounds,, for a private server system to make any sense. Unless you basically want people to pay for the ability to host your servers.
I'm actually really happy that Blizzard decided to not go with private servers for the reasons mentioned above.

The only Battlefield game I played much of was 1942, and I never encountered anything of that nature there. But then again, the game was from a time when a lot of those server scripts didn't exist yet. But that's not the only FPS I've put hundreds of hours into. Team Fortress (QTF-TF2), Unreal Tournament, HLM, copious other Half Life mods, Quake 3 Arena. Mostly all older titles, I admit, so I may be more than a little out of touch with what modern private servers are like.

But I have much fonder memories of private servers. There were bad ones, of course. There are always bad ones. But there were also a LOT of good ones if you were willing to hop around a bit to find them. These were places that built up internal communities where you got to play with and against familiar names and voices. You got to try community made maps, both good and bad (and BAAAAD). Sure, the matches weren't always balanced, but neither are Overwatch matches, even in competitive. I would honestly prefer a drop-in, drop-out style game that scrambles the teams up and allows people to join the team they want to one that enforces strict team sizes, player consistency, and has "balanced" matchmaking in place of player agency.

I can't help but feel that the shift away from allowing dedicated private servers is more a matter of control than a matter of convenience for the players. Even custom games, which don't award achievements or player experience, are strictly required to run through official channels. It does help to prevent cheating, which I appreciate. It also makes it a bit easier to just jump in and play. But it also takes away that sense of community. It stymies the development of community-made content. And most of all it ensures that the player is nothing more than a consumer reliant on the hosting company to do anything at all with the product.

I'm on board with CCLegion here. Maybe it's just me, but the matchmaking system in Overwatch works just fine and I'd rather deal with a multitude of official servers that are (somewhat) guaranteed to work as expected/described than deal with private server BS. I understand why you like private servers, but I personally feel that a game like Overwatch, with relatively small player numbers per match, works much better the way Blizzard had designed it.

Again, personally, I have no issue with the matchmaking in Overwatch. I've played everything from solo-queue, queuing with a couple players and a full team in both QP and Comp and have had no particular issues of balance. Are both teams equally balanced? Of course not. But it's damn close enough most of the time for a game like this and definitely close enough for me to always have fun with it. Overwatch is one of the few games that I still have fun solo-queuing in, something most games like this can't boast much. Knowing that cheaters are addressed, that the rules are always the same, servers are plentiful and matchmaking works is a good enough trade-off for me for the few charms that come with many faults of the private servers.

Besides, in the end, I do not understand what your complaint is. The feature is being implemented soon and it hasn't been that long since release. Most games these days don't work even 10% as well as Overwatch has so far, nor do they have anywhere near the level of support via constant patches, something that's incredibly likely to continue for a long time. You seem to be coming from a spot of playing some very old titles and not being a fan of new ones. For someone who has played a lot of the newer games, I can tell you, for all the shit people spew at Blizzard, they're so far ahead of their competition, it's not even funny and personally, I appreciate that after all the broken ass games we get these days.

 

[The_State]

I'm on board with CCLegion here. Maybe it's just me, but the matchmaking system in Overwatch works just fine and I'd rather deal with a multitude of official servers that are (somewhat) guaranteed to work as expected/described than deal with private server BS. I understand why you like private servers, but I personally feel that a game like Overwatch, with relatively small player numbers per match, works much better the way Blizzard had designed it.

Again, personally, I have no issue with the matchmaking in Overwatch. I've played everything from solo-queue, queuing with a couple players and a full team in both QP and Comp and have had no particular issues of balance. Are both teams equally balanced? Of course not. But it's damn close enough most of the time for a game like this and definitely close enough for me to always have fun with it. Overwatch is one of the few games that I still have fun solo-queuing in, something most games like this can't boast much. Knowing that cheaters are addressed, that the rules are always the same, servers are plentiful and matchmaking works is a good enough trade-off for me for the few charms that come with many faults of the private servers.

Besides, in the end, I do not understand what your complaint is. The feature is being implemented soon and it hasn't been that long since release. Most games these days don't work even 10% as well as Overwatch has so far, nor do they have anywhere near the level of support via constant patches, something that's incredibly likely to continue for a long time. You seem to be coming from a spot of playing some very old titles and not being a fan of new ones. For someone who has played a lot of the newer games, I can tell you, for all the shit people spew at Blizzard, they're so far ahead of their competition, it's not even funny and personally, I appreciate that after all the broken ass games we get these days.

I'll cede the point to you two. You've not only made some tacit points, but you're correct when you say that my experience with this sort of thing is outdated, for lack of a better term. I don't really mind the lack of private servers with Overwatch either, though I am growing very tired of seeing the same few maps, with no option to actually select where I'd like to play. And since Blizzard themselves never trumpeted server maintenance cost as a reason for keeping the tick rate so low, I can't even claim that they actively crippled the refresh rate in an effort to save money while keeping absolute control on how the game is played.

I guess my only real complaint at this point is the way that Blizzard has tried to defend the decision to keep the game at a ridiculously low tick rate by claiming that it didn't actually diminish the experience. It reminds me of a time not too long ago when they did the same thing about Diablo 3's RMAH, stating repeatedly that it was an integral and necessary feature. It wasn't until it became clear that nobody was buying it that they it turned out they were blowing smoke the whole time and it wasn't actually integral to the game in any way whatsoever. It's the clear lack of respect for the consumer that bothers me the most.

 

[MHR]

Yeah and now I see headshots with icicles passing right through a non-moving frozen enemy's head doing 0 damage. Hell if I know what that's caused by, but trying for the better tickrate is good anyway.