The large difference between Battleborn and Overwatch

[bradyfire8]

There is simply one thing, one thing that I assume most of you never even considered to be a big difference between Overwatch and BB. This huge difference that completely changes both games are the player count. Most people overlooked or did not care that BB was 5 V 5 and Overwatch was 6 V 6. Now, lets take another look at those numbers. 5 on 5 game modes are typically associated with the game genre known as Multiplayer Online Battle Arena(MOBA), like Dota or LOL. Well, what about 6 on 6? The first game that comes to mind for me is Call of Duty tdm(Ok, don’t judge, I was like, 8.). Now take another look. I may just be way overcomplicating this, but I have a strong feeling Blizzard was really thinking when they decided to do 6 on 6, and not just going it because Bob wanted to join the match. If this is true, then these two games could never be compared, because to a lesser degree, you are comparing a competitive multiplayer game to a MOBA. This next paragraph is going to be speculation, with the conclusion being well, a conclusion

 Now that we are looking at Overwatch as if ti were COD, we have to think to our selves: what could make it like COD? Well, I don't see this being a game with 8 year olds 360 noscoping with their snoop dog VO. But maybe it could be simplified. When you do take a look at the characters(soldier 76 and Hanzo are examples), there is virtually no skill gap in gunplay. We have already defined this game as a competitive multiplayer, so does this mean it is going to be like COD where gunplay isn't what requires skill? Maybe so, but if you take a look again at soldier 76, his other abilities are a missile he shoots out of his gun and a health pack. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to come up with the idea of popping out of cover and shooting/noobtubing your enemy, then popping a health thing. Now, let's take BB's parallel character, Oscar Mike. Oscar Mike may seem that same at first, but his skills are all designed around the other, where soldier 76 could just be a random COD load out. Oscar Mike also has a missile, but he has invisibility to go with it. With both of those, you can go invisible, then do lots of AoE damage, then retreat since he has good agility. That is an example of deep thought going in to a character. Even if you want to ignore all of that, you can level up and upgrade your abilities to, making 1 character have the capability of being multiple Overwatch characters(another reason why BB is more of a moba then Overwatch). To be fair, that was just one example. My next comparison will be between Hanzo and Thorn. Both of them are really designed by and for the same person: Hyper speed with a bow. Now, let's compare attacks. Thorn's abilities are that she can spawn a circle that does damage if you are in it and shoot 5 arrows at once in a horizontal spread. Hanzo, on the other hand, can climb walls and an arrow that makes you see through walls. This is a tricky one. Thorn's abilities enable her to be a strong offense character that is great for pushing the front lines, where Hanzo is designed to stay high up and see you before you can attack. There is one problem: Bows are inferior to guns because of arrow velocity being significantly slower than an average guns velocity. With this in mind, he has to be close to the enemy so they can not move before the arrow strikes, or be able to dodge bullets. The sonic arrow idea is good to get the jump on an enemy, but to maximize your abilities, you would be one walls, which would leave you surrounded. Walls will protect you from a melee character but that is it. Back to the sonic arrow, there are a few situations: A fast character comes out and dodges the arrow, a tank lives through it(if they can), widowmaker no scopes you, or the person was taken off guard and you get the kill. They should've given him good speed instead of making him defense. The point of this lengthy paragraph was to show just the lack of creativity in the classes that you may see in games like COD or battlefield. I guess the best way of describing this is that the abilities all don't work together as well as some of them do in BB.

  I doubt most people even read this far, but we shall conclude. Overall, I do see that there is a difference between BB and overwatch due to the different type of people they are meant for. Battle born is for those who like Borderlands but want something competitive, and Overwatch is for someone who likes TF 2 and Battlefield/COD/Halo. Now, this post took forever to write and I want to go to sleep, so peace out

[bradyfire8]

lol, sorry about it being from side to side

[Kaleidodemon (Creator of the Battleborn Discord)]

The games are also paced very differently. They have very different Time To Kill ratios compared to one another. Overwatch is very fast paces and will often rely on who sees the other first. Battleborn allows for a little more strategy as it takes long er to kill your opponents. Also, the better you do in Battleborn the quicker you can then kill your opponents as you level up (and vice-versa). There are a lot of differences between the games.

[Bladed_Baron]

I would say the player count is not that important. Much more important difference is leveling inside match and time-to-kill.
If your char does not level inside of match and you get killed, all you are loosing is time on clock needed for your team to regroup. So yeah, you have less time to complete objective, but it does not influence your next engagement between teams. Now if there is leveling inside match, you dying is making enemies stronger (aka “feeding”). So the next engagement will be tougher for team who’s players were destroyed in previous one.

As for time-to-kill. Shorter one basically rewards players who get jump on their enemies. Longer time - rewards bettter positioning, catching enemies in the open and fire coordination in team.

So to sum up, inside match leveling + long time to kill makes cost of mistakes higher and requires better situational awareness on WHOLE battlefield. No leveling + short time to kill on the other hand, rewards fast execusion of 1vs1 or small area fights and kind of encourages more risky gameplay.

Of course this is a broad generalisation, but still gameplay is greatly affected by these two aspect combination. And yes, like you said, they are meant for a bit different players.

[bradyfire8]

The whole point of me including the player count and making a big deal about it was because player counts change depending on genre, and it seemed like the genre that Overwatch is going for is Arena Shooter, but I do agree that it is definitely not the most important thing. It is the aspect that will help describe the function of the important things, if you understand what I mean

[Matrixneo42]

I fixed it for you. Here is the text you had in a side scrolling box. I don’t know why you decided you couldn’t go back and edit your post.

There is simply one thing, one thing that I assume most of you never even considered to be a big difference between Overwatch and BB. This huge difference that completely changes both games are the player count. Most people overlooked or did not care that BB was 5 V 5 and Overwatch was 6 V 6. Now, lets take another look at those numbers. 5 on 5 game modes are typically associated with the game genre known as Multiplayer Online Battle Arena(MOBA), like Dota or LOL. Well, what about 6 on 6? The first game that comes to mind for me is Call of Duty tdm(Ok, don’t judge, I was like, 8.). Now take another look. I may just be way overcomplicating this, but I have a strong feeling Blizzard was really thinking when they decided to do 6 on 6, and not just going it because Bob wanted to join the match. If this is true, then these two games could never be compared, because to a lesser degree, you are comparing a competitive multiplayer game to a MOBA. This next paragraph is going to be speculation, with the conclusion being well, a conclusion

 Now that we are looking at Overwatch as if ti were COD, we have to think to our selves: what could make it like COD? Well, I don't see this being a game with 8 year olds 360 noscoping with their snoop dog VO. But maybe it could be simplified. When you do take a look at the characters(soldier 76 and Hanzo are examples), there is virtually no skill gap in gunplay. We have already defined this game as a competitive multiplayer, so does this mean it is going to be like COD where gunplay isn't what requires skill? Maybe so, but if you take a look again at soldier 76, his other abilities are a missile he shoots out of his gun and a health pack. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to come up with the idea of popping out of cover and shooting/noobtubing your enemy, then popping a health thing. Now, let's take BB's parallel character, Oscar Mike. Oscar Mike may seem that same at first, but his skills are all designed around the other, where soldier 76 could just be a random COD load out. Oscar Mike also has a missile, but he has invisibility to go with it. With both of those, you can go invisible, then do lots of AoE damage, then retreat since he has good agility. That is an example of deep thought going in to a character. Even if you want to ignore all of that, you can level up and upgrade your abilities to, making 1 character have the capability of being multiple Overwatch characters(another reason why BB is more of a moba then Overwatch). To be fair, that was just one example. My next comparison will be between Hanzo and Thorn. Both of them are really designed by and for the same person: Hyper speed with a bow. Now, let's compare attacks. Thorn's abilities are that she can spawn a circle that does damage if you are in it and shoot 5 arrows at once in a horizontal spread. Hanzo, on the other hand, can climb walls and an arrow that makes you see through walls. This is a tricky one. Thorn's abilities enable her to be a strong offense character that is great for pushing the front lines, where Hanzo is designed to stay high up and see you before you can attack. There is one problem: Bows are inferior to guns because of arrow velocity being significantly slower than an average guns velocity. With this in mind, he has to be close to the enemy so they can not move before the arrow strikes, or be able to dodge bullets. The sonic arrow idea is good to get the jump on an enemy, but to maximize your abilities, you would be one walls, which would leave you surrounded. Walls will protect you from a melee character but that is it. Back to the sonic arrow, there are a few situations: A fast character comes out and dodges the arrow, a tank lives through it(if they can), widowmaker no scopes you, or the person was taken off guard and you get the kill. They should've given him good speed instead of making him defense. The point of this lengthy paragraph was to show just the lack of creativity in the classes that you may see in games like COD or battlefield. I guess the best way of describing this is that the abilities all don't work together as well as some of them do in BB.

…

  I doubt most people even read this far, but we shall conclude. Overall, I do see that there is a difference between BB and overwatch due to the different type of people they are meant for. Battle born is for those who like Borderlands but want something competitive, and Overwatch is for someone who likes TF 2 and Battlefield/COD/Halo. Now, this post took forever to write and I want to go to sleep, so peace out