Overwatch Competitive Format Concept

Given the recently discussed post on the Blizzard forums of a point-based system to address some issues with payload and attack/defend point capture maps in Overwatch in lieu of stopwatch as a competitive format, I wanted to chime in. While this represents a major improvement from both a competitive and viewer excitement standpoint, I think it still falls short of adding sufficient depth and strategic specialization for prospective professional teams. A point-based system for rewarding faster completion times also warps the king of the hill maps by forcing those matches to conform to a bo3 instead of a bo5, which represents an unnecessary change that limits the competitive depth of those maps as well.

With payload currently, or any attack/defend map including Temple of Anubis and Hanamura, I think the main issue stems from the fact that there is insufficient reward for completing the objective faster than the opposing team, thereby leaving any tie at the mercy of a single king of the hill point. This unfairly stacks the deck of the competitive scene in favor of teams that excel at king of the hill and makes teams that emphasize skill at payload inferior strategically, since as long as the match ends there is no difference in completing the objective in 3 minutes or 7 minutes or for advancing the payload further than the opponent if both teams fail to complete the obejective. The end result is the same, which strips away a lot of strategic diversity between teams who could excel at different game modes.

While I agree that stopwatch is unappealing from a spectator perspective and leads to anti-climatic finishes, I propose a system that makes the attack/defend maps more rewarding for teams who perform well in these modes. In the instance of payload, I think the match should consider the time in which the payload was captured as part of the difficulty of the final king of the hill tiebreaker. For example, if Team A completes the payload delivery in 3.5 minutes and Team B completes the payload delivery in 7 minutes, then Team A begins the king of the hill tiebreaker with 50% capture time on the final point. If neither team delivers the payload, but if Team A moves the payload 70% of the way along the route while Team B moves the payload 35% of the route, then similarly Team A would start with a 50% capture time on the final point. Obviously if one team delivers the payload and the other does not, then the team that delivers the payload automatically wins the map. This could also work on Temple of Anubis and Hanamura as a percentage based system depending on how fast both points are taken OR how many “tics” on each point are completed if both teams fail to capture two points. Clearly, this would need some playtesting to find the optimal percentage given to teams based on completion time, but it is a rough idea.

Furthermore, I also believe that the king of the hill tiebreaker must also be changed. Currently, king of the hill points are too short to accurately gauge a team’s skill and right to win at the end of a payload or attack/defend match. When king of the hill is represented in best of five, teams have multiple chances to win and therefore each individual point matter less, but I might also increase the capture time on these maps as well. The main issue with a single king of the hill is it makes one teamfight too crucial to determining the outcome of an entire payload match at the professional level, and it tilts it even more in this direction when you include the proposal for rewarding faster completion with percentage points on the king of the hill match. Therefore, I suggest that the tiebreaker king of the hill be double or triple the length of a normal king of the hill point to reflect the gravity of the tiebreaker. At double length, a team with a 50% advantage would only have to hold the point for the duration of a normal king of the hill while the underdog team would have to hold it for twice as long, for example.

Why do I suggest these changes? When discussing a competitive system and strategic identities for teams it is important to have defined strengths and weaknesses between squads. I fear that the current system weights teams proficient at king of the hill unfairly because they just have to be “good enough” at payload to deliver it at the last second regardless of their opponent’s skill at the gametype before they switch to their better mode. In my model, the team that excels at king of the hill can still demonstrate their dominance at the mode by mounting an impressive comeback to break the tie, leading to much more exciting potential finishes and simultaneously rewarding teams who want to focus on payload proficiency. Since map vetoes and selections will undoubtedly form a large part of the competitive scene, this gives many more strategic considerations rather than payload becoming a diminished aspect of the game since it can simply end in a disappointing, quick king of the hill.

While most traditional sports are zero-sum games when it comes to time, and therefore points scored are always worth the same, Overwatch does not fit this same rubric. In football, a team that takes a long time to score a touchdown can reap strategic rewards by taking time off the clock and denying the opposing offense the chance to score since there is a finite game clock. Overwatch is not zero-sum since a team cannot drag a payload delivery out for 59 minutes and give the enemy team 1 minute to deliver their payload. It is necessary to reward faster completions to foster depth across gametypes and heighten the drama and skill of a tiebreaker.

— Christopher “MonteCristo” Mykles