Well there you go you big babies (50.2 tower nerf)

The problem was it really only hurt certain tanks and bruisers, a number of them were fine, or even stronger. I had no problems dealing with structures on tanks or bruisers that were primarily single target, or could easily avoid hitting heroes. ETC, Johanna, Artanis, and Imperius all felt the same to me with the tower change. In fact, it was easier to fight around structures as those heroes as they no longer applied a move and attack speed slow.

Heroes that relied heavily on armor, or were based on AoE or other attacks that made it hard to avoid pulling aggro were the ones hurt most by the change, looking at relative win rates and my personal experience. Blaze, Anub’arak, Garrosh, Diablo, and Malthael all had to play very passively, or just not bother going near buildings at all.

1 Like

Garrosh and diablo had high win rates in plat+. It’s a play style player issue, not the heroes. They’re still as good as their s-tier selves when outside of tower range

Diablo has not been S tier for months, and Garrosh only works if you have a blow-up comp. All heroes have high win rates above Plat, but Garrosh and Diablo had some of the worst win rates compared to the other tanks.

Johanna, ETC, and Tyrael are probably the best tanks in top ranked play.


Not sure why you would say that when tanks and bruisers have to engage in melee. Towers are distance based and it doesn’t cover the entirety of the lane in front of it up until the next defensive zone. That means any ranged class will have no problems with harassment.

Furthermore melee with mobility have even less of a problem. IE divers, which you need protection from.

Therefore this change only really influenced tanks and bruisers which weren’t OP to begin with and didn’t need this on their plate on top of everything else.

It’s inherently flawed design from the core up for many reasons and either needs a complete overhaul that effects all it’s intended targets (ranged assassins, divers, assassins in general) or it needs to be reverted.

If they’re over 50% wr though with high pickrate, that means they aren’t garbage tier that people are saying they are. They could be weaker than most tanks, but if they’re all over 50% (I didn’t check other tanks) then tanks are strong as a whole, not that those two are too weak and need buffs

Do you understand how win rates work in the top 10% of the playerbase? Every hero not named Genji has a win rate over 50%. 57% is the average win rate for tanks in Diamond/Masters. That means a 51% win rate on a hero in the top ties really is garbage.

Diablo was certainly not an S tier tank in the last patch, and Garrosh was hurt a lot by the change in that it made him absurdly strong in the early game, and absurdly weak in the late game.


And right now hotslog for player rank diamond and master has Garrosh at higher than 57% win rate with a sizeable popularity. They’re fine. If they were bad then tell those players stop using them

Which date range are you using for that, as Heroes Profile for the matches after the tower change is showing something different?

And just curious, which tanks do you have the highest win rate playing in ranked right now?

Garrosh will always have a relatively high popularity rate due to how he skews a draft and game play, more than how likely he is to win a match. It is similar to how Kael’thas is always banned in Gold and lower, not because he is a good mage, Jaina is far better, but how people do not like how he changes how they have to play.

Heroesprofile, like Hotslog, is highly unreliable. It’s based off self-reported stats and you have no idea what portion of the playerbase or the amount of unique players it represents (repeat data). In addition to that there is no system to insure those that report, report reliably (upload all their games). Most people don’t even know it’s based on self-reported numbers and they think it’s from a Blizzard API so they take it as gospel.

I do not take it as gospel, and I know that stats for any individual is wildly inaccurate. General trends can be seen by viewing how data changes over time, or from patch to patch. If hero A has a consistent 54% win rate prior to a patch in Diamond+, then drops to a 51% win rate post-patch (given a reasonable number of matches recorded), it is reasonable to assume the patch is responsible for the change.

In addition, I also stated that in my experience as playing tanks and bruisers, playing with others in those roles, and seeing what happens to the enemy tanks and bruisers, not all were adversely affected by the change. As I noted, Artanis actually felt stronger after the tower change, as it is ridiculously easy to not hit heroes when attacking a structure on him, and if you do hit a hero, the fact that the buildings no longer apply a move and attack speed slow, it is actually easier to get a kill and walk away than before. Artanis is tanky enough, and it is easy to time his trait so the building won’t kill him in the time it takes to finish off his opponent.

1 Like

Other than personally collecting data manually from all the players, we have no other option that to rely on those 2 sources

Agree, it’s too big nerf. It’s like they promote that you don’t need to have any game knowledge to play this game. Why to learn anything about towers, when you can just ignore them completely.

Why learn about dive when any retard can stay close to a tower and just kill you in 2 shots when you have 40 less armor?

The armor reduction should have never exceeded the 25 max value already.

The change at least allow for diver and defender to l2p. You asked for divers and tanks to adapt, now it is the defender’s turn.


^ that. but those who loved the -40 armor are the defenders who kept saying to divers to “l2p” and adapt lmao now they’re not happy that the towers won’t be able to babysit them as good as before sad times

1 Like

So many people were against nerf towers. Why do developers listen only to whiners? The same thing happened with the selection in quick matches, when they added the need to play for tanks and healers - many liked these changes, but devs again listened to the whiners. Once again, I am against further nerf towers. 30% been fine.

I think it wasn’t entirely consistent.

If multiple players are damaging heroes, there is prioritisation, so if the entire team of 5 dives, it can be okay, until the focus target has to leave.

As Li Li I could never approach towers. Same as Anub. Backline tank; even without the beetles, the stun (Q) is to be used. Maybe it’s the old rule that the tower targets the one with the lowest health, or somesuch.

This of course means that if Li Li is adding serpent, then the rest of the team can dive safely. Except they have no healer.

As long range damage dealer - Kael’thas, Tass, Ming, Chromie, Hammer - I had no problems whatsoever. I didn’t care before and I didn’t care during the anomaly. Hence I’m not really buying into “this is not a problem” posts. I’m still seeing new / returning people trying to chase and get destroyed by towers.

It would be easier to understand if towers would always focus the player, and do flat + percentage damage (e.g. x + 5%) to balance the effect on tanks and else.

They have fundamentally changed the anomalies according to what the players wanted, I don’t know what you’re on about. It’s actually amazing that they listen to feedback so much nowadays, unfortunate that you can’t appreciate it.

And what did the players wanted?
How did they gather the data?

Was there a questionnaire? Where was it? How many people replied to it? What was their rank? What is the outcome?

Based on what did they decide the players “wanted” the changes?
Based on these forums? Based on talks with pro players? Based on throwing darts? Based on people writing on these forums which dont represent the players in the game?

Are you having some information that we are lacking or are you just throwing random sentences without even trying?

And of course I don’t appreciate changes into the fundamentals of the game, which made a lot of heroes useless and which had to have a lot of changes just to work at least similarly than before.
The exp change was not needed, not requested and it only serves as a visual indicator for potatoes that they need to soak or they are loosing exp.

Why do you need to dumb the game down? Rather force the players to learn. The same situation as with the towers currently.

1 Like

You’re just “answering” my comment on your blatantly false statements

by asking more questions, to avoid on admitting that that is not true. So i don’t think we are on the same page and it won’t make much sense for me to put effort into my answer here.

I’ll still give it one more try: Obviously they have lots of internal data, they read threads on this forum and on reddit, listen to the weekly ITN podcast, watch several (high level) streamers and probably tournaments as well. All that is clearly visible from the balance changes that they make, especially the one’s they made when the XP globes were initially created for example. All high rank players requested that last hitting should grant exp and they added it 2 or 3 weeks later.

Just not true, they didn’t make any heroes useless.

You’re mistaking it mate, you’re the one who’s unwilling to learn, they are not dumbing anything down. The tower changes brought complexity with them and punish careless gameplay. As you can see from the last two bigger adjustments to those changes, they actively listen to feedback.

The game is changing and that doesn’t mean that some heroes are getting useless, they just need to be played differently (and sometimes, of course changed as well - often when a new hero gets added it has a big impact on other heroes too, that doesn’t just come from gameplay changes). :slight_smile:

I don’t think this is true anymore, since the gameplay changes on these last couple days really took most of them out of the game.