If it’s not obvious, the goal here is to make it so that any combination of Orisa/Sigma/Rein, is vulnerable to getting attacked at close range.
Where barrier strength doesn’t really matter. Because attackers just walk straight through it.
Except you’re allowing massive a recharge on the shield that can be moved at any time, not the one that can “attackers just walk straight through”.
And you’ve made it potentially damn near Rein sized in doing so.
Yup, the goal is to make it so that SingleBarrier is optimal. With 3 equivalent AnchorTanks to choose from.
Where as DoubleBarrier is vulnerable to Dive and Rushdown compositions.
If you want to make Orisa, assumedly in an Orisa-Sigma duo, more vulnerable to Rushdown, then you’d want to increase the relative engagement eHP of Rushdown, Dive, or Split comps while decreasing the over-fight eHP and/or peel potential of double-shield. Double-shield, after all, beats Rushdown only when it can kite far enough to pick Rushdown off, beats Dive only when it is able to peel for its weakest links but is obliged not to stack together, and beats Split only when both those conditions are satisfied (though each is that much easier to pull off).
Nerfing Orisa’s anti-tank damage, for instance, would be a help. That would mean increasing her projectile speed, as you’ve done, but also decreasing her damage per bullet or fire rate in turn, keeping her practical DPS against thinner or more mobile targets nearly the same while reducing her maximal DPS.
You could increase Dive’s eHP by allowing Winston to “carry” his bubble with him while in mid-air, rather than having to hold it for until having nearly landed or dropping it early to intercept a Sleep Dart or Accretion, allowing Ball to charge Adaptive Shield to some extent off nearby barriers, rather than solely nearby heroes, by improving D.Va’s continuous mobility, her MM value, and/or the width and fluidity of her DM, etc., etc.
Ooooh, this is another one of those “Let’s further increase queue times on the least populated role by sub-defining tanks and forcing a 1-1-2-2 queue” threads.
Aight, I’m out.
I think you’re confusing projectile speed and rate of fire.
Not remotely. It isn’t a difficult equation.
Maximal DPS = (damage per shot) x (rate of fire)
Practical DPS = (damage per shot) x (rate of fire) x (likely hit rate).
Increasing projectile speed while decreasing either (damage per shot) or (rate of fire) leaves practical DPS mostly the same against angularly-smaller targets (those distant and/or small).
Yes. That’s the point. Proximity and size are, for all intents and purposes, identical in their impact on a given projectile’s likely hit rate. There is no difference between a Rein facing you from 12 meters away and a hero with half his exposed contiguous surface area facing you from 6 meters away. On a projectile hero, nerfing “short-range” damage is the same as nerfing “anti-tank” damage.
But you know who gets more value in short range? Double-shield’s every competing conventional comp.
The trick is that the difference in projectile speed only counts once per reload.
Making maybe 0.1sec worth of difference, at best to TTK.
And the part that I think is rather unique about it, is that increased projectile speed is near worthless at close range.
I think it’s a lot more direct to just make AnchorTanks more vulnerable to close range attacks, with less self peel.
Such that if they had an offtank providing peel, they would be fine.
You’re not wrong.
I just have a preference towards making AnchorTanks get more kills, than less kills.
Largely because the other problem we have is that we need to convince DPS players to switch to the Tank Role.
Since that’s about the only way queue times get better.
It also provides an interesting opposing symmetry in why a team would want to have both an AnchorTank and an OtherTank.
| AnchorTank | OtherTanks | |
|---|---|---|
| Strength: | Medium/Long Range | Close Range |
| Weakness: | Close Range | Medium/Long Range |
| Firepower: | Similar | Similar |
with that mentality isnt that just saying that we should delete the term called tank and make them glorified dps?
What’s with the mentality that Overwatch should be designed like it’s primarily an RPG, and not primarily an FPS?
Look at any other shooter, and you have “Heavies”, not walking damage sponges.
the base design for the game was taken from a failed MMORPG project named Titan, so the foundation is RPG related itself
More like it’s an FPS with RPG elements for “flavor”.
But acting like you should pour a whole jar of cinnamon into pancakes is kinda bizarre.
i mean if you want tanks to have more kills than dps why have a dps role at all?
Because regardless the DPS Role will be more popular.
And if you are looking to fix queue times, you need to be heading in the direction of equal popularity between roles.
Better question, if they don’t improve queue times, why even talk about gameplay balance at all? Because the game will be dead.
Not as bizarre as that analogy… Or, so would imagine, but I can’t remotely guess what that analogy was supposed to refer to in this context.
By the time you’re specifically buffing them to a point where you’d just take 3 “anchor tanks” together if not for your forced 1-1-2-2, you’re relying on gimmicks to save you from the compositional consequences of painfully lopsided balancing, and even then they’d feel awkward to play as and awful to play against.
I’m not okay with that. I want literally nothing to do with that.
How exactly are you having more than 2 Tanks per team in 2-2-2?
How did your attention span run out just 1 word short of
Ah, that’s your hangup.
Did it occur to you that by making OffTanks a bit more sturdy, and giving AnchorTanks less self peel, that if you had two AnchorTanks, that a DoubleOffTank composition would wreck faces if it could get into position?
Yes. If.
But here you’ve given Sigma-Orisa more stability against bumrushes than you’ve given off-tanks the ability to bum-rush them. You’ve those who are neither “anchor tanks” nor “off-tanks” (apart from D.Va) a bit of added eHP and the traditional off-tanks a bit of niche hard-counter utility only, all to make Orisa-Sigma even more barrier focused when, without significant backline or shielded rushdown threat, double-shield absolutely can play right around its (now hugely buffed) shields.
Your suggested changes are just not creating the result you allegedly want, even when relying on an Anchor Tank vs. Non-Anchor Tank gimmick that would even further slow everyone’s queue times if forced.