Currently for OWL there’s 8 tickets that go into the spinner for each of the 4 heroes possibly getting banned.
What if instead:
Which ends up being:
The problem (and intention) with this idea is that it puts the heroes who have been played the most to be selected over those who have been played the least, which causes a two-meta flop rather than the chance of multiple meta games from being formed.
Not saying it is a bad idea, but by having the same number of cards for each eligible hero to be drawn there is a more even chance of having more diverse metagames week to week in the league.
Originally they talked about the rotation as though they were going to balance the game to compensate for overbearing metagame states, so in theory that issue would be fixed outside the Hero Pool feature itself.
For example, Mei 100% pick rate week 1, near-guarantee to be banned for week 2, receives significant balance change for week 3 to hopefully not be 100% pick rate.
While true, it’s not impossible for the #4 to be picked. But instead of 8/32 tickets (25.0% chance), it’s 5/26 tickets (19.2% chance).
It’s weighed, but not aggressively.
I think you are getting developer hero balance philosophy and the Overwatch League Hero Pool selection system a bit mixed. Hero pools for Competitive undergo a completely internal process that is determined by the development team.
Yes, I’m sort of mixing the two together, as there is plenty of overlap between the concepts, even though the selection method for heroes each week is different.
I suppose it may be presumptuous to expect that the idea of balancing against the meta covers both ladder and OWL metas (to the limited extent that they differ), but that was how I interpreted it.
I would just prefer a weighted system. You get 5 tickets if you have the 10% eligibility and for every 10% after that another ticket is added to the pool.
Well, with the weighting I posted up top, there would still be a 69.2% chance that the #1 spot isn’t picked.