2-3-2 is the answer

There’s netcode, UI, internal systems checks, lots that I probably don’t even know about. It’s definitely not just adding a player slot. They have to add hooks to assume there’s two extra players (or one player on each team) to lots of code structure probably. Maybe even some map redesigning if they feel like they’re too small or whatever.


1-3-2 remove the tank role synergies. Solo tank raid boss might be fun but coodination between 2 tanks imo is better.

2-2-2 limits options on dps role since heroes that are designed to provide indirect dmg instead of direct is now not working cuz the other dps have to do all the heavy lifting. Brute force and utility becomes 2 extremes in this role atm.


I wish there were a way to try this on a limited basis, just to see how it worked and even if the UI was busted etc, to evaluate whether it was worth the effort of doing the rest.

Yeah, I don’t doubt that there is some cost and effort involved, I just don’t think it’s as… prohibitive as Jeff made it seem.

But then again, maybe it is. There’s already a lot of circumstantial evidence that the engine they use for Overwatch is… not very good. Like it puts out good results, but it’s massively inefficient to make changes in it. Destiny has a similar issue. In which case… Blizzard needs to put some work into making a better engine, which it sounds like they’re doing for OW2, so maybe this would be an ideal time to allow team sizes larger than 6 :thinking: since they’re already doing an overhaul

Either way, I think they need to more seriously consider 2-3-2. And I don’t think map design will really be an issue from a player count standpoint–most maps are spacious enough than one extra player per team won’t break anything (except maybe like… Anubis)

they would need to buff supports too, playing support in 132 already feels bad as is

First off, thank you for acknowledging the technical challenges that Jeff addressed recently about the idea, but I will go back to a much older post from the old forums. I don’t have this one in the forum archive website yet, but I have a screenshot:

In short matches would likely become more chaotic, (something we clearly see already by limiting to 1 tank and 3 DPS in Experimental). Really if 7v7 was to ever become a thing, there would very likely have to be signficant map overhauls as well otherwise flanking would be an instant go to strategy.

However whether the idea of a 2-3-2 7v7 is a good idea or not, its best for the short term to not hope that something like that will ever come anytime soon since it does sound like that would take a lot of rebuilding of the game as a whole.


It’s worth noting that 5v5 and 7v7 likely feel different from 4v4 and 8v8, and at the time of testing, I’m guessing they didn’t even begin to consider the presence of role limits or maybe even of hero limits.

That’s to say, there are a lot of differences from what they tested way back when, and what people are asking to try now.

1 Like

Correct, role limits definitely was not on the radar. Hero limits was merely a discussion back then. Overwatch though was a much different game in many ways back then as well. Such as having four classes (which all of the different heroes were mostly equally divided across for the most part) instead of three roles.

Interesting. That seems to have been before whatever optimizations they made for 6v6.

I’m also assuming that any composition was possible. The game has evolved a lot since then and the current discussion is obviously in the context of a specific composition, which changes things a bit. For instance, one of the reasons 2-3-2 might be better is to provide that “recognizable front” 1-3-2 lacks (imo) as mentioned wrt 8v8

no because thats an odd number

This was very likely during the prototyping stage when Tracer used to shoot lasers from her eyes

1 Like

Wait. What? Need pictures.


So the “chaos” of 8v8 could very plausibly not translate to a structured 7v7 mode :man_shrugging: hence, I don’t think you can reasonably say that because they tested 8v8 in the past and found it chaotic that 7v7 with 2-3-2 role lock would be chaotic. I also don’t find the chaos of 1-3-2 to be indicative of the potential for chaos in 2-3-2… much of the chaos in Experimental comes from the combined reductions in healing/tanking through balance changes recently as well as the massive reduction in tanking due to the roster changes allowing DPS considerably greater autonomy and minimizing their team reliance, thus enabling less-coordinated and more-chaotic strategies. This is less true in 2-3-2 where tanking isn’t weakened at the roster level, and tanks and supports ostensibly could (and should) be buffed to handle the third DPS.

Also, I find your points about flanking to be… interesting. Flankers right now aren’t exactly the popping go-to choice in matches right now, so if what you say is true, 2-3-2 could be a much-needed boost to them without power creeping them. So, if anything, that’s a point in favor of 2-3-2.

1 Like


Stop asking the same thing which others have been spamming & which devs already said no to…

Threads like these are getting really tiring & fast… You guys wont get it do you?

7vs7 wont happen. Period.

This took a while to find, but I found it.

If you really want to see more and you already own the 2019 BlizzCon virtual ticket, you should be able to access the 2017 BlizzCon panel, “Overwatch Archives” on Blizzcon.com (Note that the Virtual Ticket is no longer available for sale this year.)


Well consider I have been taking my observations of 1-3-2 and seeing out the impact of having a consistant 3 damage heroes has on the game. And yeah Flanking seems like go-to strategy from what I can tell from my observations, where as in 2-2-2 its more about breaking through the chokes as a team. This is why it comes down to the map design when it comes to the number of players on the field. If there is more outputs of any kind of damage (not just damage heroes), the chokeholds are more difficult to get through. Flankers often can bypass or get through quickly but in the current 2-2-2 metagame often can’t make the key impact by the time a member of their team gets picked, this is not as impactful in the 1-3-2 from what I can tell. Now of course the 1-3-2 only has the 1 tank making a pick on that tank or either support far more impactful than the current 2-2-2 metagame. Right now it is my speculation, and its only a speculation, that we’d see similar results with a 2-3-2 with the current tank hero balance. You are right there is no way to know for sure unless it was made, but right now I think it is best not to stress over it as we know any form of a 7v7 mode is not going to come any time soon.

I think 222 is the way to go. I liked 132, but it’s probably better with that classic two tank combo.

I think the real fix is to just even out the hero pools.

Sym was once a support. Bring that back. Maybe work Mei into a Tank for OW2.
Introduce like two tanks, two supports and one new dps.

Suddenly, you’d have a hero pool something like 11-14-10 much more balanced than the current 8-16-7

Make a Hit Scan Tank. That will get the attention of some current dps players.

You haven’t even had the chance to try it, I don’t think we can simply say that adding an additional player spot is “the answer”.

1 Like

This just proves that it is indeed possible for the engine to run more than 6v6. Yes, I am sure there will be some work on UI on the release-build. But really, I doubt it would be prohibitively expensive.
I am actually certain that right now the devs on an internal build can run more than 6v6. It would be silly if not.
I am speaking as a game developer myself.

As for things being too chaotic and too many ults firing off in a small area:
There are two solutions to this: Spread out the fight and redesign ultimates to be less impactful.

Spread out the fight

  • You can spread out the fight by making more flanking routes and making more space in general. Sure, maps will need to be redesigned, but hey, do you want to save this game or not?
  • Another way could be to design maps with multiple objectives open at the same time. The objectives could even be in fairly close proximity, to make sure that the fights for the points will be connected. Imagine a long, open area holding two capture points, and that Widowmaker could cover them both. Even if her team focuses their main force on one point, she (and Hanzo, Ashe and Ana) can still support a minor force contesting the second point.

Redesign ultimates
Take Tracer’s Pulse Bomb as a baseline, and design ultimates to be near this in powerlevel and skill requirement. Sure, they can be more powerful (but not crazily much more) or require less skill (but not much less), but it should be balanced out in the rest of the kit.
By having more low-level ultimates, an ultimate will not have these crazy global effects that creates such a chaotic environment, but none-the-less they can still be very valuable. After all, A well placed Tracer bomb can alone swing a fight.
With less impactful ultimates, the ultimates could even come online more often and become a more reliable tool in the kit.

We need in general more skill to enter the game. Required skill makes people fail under pressure, which is a balancing trait in itself. Instead of all these crazy ultimates where skilled players can not fail, because they are that easy to pull off, we need skill to be a factor. A factor that keeps ultimates in check, as there will be more of them (with one more player on each team), but also not the least to distinguish the good players from the mediocre.

1-2-2 seems beter as a fast solution. you still have the one tank bit with only 2 dps he would stay alive longer. you still need to buff or rework some tanks and dps for it. bit it will feel beter then 1-3-2.