Nah
Cause everyone would complain even without trying it.
Then they’ll have no choice to revert it back and delay it because the development would change.
You’ll have to deal with it. The game will be 5v5.
That’s the point, dare I say speak for GreyFalcon, I believe both they and myself want 5v5 and think that’s a positive change.
Go for it, if an idea is good, it should be good regardless who says it.
This doesn’t work though.
At all.
For example, if you removed Brigitte and Sigma from the game right now. That has a ripple effect.
They have their good match-ups and synergies which balance other characters. Removing Brig makes Dive a TON stronger and removing Sigma cripples Double shield and poke.
The balance then shifts, with some heroes looking stronger.
So if you take out the new heroes and just do a beta without them, you actually find out nothing. Because the balance isn’t remotely representative of what you will end up with.
And without new maps, or the map reworks, 5v5 will seem off. The maps aren’t designed for that experience. Which can make some characters seem stronger than they would actually be.
Take Widow. In OW2 maps will have more cover, making Widow have less to shoot.
In OW1 maps, in 5v5, she is overperforming because there isn’t enough cover.
You can’t balance around an environment that wouldn’t be representative of the final product.
On their internal testing, they can use the new maps and heroes.
And the OW1 game engine, might not be able to even work properly. Take Winston’s secondary. That is a new ability. Are you saying they need to patch that into the game just for 1 experiment (risking leaks mind you), adding all the assets (which might not work in the old engine) and animations (on an old winston model).
There is too many roadblocks to make this a feasible possibility.
We will ONLY and I repeat ONLY see 5v5 in either the final product or a beta before release.
1 Like
If hobbyist workshop modders can do it, then why not professionals?
Especially since they don’t need the full VFX. Just enough so that it’s a decent.
Because to do something professionally takes a lot longer than to use a premade tool that can create it to a poor degree. Pretending that professional coding is as easy as the workshop is STUPID.
Yeah let’s just do a “decent” job. If you’re gonna do a “decent” job for a shoddy experimental that for all those other reasons isn’t even worth it, then why not go the full way and do it properly and prepare a REAL beta.
Because the playtests are to figure out balancing issues, not too forfeit the hype they built up.
See this for why it’s a waste of time for balance tweaks.
Just because you’d need to do micro balancing later, doesn’t mean there’s no value in macro balancing.
Like the difference in Golf in getting it near the hole, rather than a hole-in-one.
it isn’t macro balancing though.
It’s ALL micro balancing.
Why would we micro balance a version of the game that won’t even be remotely similar to the final product?
When you add in like 5 or 6 new heroes the WHOLE balance is off set.
Try removing 6 heroes from our current roster WITHOUT HUGE implications on balance.
Then you have to micro balance all over again.
RATHER than just work on what you have a release a FULL beta later.
Why waste time?
We’d need to use the 5v5 on the new maps. Though simply giving us 2 different modes, each with 1 new map, should work fine as a beta. I assume they’re doing PvE first and then working backwards for PvP balance, since OW2 is a story campaign and “Season 2 DLC Pass” type of thing. The PvE was also the only feature almost unanimously received positively and asked for, so it’d make sense for them to work from PvE → PvP. Meaning we’re gonna have a long wait for the demo/beta. Assuming the public even gets to test it before release.
I think it will work out fine, because Tanks have always been the worst to balance. I’m just interested in how they plan to balance Off-Tanks in terms of mitigating damage for their team. Like, if Roadhog just stays the same but with more Breathers, then that’s going to be a crapshow.
Because getting it “near to balanced” and “fine tuned balance” are different processes.
There are core issues that need to address relative to how there’s going to be weaker and fewer barriers more pressure on Supports, Snipers potentially being too strong, and how they deal with CC.
Those are core issues that are separate from “more variety in hero pickrates”.
It’s going to be a lot of work just to get those into the “right ballpark” range.
Ok and don’t you see how the new heroes, reworks, map design, and new modes may play into balance? At all?
because even adding 1 hero has ripple effects on balance.
Changing up entire map designs has ripple effects on balance.
Reworking heroes is the same as adding a new hero, it has ripple effects on balance.
The new modes introduce new niches, WHICH. AFFECT. BALANCE.
Balancing for an environment, where:
- Major reworks aren’t present. Means that there is heroes in the game that won’t function like they will in the future and could give a false idea of where balance should be. You also aren’t balancing around the new versions of them.
- The new Heroes aren’t present. This means intended counters and synergies aren’t present. And without them it can make some heroes and combinations appear more powerful or weaker than they are.
- New map design. Without this it can give heroes a false sense of power or weakness, necessitating balance around strategies and compositions that might not even be that strong on the new maps. it’s like balancing for workshop expanse vs workshop island. Two Different environments that favour different strengths entirely.
- New modes. These could make some heroes have a good niche. Take Symmetra. If the mode REALLY favours respawn advantage, suddenly a respawn tp could be good in this mode. But without it, Symmetra could look horrendously weak.
This is why it doesn’t work. It’s a lot of effort to see what balance is like in a completely different scenario.
Yes, and they already had a “near to balanced” state to start with.
They have our very well balanced 6v6.
Rework the heroes that don’t work as you go through the development process.
Change the map designs.
Add in the new heroes as you go through the development process.
Tweak balance as you go THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS.
Then when you have a product that is close to balanced from all that internal testing (believe it or not, they understand the game and do actually play it) they can release a REAL beta. Then we can play that, and they can get REAL DATA that actually gets them closer to balance.
Your way of doing things here isn’t necessary. We don’t need to give them a baseline for balance. Or else they would have done so already before changing anything.
Yes, and if you start balancing heavily around a version of the game that is not even close to what you want it to be like. You won’t even get to where you want it to be like.
How does us playing a 5v5 beta, with “decent” visuals (which can affect balance), no new heroes or modes or maps or reworks. Going to help them balance their version which includes all the reworks, maps, modes and heroes?
it’s like saying we can play this 6v6 version we have now to give them data on how to balance 5v5, it’s not the same game anymore. It’s changed a ton with all the additions and changes. They aren’t similar enough to compare.
I trust them over a forum spammer any day of the week.
A forum spammer with an impressive track record of anticipating the types of balance changes the devs will go for.
Except balance does not exist in a vacuum and not having all the pieces might make things seem off compared to how they are supposed to be. If the news is to be believed though I do not think that will be an issue.