…well. I think it would be worth considering forcing people to switch roles after death. Retain ult charge. I think tanking mostly sucks because you’re stuck as tank the whole game and everyone else is playing a “funner” game/role.
Staying alive will be more crucial the more value you put out per hero. Overall more competitive and dare I say balanced. If 5v5 open queue, but role switch then, the comps can be very different and strategic choices come into play so each hero is closer to a wild card than meta. IMO. If your team rolls out with 5 tanks and you all die together somehow, everyone has to choose support or damage role heroes, till they die again (after gaining some ult charge).
The main reason I like the tweet idea is because it’s a win/win for pretty much everyone. We all have our own ideas of what could make 6v6 work, like the part I quoted, some want RQ, some want OQ, some want the OW1 October 2020 patch, some a 2016 patch, list goes on…
The 6v6 role lock idea is, in my opinion, the best compromise that is a clear improvement for pretty much everyone who wants 6v6 to be a thing so we can avoid fighting over our own small ideas (regardless of your idea in the quote being good or bad, but there will be some people who’ll think it’s bad).
Please explain to everyone how OQ is better when OQ basically revolves around tank stacking to the point where picking anything other than a tank is asking to feed.
Sounds like you want a game that is very different to what Overwatch was in the past, and what it is now. You should go find it, I’m sure it’s out there somewhere.
I would argue balancing around a fixed number of heroes per role is much easier than balancing around a situation where you can have as many of any role as you want
It also affects future designs where certain things cant ever exist going forward otherwise they will break the game. Whereas with a fixed number of a role you can only ever have a max of whatever that effect/ability is
For instance aoe healing. If we were to put a focus on open queue, its really dangerous to add more aoe healers because of how effective it is to stack aoe healing effects. You then are forcing future designs to not exist because of ‘what if’ scenarios. You then quickly go down a rabbit hole of future proofing the game around these ‘what if’ scenarios by adding punishments and limitations like ‘aoe healing maxes out at a set hps’. Which then adds even more issues to the game where your hero suddenly is 50% worse because your teammate picked another aoe support
Its Much easier to balance in role queue, by making it so you can only ever have 2 supports they can design and balance a new aoe healer within those fixed parameters knowing there can never be more than 1 other support.
Same exact thing with shield tanks. You would have to have to add some stupid rules like
‘only 1 shield tank per team’ or
‘If you have 2 shield tanks, barriers have 50%hp’
In order to keep it balanced
This may be true, particularly for quick-play. I didn’t realize you may only want this for quick-play. However I think forcing role switch is more competitive and balanced. I think I’d enjoy your idea better because I like to stick to only a few heroes. I was thinking along the lines of spectating pros in an E Sports. As I myself do not play competitively.
Even if those rise, weekly hero bans can solve it. If the same meta appears in 3 alternative weeks just proves they’re overperforming and nerfs are necessary.
You give freedom, less finger pointing and dynamic meta. Also achieving less queue time along with it. But would annoy most “mains” due they would experience what tanks are handling right now, the inability to play what they want instead of what their team actually needs without anybody saying by sheer pressure of counters, ban or because someone picked it before you.
Balance is not the end all to everyone’s problems. I don’t care if the game is balanced for pro players. I just want it to be fun. Fun to me is to allow as many strategies as possible to be viable in the game. In order to balance the game for 5v5 RQ they’ve basically limited the game to 1-2 viable strategies at any given time.
Blah blah double shield GOATS blah. Never saw it in 80% of my games in OW1, and when I did I could still play my best chars and beat it sometimes, don’t care.
tl;dr - yes it is MUCH EASIER to ‘balance’ the game when you restrict players options so much. Balancing interest in the game is totally different, which is where playing with ratios comes in. It is not fun.
What are you even talking about. Asking for 6v6 OQ as the main (or co-main) mode is somehow different than ‘what it was in the past’?
Also maybe you should read past the first paragraph.
Of my </=100 hours of rank games in OW1, only a couple of them have people not willing to coordinate in picking
I personally find the situation insanely exaggerated back then, but I played in Asia so players might be different
No, it was the same in EU.
I played around high-Plat to low-Diamond back then and it was fairly rare to encounter teams that were completely out of whack.
Maybe at the lower levels whacky team compositions were more prevalent, but then a player flexing for the team should be very competitive, which should allow him to climb to a better rank fairly fast.
I had access to rank from low bronze to high plat, and only low bronze have more of such occurences, which couldn’t even make them 10% of the games I’ve had
Oh I read the title. But the main reason hate 5v5 Role Queue is the 1-Tank limit. That’s not an issue in 5v5 Role Queue which is freely available to you right now.
As for why you want to force the entire playerbase into Open Queue when it’s already available as an optional mode, I have no idea. People would already be playing it if they actually wanted to.
