9vs9 could work. But there is a catch

people speculating a 5v5 or a 7v7 gamemode, but that isnt gonna work.

Possibility of:
1 2 2
1 3 1
2 1 2
2 2 1
1 2 2
3 1 1
1 1 3
And many more

There are problems with each of them. That being each role would have major issues in balancing

Possibility of
1 1 5
1 5 1
5 1 1
1 2 4
1 4 2
4 1 2
2 4 1
2 3 2
And alot more

There are problems with this as well. Most balanced would be 2 3 2

The solution then
3 3 3. It not only is the most likely, but would also open up more meta shifts.
The only downside i see is a mega GOATS comp where 3 dps would join the standard GOATS comp.
Balancing would also get faster, as there would e more data per match

IDK. maybe 6vs6 will stay. Or we could see 3vs3 comp

Jeff already commented on this:

Everything in Overwatch is optimized around 6vs6.
The game engine, the requirements for consoles, the map layouts and the balance.

It is simply not going to happen :woman_shrugging:


Soooo 5 tanks and 4 healers comps? :slight_smile:


That was a while back. OW2 could have it. But itll be a while

When you want to make changes to the game the first question you should ask yourself (and try to fix with the changes) is Why do we need changes? When I see posts like this the only thing I see is that they completely forgot why suggestions like 5v5 and 7v7 were made in the first place. Your 3-3-3 doesn’t fix any of those problems so why do you think we’d need to move from 2-2-2 to 3-3-3?


I honestly doubt that they rework all maps and half the hero pool.
Also you can’t fix the issue of system requirements for consoles.

The Nintendo Switch is already at it’s limit with 6vs6 and OW2 will come with improved graphics. There is no room for making the main mode of the game 9vs9.

1 Like

Why stop there, we should just go to the good ole’ 40 man (20vs20)


Why stop there? We could just make it 100 vs 100!


Nothing beyond 6v6 should exist. Bigger lobbies = longer queue times.

Also, the game is built & balanced around 6v6. Adding more players to teams upsets balance. It would also mess up role queue.

1 Like

Wait, I feel like I’m reading this wrong, let me get my glasses real quick

Ooh boy, are you sure about that?
I mean, sounds awesome! NGL

Why stop there? We could just make it literally one server with EVERYONE

1 Like

If 6v6 already gets really confusing when there are too many things happening at the same time I don’t even wanna imagine with 6 more heroes on the screen.

Sounds like Eve Online.

Yep, 5v5 and 7v7 is purely for queue time reasons. 9v9 solves nothing, in fact might make things worse.

1 Like

there will never be a 9v9 as even 7v7 was said to be too resource intensive for the game as is. I think if they ever get the engine to make it work, 7v7 would be ideal. 2 tanks, 3 dps, 2 healers.

1 Like

Either way oddnumber vs. oddnumber is the way to go. Even vs. Even numbers tend to devolve into symmetrical resource allocation and boring repeat mirror scripts. Choose your own size.

They run 1v11 and total mayhem with minimal “compute” issues. But that ofc is a total N=12 + spectators and faster cd spam.

To think they can’t bump that up and tune for e.g. 7v7 (with some efficiency/savings loss at 6v6, I guess) is beyond me. We were promised some engine upgrades and I know there is untapped potential in that part of the dev team.

Jeff didn’t say they couldn’t.
He said that the “cost” would be really high.

By that he most probably not only meant money, but also time and resources that they could use elsewhere to actually improve the game or create more content, instead of changing it for… well… what exactly would be the purpose of that 7vs7 or 9vs9 mode anyways?

The issue was never stated to be team size, or individuals in the match (i.e. spectators), nor was it cooldown rendering. The issue was rather clearly stated to be their ability to store heros in memory. This has absolutely 0 to do with compute power.

Also, have you noticed you use a lot of superfluous vocab in all of your comments?

Sorry missed the part where they said “clearly” that storing heroes in memory was a bottleneck. Can you link it? Lookups would still be O(1) “compute” and the resource difference seems marginal.

Have you noticed I keep having to curb your statements?

A small upfront cost is implied - but that didn’t stop them from dev’ing PUSH.
If it’s too hard, costly, late that’s understandable. I’m not attacking 6v6 as a flagship mode, just poking at how much of the same formats we’re expected to sit comfortable with 5 years between products.

www.reddit. com/r/Competitiveoverwatch/comments/g1duj8/is_there_any_official_answer_about_why_echo_ult/fnfalfr?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

“this is a technical limitation related to how many heroes can be loaded into memory at one time.”

On why Echo prevents hero swapping.

The current system has strict requirements on the bottom end of memory, so as to be compatible with consoles. In order to improve this while maintaining such requirements, they would need to improve the efficiency of their memory storage, which can be a rather monumental task considering the number of unique abilities and interactions that exist in the game.

Most ults have 2 versions of voice lines, for example. Various compression techniques continue to improve how far we can push the envelope of “lossless” compression, but to my knowledge no major developments have been made in audio compression on a system.

Sure, theoretically. We don’t know what their resource budget is, and we don’t know what optimizations occur in order to allow the various interactions we see.

Echo is a perfect case as it’s been speculated that in order to minimize memory usage, parts of Echo have actually been seeded into other heroes to allow for more optimal memory usage when she Duplicates.

You mean when you just fail to respond to any of my points? You make a lot of baseless assumptions, throw around a lot of vocabulary, and never respond when I claim that wouldn’t be correct. As per your “superadditive population” comment.