Balancing around GM is holistically bad for the game

General Discussion
1

Here’s my reasoning behind this:

1. This balance style means that the problems of 99% of the playerbase are unimportant to Blizzard.
Here is a HYPOTHETICAL NOT REAL example: Let’s say that Bastion were to be come an absolute monster in every rank below diamond and the game devolves into whatever side doesn’t run Bastion comp loses. If this never becomes a problem in GM (and bastion remains extremely weak there), Blizzard would ignore it, or possibly even buff him, making it even worse for the majority of the player base.

Any complaints, requests that he be nerfed or changed, or other issues would fall on deaf ears because “he’s not an issue in GM”. Players are having a genuinely bad experience because of balance and the effective response from the balance team is “get good scrub, you don’t matter unless you play GM”.

Extreme example, but it illustrates the point. If the game is balanced around GM, players who are below GM, which is a vast, vast majority, are essentially viewed as unimportant.

If the game experience is awful for them, well, they just need to get better so they can reach a rank where they are actually looked after by the balance team.

2. Balancing for GM does NOT create a better “trickle-down” balance for the rest of the tiers.
A lot of people run this theory, but it simply isn’t true. Let’s use double shield as the current example here. If we look at GM, then sigma is clearly the problem behind all of this, sporting a whopping 26% pick rate. Thus, the current experimental hits him hard and fast.

Looking at any rank below GM paints an entirely different picture. In masters and anywhere below, Reinhardt becomes the dominant force in the meta. Sitting at a 32% pick rate over all (and even a 27% pick rate in masters), Rein is clearly the must-pick for those ranks. Zarya becomes a more dominant force than sigma in most ranks too, as she’s neck-and-neck with sigma in Masters and greatly outranks him anywhere below that.

So while Blizzard (and much of the forums) refer to double shield as being the biggest issue at the moment, statistically, Rein/Zarya is the meta for most every player.

Similarly, Brig has 30% pick rate in GM, but down in masters, it drops to 19% while Ana’s is a whopping 39%. In Platinum and below, Brig has the second-lowest pick ratio, even underneath Lucio.

The GM-centric changes of nerfing brig, orisa, and Sigma aren’t benefitting the lower ranks, where the meta is clearly dominated by other characters who are now going to be even more powerful.

3. This creates an ugly, toxic community mentality.
Video games are about having an experience. Yes, competition is fun and improvement is valuable, but at the end of the day, we play video games for the experience they bring us.

Some people are not amazing at FPS games, or at Overwatch in general. Some people end up in bronze and stay there. However, when the balance is entirely focused on GM, we decide that the experience of lower-leveled players is unimportant, and when they talk about their experiences, they are called stupid, incompetent, and essentially told to shut up because they don’t know anything.

I have a friend who plays Brig in Bronze. He spends hours and hours playing real games and having really bad experiences because it’s a different enviroment and Brig is not strong in that environment. If these changes go through, his experience will get even worse, and he’ll have to decide between playing at a disadvantage the entire time or switching to a different character that he isn’t as fond of.

So if he voiced his experiences and said that the nerfs for Brig are too much, the forums would call him stupid and tell him to “get good” instead of whining.

This is an ugly mentality. People who play at bronze are not stupid, they’re not second-class citizens, and their experience is just as important as anyone else’s.

The community mentality of “your opinion only matters if you’re talking about GM” is elitist and toxic, and it is fueled by Blizzard openly stating they only balance around GM.

Solution

  1. Balance changes should be aimed at helping outliers from all ranks. Any character who is dominating should be addressed, period. Characters who are excessively weak (because of meta, not because they require higher skill which isn’t as abundant) should also be addressed.

  2. The game should be balanced at a high midpoint (such as Platinum or Diamond). Doing this will ensure that the meta is less lopsided for the majority of players. If there are outliers in GM, they should be addressed like any other rank, but the main game balance should be focused on these midpoints because they are far closer to what most players actually experience.

TL:DR. Balancing around GM is bad for the game, and should be adjusted.

75 Likes
2

This already happens.
There’s a reason they reverted reaper’s lifesteal, and it wasn’t because he was good in high ranks.

That’s a horrible way to balance a competitive game

There’s a reason literally every competitive game in the world is balanced around the capabilities of the top players.

42 Likes
3

Perhaps this used to happen (that is a pretty dated example) but in the recent AMA and with the recent balance changes, we haven’t seen evidence of this. Rein/Zarya/Ana have clearly been dominating the meta in most lower ranks and haven’t been touched. Saying outliers are being addressed is statistically incorrect.

Actually not true at all.
League of Legends, which is still an extremely dominant competative game, balances around Platinum. Their developers openly discuss that they balance the game around that point because it leads to the best experience for players.

Saying “Everyone else does this” is a fallacy and is also incorrect.

33 Likes
4

The majority of balance changes will mostly affect the high ranks. If something is really broken on the normal ladder it will get nerfed like reaper. But after all its a competetive game and it should be balanced arround the top.

And for the love of god never balance the game around plat or diamond.

25 Likes
5

Can you give a source for this? Because I can’t find anything.

Because they’re fun heroes.
If everyone in low ranks played whatever would increase the chance of victory most, like people do in GM, you’d see a lot less ana and a lot more brig/moira, for example.

If someone can’t climb out of bronze, it’s not because their hero is bad, it’s because they’re playing incorrectly.

7 Likes
6

So what is the point of a game? Does it only exist so that the top 1% can be amazing?

The point of a video game is for the enjoyment of its players. That is the highest goal for a game. The players at the top should not be viewed as more important or more deserving of the balance team’s attention than the ones at the bottom.

People watch OWL or competative because they like playing the game. Making an enjoyable game would do far more for the competative scene than pandering to the top 1%.

19 Likes
7

The meta doesnt really exist below masters/diamond. You can literally play anything there and rank up if you are good. There are a lot of players there that want you to play meta but they would have a better chance of winning if the people just play with what they are comfortable with.

The nerfs and buffs dont affect the low ranks that much but can completly destroy pro play and highranks like for example goats. If they would balance arround plat the game would get worse and worse the better you get but if we balance it arround gm(like right now) it gets only better. Thats why every competetive game gets balanced arround the top.

5 Likes
8

I can’t post the link, but google “/Dev Champion balance framework”

Check the “Updating our approach” section. My info was actually outdated: They do mention that they used to balance around Plat, but now they focus balance across the board.

Here’s a direct quote from it:
“While some may argue that the game should be balanced around only the very best players of the game, we think a balanced experience is an important part of what makes League compelling regardless of skill level.”

You also proved my point. Your response to the experience of a Bronze player? “They need to git good”. You disregard their experience because they play at a lower skill level. Bronze players have metas and they have heroes that are weaker, not even necessarily because the hero is mechanically harder, but because what they offer isn’t as valuable in the bronze meta. You wouldn’t tell a GM main who says bastion is underpowered that he “Just needs to learn the character”. It’s a toxic mentality and we need to stop it.

@Guffiolo
Do you play at lower levels? Can you actually say from experience that nerfs and buffs don’t affect them at all? Because pick rates will drastically fall or rise depending on nerfs and buffs there. Stastically, nerfs and buffs do as much (if not more) for lower skill ranks than they do for higher ones.

Saying meta doesn’t exist below masters/diamond is also just blatantly false. It exists as much, if not more, for them. That’s why pick rates are so out of whack.

17 Likes
9

Balancing around GM is the best option for this game, balancing around OWL is infact, the worst way to go because thats a completely different game.

And heroes like Bastion, Torb, sym and Hog are just bad game design which they just need to rework into something better.

this game has a confused concept that does skill = reward or not. if you are good with tracer you can carry, but if someone picks a hard counter like brig you are useless just by her existing. and this has only started ever since brig release. thats when the hard counters actually started.

14 Likes
10

Can you elaborate on why this is the best option? I’ve given three main reasons why I argue it isn’t. What is your reasoning for why this is a good option?

11

Isn’t torb actually doing decently well right now?

1 Like
12

He is just playable in GM to say the least. But he destroys lower rank players even more now

1 Like
13

I had to laugh at this. So clearly Symmetra became “less fun” when she was nerfed, since her pick rate dropped like a rock. And brig was “fun” when she had armor pack, and removing it means she’s “less fun” now, too.

They’re picked because they’re powerful in those ranks, not because they’re “more fun” than the other options. People don’t like playing at a disadvantage. That’s why some heroes are extremely low pick rates.

And as far as moira, she does have a huge pick rate in lower ranks. But saying that Brig would be picked more if people cared about picking what works the best shows a fundamental lack of knowledge of what lower ranks look like.

8 Likes
14

Right we should balance around Plat where people think Mercy is an off healer and Roadhog is a DPS. /s

2 Likes
15

Again, the argument is “people who aren’t GM are stupid and we shouldn’t listen to them.”

This toxic mentality needs to stop. You’re not more important than anyone else. Treating ranks of people as though they’re stupid and undeserving of attention is incorrect, period.

18 Likes
16

Sure, I agree that no rank should be terrorized by any hero, but the general rule should be to balance around the top.

I would argue that there is an equally prevalent mentality that streamers and pros are just crybabies who get catered to by the devs. If you don’t believe me just stick around the forums for awhile, you’ll see it.

17

Just gonna say, this is not correct. Brig’s strength in Bronze is not AoE healing (the team will rarely be grouped enough to matter). In Bronze Brig is, in close range combat, an unkillable monster hunting down any squishy foolish enough to get close to her. The additional self heal is far more valuable in remaining unkillable than the 50hps.

On the other hand, if the DPS are smart enough to keep their distance, they can just wear Brig down with ranged damage and she’ll have to go find a health pack (no, the other support is not going to heal her, why would you even think that?)

In this case, the extra 50hps really doesn’t matter a whole lot. Probably…Reaction times to income damage vary wildly, for a narrow group of players with reasonable-but-slightly-slow reactions it’ll make the difference in getting around the corner a lot, but for people with good reactions or turtle reactions it’s irrelevant – they get to cover or not regardless.

In any case, I expect the increased dueling ability to matter more than anything else in Bronze.

2 Likes
18

brig reaper go brrr dude

19

I agree, that mentality is also flawed. But in many ways, it is caused by the same thing: Blizzard openly stated they only balance around the game the pros are playing.

The streamers get the angst even though it’s not their fault: the cause of it is actually the very thing I’m arguing against. Blizzard gives time and attention to GM players and ignores the other ranks. That’s what causes people to lash out at GM players.

1 Like
20

Good points but I think you missed one vital point as many people here. Communication. Why bronze Reaper can team wipe with Blossom and GM one doesnt? In bronze noone pays attention to backline. GM play more as a team, they communicate, they fallow orders, they group up and push as team, they pick heroes who synergise. This trend starts around diamond and in GM is most refined. Below that games look closer to TDM around objective rather than… Well game of Overwatch. I think this is biggest discrepency between ranks. Heroes who are less team dependant or bring more benefits by solely existing will be picked more in lower ranks.
Meanwhile in higher heroes who enable other heroes will be mostly picked and wrok. And thats why trickle down balance doesnt work in this game.
Below Diamond game is played differently.

2 Likes