Not good ones. A good analogy compares 2 things that actually make sense to compare. Comparing top down balancing of a competitive video game to economic elitism is an awful analogy
It is logical to balance the heroes in a competitive video game by their maximum performance. Here’s the reason
Widow sucks below Diamond. That does not mean we should buff her to be good in those ranks, otherwise she’ll be massively overpowered in higher ranks.
Call it what you want, you’re just wrong.
I’m not scoffing, this just isn’t a constructive conversation if we can’t agree on reality. If you think balance is determined by pickrates in the all tab, you’re just plain wrong. I’m okay with allowing you to continue believing that. It’s not my job to sway your thinking
You don’t understand how all of above average combined with all of below average is the entire set, by definition?
It shouldn’t be.
This makes you a glorified bugtester.
If masters and up wants a hero banned that’s extremely popular outside of masters/GM/OWL well too bad. You may have given them the money but you don’t matter.
You cannot support this then be surprised when the game is made objectively less enjoyable for you because you were outright told you don’t matter and instead of saying “no, we all matter” you said “yeah, screw me. Give the elites whatever they want, I’ll gladly take the scraps.”
EDIT: It’s just stupid to play around M/GM as we know that at that rank there are heroes who aren’t played at all due to fickle favouritism. How do you adjust for a hero who just has insignificant use?
i think this is the exact problem with balancing not arround GM/M.
in casual play, people play what they want, and if they dont like it, they wont play it.
in high rank people play what is good, therefore you know that if some hero (like ana) has super high pickrate, there is probably something to look at,
do you understand that less populated ranks won’t appear in the data of all ranks/players as much as more populated ranks?
every hero is played in gm but some are simply better picks. if the heroes you claim aren’t picked due to “favouritism” were any good, gm players would play them.
You have no remotely rational reason why why that is right.
it’s pure elitism bias.
It’s what you want falsely passed off as logical.
Look at how she is powerful at the top level, look at how she is weak at the bottom level. Make changes accordingly.
They difference is they play what INDIVIDUALS want.
In the higher levels the demand for meta means you have to play what the other 5 people on your team doesn’t hate. One person can lead a rebellion against an “off meta” hero and the other 4 will join in, with the conceit that when they see a hero they don’t like the mob will return the favour.
Reaper’s pickrate was low, they buffed the hero to a decent pickrate, then nerfed him excessively and his pickrate fell low.
Reaper’s pickrate changed so much based on wildly inappropriate buffs and nerfs, and the only logical explanation is they were ignoring how most of the players were playing the game and only focusing on what a tiny elite wanted and they were content with Reaper being garbage and unused.
Oh no! Proportional representation! Can’t have that /s
No, there’s huge toxicity for playing off meta heroes at those ranks, there is such an intense desire to win and NEVER lose that there’s such excessive pressure to not try anything different.
No they wouldn’t because of the huge resistance to the presence of off-meta heroes, they get tilted from the start and pressure them to switch off.
You’re now allowed to be different.
It’s more important to conform than let viable heroes emerge.
cant have that because that would result in mediocre play being the focus of balance. average players definitely play suboptimally so they aren’t a good measure of heroes objective value.
why? because those heroes aren’t considered strong picks.
such doesn’t last forever though. if a hero has a consistently low pickrate, its not because the players are too lazy/scared to experiment, its more likely that the hero simply isn’t worth running over the better options.
which is exactly why genji wasn’t played at all when he got buffed /s. as soon as a hero is good enough to be worth running over others, they become meta. things are off meta for a reason.
you are aware that in gm genji was an off meta pick? what happened when they buffed him? you have successfully deluded yourself into believing that the top players will simply decide not to pick a hero not because of their strength, but because they are too scared to lose in the short term (even though past metas contradict this).
Please justify why & how the game should be balanced any other way, and explain the merits of it.
My justification is : balancing top down creates actual balance, because you the potential of heroes can only be achieved by the best players
Please elaborate. She’s weak at low levels because she requires incredible aim to compete with other heroes. She’s powerful at high levels because players have the incredible aim to make her a good pick
What am I missing? How do you buff Widow for lower ranks without breaking her at higher ones?