before you start crying and say “hero “x” is so cheesey it should never be meta” i said viable and not meta on title
“this hero is cheesey so it should never be meta”
am tired of hearing it…
you can buff anything in a hero other than the aspect that made the hero “cheesy” or just rework them…
I very much agree. 20 chars
Cheese heroes should be viable, but in no way should they be more powerful than heroes that require more skill.
Even in their niche? I always find it wierd that people who play high skill characters always think they would be at an advantage in a 1v1. Even with poor positioning and gamesense but my aim
Hero’s that are niche should just have a niche situation where they are better then also have disadvantages to follow suit. Instead niche is just worse in general unless they get x map and then they are ok
Yes, I do agree with you on that point. In specific scenarios, heroes should have a strategic advantage over other heroes. For instance, there are certain maps in which Orisa/Sig is stronger than Rein/Zarya. However, it’s not reasonable for a hero that requires less skill should be stronger than those that do in majority of maps.
Nor is it right for a hero to dominate other heroes on every map
Widowmaker vs phara?
Every hero has their strengths and weaknesses. You don’t get to decide someone is cheesy and then demand they are never allowed to be powerful because of it.
Because making a hero viable on ladder makes them OP in OWL. Case in point. Orisa had low winrates on ladder from Bronze to GM and low pickrates up to Diamond. But was nerfed because she was meta in OWL.
Well said,OP.
I’m also tired of people going “But they should never be meta!! They’re not fun to play against!!” when people mention buffing Bastion,Symmetra,Sombra or Mei.
Those heroes have been at the bottom of the ladder in terms of pickrates,and in Sombra/Mei’s case: winrates as well,for quite some time now. Besides,we don’t want them to be meta,but giving them some buffs so they’re at least viable and not clunky as hell to play would be nice.
This is the difficult part of balance.
You can reach a point in balance where a “low skill” hero is so much weaker that it actually becomes more difficult to successfully play the “low skill” hero than the “high skill” hero.
It’s a place that a few heroes are already in and it turns the entire skill argument on its head.
The OWL shouldn’t be considered when it comes to balance.
99% of the playerbase will not ever:
What happened to Moira basically.
Statistics wise,she was just fine. She wasn’t UP or OP. But she was still changed cause people were complaining about her beam.
And now,she’s much worse,her winrate is around 47% in most ranks and it doesn’t even reach 50% until GM.
Sym 2.0 would like to have a word with you. She was very viable in ladder but not useful in owl.
I like to explain it this way.
If I said I’d pay anyone who could get to masters, on a fresh account, while one tricking, within 50 games, $10000…how many people would even try to do it with Bastion? Not many. How many would play heroes such as Widow or Ashe? Probably most of them.
Yet despite that those same people still claim that Bastion is easy to play. It’s a massive contradiction and exposes which heroes people really think are difficult to successfully play.
What’s skill? What’s not? It’s got no concrete definition in the context of overwatch. Pointless and meaningless to bandy around. People just use it to demean heroes they’re biased against.
Exactly. Many wouldn’t do it with Sombra or Symmetra either despite how much people love screaming about Hack/turrets being “low skill”.
Also,I know there are a lot of Widow smurfs,but I’d argue that most people would still pick Ashe more cause Widow requires way more mechanical consistency and on Ashe,Dynamite and BOB exist to help out with damage a bit. (Hence why she’s more useful in lower ranks.)
Fair point actually. I’ve never thought it about that way.
It’s normally not even a factor as if balance is even close to ok, it’s all fine. Over time Blizzards balancing philosophy has started to make it relevant.
Mechanical, teamwork, positioning, space, game sense, map knowledge. I was not in a good mood at the time of posting, after thinking for a few minutes I saw why my post was wrong in every way, sorry, they need lots of skill to play correctly and having a low skill floor doesn’t mean low skill overall, all I said there was false. Sorry for what I said please forgive, I wasn’t in a good mood after I read a post on why Doomfist (who may as well be considered cheese) was “easy”, and so I felt almost like I needed revenge (and my way of doing so was making myself look stupid). Forget everything I said in that post as I was very biased. Forgive me.