I enjoy it but I don’t believe it fits the spirit of what overwatch has become.
Maybe if they had tried it in the beginning. I’d just rather them give the tanks some of the buffs seen there.
No it’s not… Damage have plenty of options depending on what the meta tank is (why the meta is dictated by the tanks).
I think we’ll need a lot more heroes available for tanks before that sorta thing comes in. The reason why shields are such a must is due to the enormous threat Damage as a whole pumped out.
As for toning down healing, sure why not. Personally I think that fully stacking healing is a significant problem. Removing/toning this down would enable individual high impact and remove troublesome interactions (ie goats). Just lowering healing however makes supports unimpactful as they don’t have the tools to apply their damage in the same way Damage heroes do as their entire kits are based around it. I’d like Supports to be more or less like whatever name is from Apex, just as threatening as the more damage oriented characters in a fight but not actually responsible for the initiation.
Anything specific? I still find it hilarious that Torb got his shotgun nerfed (I still think it’s cos Jeff got wrecked by some Tor smurf XD).
Who…? I thought it was the opposite in that the most difficult characters are only useable near the top.
I think that if they’re pushing it as an esport then everything should be viable at the very top (ie OWL). If some characters (ie reaper) are an issue anywhere below OWL then they can be tweaked so long as it doesn’t make them unviable at the top. This way the only excuse is you’re not good enough.
No, they can’t really make everything viable at the top anyway. Too many hero interactions, too few people and little time for experimentation after each change. Adding the restriction of keeping the lower ranks within sanity is definitely too much to ask for.
It’s ok if there are some heroes that are only really good at the top, or some that are superseded by someone else at higher ranks. As long as OWL isn’t just mirror match after mirror match, and most of the heroes are playable enough at most ranks, I’m happy with the job they’re doing.
Not in its current state but maybe if they really decided to try and balance the game around it.
Sadly, no.
I think it’s a good concept to fix a currently declining game from horrid queue times, but I feel like this was more just to try to appease players that, “they tried” over a legit effort.
Hi, my poll, so I got a notification for it being linked, here’s a thread heavily against 1-3-2 with no big objection.
1 Like
No heavy objections? What do you mean by that? That no response got more likes than the original post? That’s literally almost every thread created.
No that’s just creating pointless heroes that may as well be deleted. It’s never ending task of course (just look at Dota) but all balance changes should be done with this in mind otherwise it’s just picking favourites, forcing metas and deliberately creating imbalance.
There are some heroes like S:76 which are meant to help new players learn how to play the game, but aren’t good enough at anything in particular to not be weaker than some other hero in a role for a comp. Soldier can’t be near the meta, because he’s a generalist with no really unique abilities. He would outdo a specialist in some function to actually be good enough to be played at high levels. Same goes for Moira, although it’s harder to say the same for tanks because they’re all pretty unique.
Soldier may never be actually good in OWL, but he still needs to exist as an additional jack-of-all-trades option and a reliably not-bad pick for newbies who need to figure things out.
Yet he’s good enough to be played at the GM level and win for many.
I believe Kabaji coined his nickname of “legs” (due to his sprint) and I’ve seen other DPS players play him.
You are right, at the the top level where people are playing for money and fame he’s probably not the best pick – but he’s not totally useless either. No game like this really has every hero being a top tier pick to be fair.
I’ve seen lots of threads where the objection had almost as many if not more likes, regardless of what topic.
And I’ve seen the exact opposite.
These forums are also a proven poor source for majority opinion on many topics.
Checked the thread again, I think I found 3 people in favour of 1-3-2, including you. I still wouldn’t call that heavy objection. If you look at that heavily liked pro post, there are tons of comments against 1-3-2, this time heavily liked.
1 Like
Yeh that’s just bad design. I remember him seeing some use against Tracer tracer on defence, but this was quite a while ago XD
I’d actually say it’s good design. Soldier has a bit of everything, so new people can try out different things like hitscan, projectiles, flanking, etc. without completely just being useless and having to switch if they aren’t good at it. Of course, he also encourages people to specialize by not being really good at any of them, so they have to choose.
You realize how silly you sound backing undeniable queue time problems against 3 people in a random forum thread, right?
Nah I disagree. Easy to learn hard to master but if they’re not viable at the top then there’s something that needs fixing. It’s not necessarily even something wrong with him but something else in the game whether it’s healing, shielding, fall off, etcetcetc.
Again, there’ll almost never be a time when things get properly balanced (in part cos they keep releasing new heroes, well… keep) but that is what I think a balancing team should strive for.
Someone asked where opinions against it are the vast majority, I showed it. Changing the subject and calling me silly won’t change that. From all we can tell (and that includes Blizzard’s own statement, who of course have better insights), the majority doesn’t seem to like it.
1 Like
He also implied it’d be an iterative process and they’d bring it back with some changes.
1 Like