Does overwatch need to be 6 vs 6?

so they picked a number out of a hat? they had to pick a number so they randomly picked 12 makes zero sense

Bigger maps for rebalanced ult/charges in 12v12 is my dream for this game.

1 Like

Lets just make it 1v1 that way the only person you can blame is yourself.

1 Like

Yeah, and it’s also pretty important to remember that builds let characters in one role flex into another. Many Flankers, for example, can flex into Support because their kit options let them, so it’s not even as simple as 1/1/2/1 or whatever

If Overwatch moves to 5v5, they need to look at doing some things like Paladins. Otherwise, I don’t think it’d work very well.

1 Like

Technical reasons build into the Overwatch game build is the reason you can’t have more than 12 players.

Otherwise we could have gotten 2-3-2 teams to help queue on DPS

1 Like
1 Like

I did not say that. They picked 12 because they thought it would be best genius

If you think another number would have been better then say so and why. They can’t just raise numbers on a whim, the servers have been optimised for 12

1 Like
  • I think they choose 6 because Team Fortress has 5. So they wanted to be a bit different.
  • Also having more or less players would really impact how fast or slow the game goes.
  • 1-2 Years ago Blizzard made every ultimate in the game go 20% slower. Effectively making all ults 20% less common than before. It was to slow down how often ults get used.
1 Like

It’s the most balanced way in term of options. You want a team to be able to resist the enemies but not to have an answer to everything.
All roles split into 2.
Tanks- engagement tanks & fight tanks
Dps- high damage & high kill potential
Support- high heal & high utility

6v6 makes it so you can have 1 of each while also experiencing the weaknesses of each split.

6v6 is low enough so killing 1 player can make a big difference but at the same time it’s possible to do a comeback even with 5 if you do really well.

6 players also give a place to a counterplay from the enemies while also denying a lot of things.

You can also do it in another fun way.
First it has to be divided by 3 so each role got the same amount of players, I think it’s fair in order to make sure any hero that focuses on a specific role like Winston or Bastion would have the same success chance as others.

Then it has to be divided by 2 because 2 kinds of heroes in each role.

And then it has to be smaller than 8 in order to actually give a player a fair chance to get value from a pick. Not to mention team fights need to be quick and too many players can result in either too fast team fights or too slow.

so x<8, x/2,x/3.
We’re left with 6 players.

In theory they could have tried 9 as well but I think we don’t have enough heroes for that not to mention it will be very hard to give an individual player an impact against such comp… And ofcourse harder overall to find weaknesses in such a comp.

1 Like

IIRC they showed some 5v5 matches on an OWL stream. Was that done by Sideshow? The name means nothing to me, but I did find a video of Sideshow and friends playing 122.

Despite what people say about the matches feeling emptier, I’d still like to try out that 122 mode in an Experimental.

1 Like

But which role would you cut down?
Tank or Support would mean, that you have to rework an entire Hero roster.
DPS would double DPS queue times.

Also if they cut down one role to 1 player, friends who both play that role couldn’t play together anymore.

It would be a lot of work to do it and the results would most certainly upset a huge part of the community.

No matter how you handle it, it would do more harm than good.

1 Like

9v9(243) would be good for me. Current DPS queue time just isn’t acceptable for me.

In this case, more DPS means more attack power, so tanks should be buffed somewhat.

More people also means less importance of each people, so less dependance on teammates except for tank role. Moreover, there could be more opportunity for niche heroes, perhaps.

1 Like

Jeff said before the overwatch engine can only load so many heroes at once, its why you can’t switch heroes when echo duplicates you, we will probably see th is change when ow2 releases soon™ with an upgraded engine.

1 Like

How could small indie company Activision Blizzard possibly afford such a thing???

1 Like

It should be 5v5 - 131 role queue with Tanks and Supports super buffed, Supports with life steal passives and Tanks with heals on elims passive for the solo job.


Or just give up on role que, I mean Paladins somehow makes that work

1 Like

lol, I mean, why not?

1 Like

both games could learn from each other tbh

1 Like

Paladins also lets characters flex into other roles via loadouts, so a RoleQ would A) require an enormous restructure of how the game works since it’d be pretty easy to circumvent, and B) is a little pointless anyway since you can adjust your loadout after hero selection to fit your comp, which in practice leads to Paladins typically having somewhat more-balanced comps than Overwatch which is why RoleQ was added in the first place. Once you also add in that Paladins generally does Tanks/Supports better (meaning more enjoyable & more incentive to play), that you can’t swap after committing in Paladins (meaning no mid-match swaps from Tank to DPS), and that there isn’t a strict dependency on any one role because the game’s mechanics reduce the pressure on any one role (for example, better cover options reduce the pressure to have a tank, and out-of-combat heals and lifesteal cards reduce to the pressure to have a tank), I think you get a system that pretty effectively address the many reasons why a RoleQ would be added.

I think there is a way Overwatch could move to a non-RoleQ system and be fairly successful, but it’d require some really large-scale changes from what they’re doing now. Personally, I’m extremely skeptical that the devs will alter their current course unless there’s a really catastrophic indicator that it isn’t working (i.e. OW2 underperforms)


This is an excellent explanation of all the things Paladins does so much better than Overwatch

The whole Rock-Paper-Scissors model that Overwatch relies fails because people are not emotionless spherical cows in a vacuum who emotionlessly counter switch. Trying to force a “balanced” comp via things like Role Que is a tacit admission of this.

If I’m playing Paladins and I one trick Ash, I don’t automatically put my team at a huge disadvantage if the enemy team has a Khan. Just about any team comp in Paladins has at least a decent chance of winning if the people play well.

In Overwatch the match is often decided at the hero select screen, assuming the matchmaker hasn’t already done so

1 Like