This already happens. Nobody is required to get on main tank, double off-tank is pretty common since a lot of people don’t like playing main tanks.
They used to be stronger, people still didn’t pick them over DPS even if your team had 4 DPS on the team.
You also have to realize that the cut-off point for searching for barrier tanks would have to be set in minutes, not seconds.
Then you haven’t understood what I’ve posted.
If you’re playing Comp above Silver, you’re practically throwing if you go DoubleOffTank.
It still happens in diamond+. This is ladder we’re talking about, not OWL.
Ah, sorry, Seven composition locks in one queue.
Happy now?
Surely that’s highly subjective.
Oh read down a couple paragraphs.
Your idea is to make the Tanks more durable with less firepower.
I.e. Even more boring to otherwise DPS players.
Nothing is locked. Players don’t pick match generating compositions. These compositions are automatically picked by the matchmaker in response to queue ratios. Once everyone has selected a hero players are free to change composition as long as there is one player per role and at most three players per role.
So you admit to have basically not read anything, and you’re totally misinterpreting the little you’re now reading after posting several times already. The tanks aren’t for damage players, they are for tank players. Sorry I think your ideas are inadequate but they are, obviously and grossly so. Like I claimed at the beginning, no one has come up with a serious idea for addressing queue times.
Your point being?
Did you understand the explanation for why players wouldn’t do this?
That’s it’s highly subjective, can you not read?
Do you have an actual point?
h ttps://www.pcgamesn.com/overwatch/year-four-battle-pass
There are some things that I have long-term concerns about Overwatch. Strictly within game balancing game mechanics, the one that I wrestle with the most currently is the role of tanks and how impactfully they may or may not be. And the difference between a tank with a barrier and a tank without a barrier and how strong should a barrier be. Should barriers even be in the game?
It’s fascinating, Reinhardt more than any other character is a weird pivot on the game. Players are very accepting of Reinhardt – they love Reinhardt. They’re less accepting of our other barrier tanks like Orisa and Sigma – not surprising, those are newer heroes. The impact that a shield brings, having the barrier versus not having the barrier and the long term implications of what it means to add new tanks and if they have a barrier or not. So if you were to ask me, what’s the game director thinking about at this exact moment in terms of long term issues to be worked out eventually. In the short term, I think we’re in good shape.
This is something, especially to a game director, that should have become obvious very quickly. As I have pointed out, they have tried to make changes around the Reinhardt shield necessity before and haven’t succeeded in addressing the core problem severely restricting tank diversity. This long term problem became obvious years ago. The only reason the game has been “in good shape in the short term” is because despite all the complaining gamers tend to have very low standards. The so-called short term stretches to years and good shape becomes people still play the game rather than the game is developing positively. Jeff Kaplan unwittingly, in what I have read of the interview so far, indicates everyone in gaming has very low standards for perception, “analysis”, and intelligence. No one has gotten smarter, it’s just that after four years Jeff Kaplan has decided to comment on an extremely obvious problem. He could have even kept ignoring it.
Is designing for Overwatch now within the spectrum of thinking about Overwatch 2 and how the games are going to transition?
Overwatch 2 is fantastic for the development team. We often talk about game milestones, not just for Overwatch but in any game. It’s different if you’re just shipping out like a single-player box experience, which you’re maybe going to patch once and everybody’s gonna play the game for 20 hours, watch the credits and think you’re awesome. I’m so envious of that world and what that looks like.
You shouldn’t be envious of idiots thinking someone else is awesome.
Weirdly, I think there’s so much good about the 3-2-1 experiment, but I don’t feel comfortable pushing it live in 2020. What Overwatch 2 becomes for us is another great opportunity, it’s a moment where people expect and are hoping for radical change. This is what a sequel is all about, “you’re not just gonna give us the same game, right”? So as developers, I think we can all be excited about the opportunity that Overwatch 2 brings for “okay, it’s time. We’ve been playing the same game for many years now. It’s time to move on to the next thing”.
This is the paragraph I wanted to get to in this weird interview. As has been noted in another thread this appears to be a serious indication the developers intend to replace 2-2-2 with 1-3-2. There are multiple problems with 1-3-2. One, it’s just another rigid composition players will have to play constantly. This one additionally eliminates the “off tank” sub-role. Two, unless they make barriers weak and dramatically nerf damage across the board and/or dramatically increase health totals across the board they cannot competitively balance the shield main tanks with the non-shield off tanks. Trying to do this entails destroying the shield aspect and fundamentally changing Overwatch gameplay. This is basically a GreyFalcon idea, a half-measure with a lot of bother.
It’s a shame because it’s an area that we can’t talk in detail and specifics where I can give you an example. Anti-cheat and anti-hack is just an arms race. It’ll never go away. You know, we kind of laugh when games talk about like, “Oh, we put an anti-cheat system in our game, so there’s not gonna be cheats” and it’s like [shrugs] you know? That’s assuming everybody who wants to cheat is really dumb and they’re only going to try one thing. It’s a constant maintenance that happens and I think we learned a lot.
Everybody who wants to cheat is really dumb by definition. Russians cheating in sports is one thing, but what’s the point of your anonymous monkey-a.s.s cheating in Overwatch? You’ll never get anywhere cheating as you’re a fraud and if you attract any attention you’ll get exposed. What you end up doing is funneling money to opportunistic vermin that couldn’t give a crap about you and make this stuff because of a financial opportunity, nothing more. One of the things I’ve learned about what are essentially criminals - the providers of cheats in this instance - is that for the most part they are consumed by making money and don’t care about anything else. If you’re a monkey-a.s.s cheater buying this stuff from others all you’re doing is getting exploited, which makes you look doubly pathetic. Not only will you get nowhere cheating but you give up your money to people playing you.
We try our hardest to solve it, but it was a good challenge for us to address. To own the problem, to spend a lot of time and effort on systems like LFG [looking for group], the endorsement system, and even role queue. And then we put a whole analytics group looking into player behaviour and how do players feel about one another and how matches feel. And there’s our own anecdotal data of, how often do you feel like somebody’s been hostile to you in a match? All those gauges have shown us, wow, we’ve made a difference and it’s better, now everybody’s chilling out, which is good. That’s something we’ve learned a lot about, made a lot of progress on, and something we’re proud of.
Sometimes Jeff Kaplan says things that are so dumb he scares me.