Everyone should be viable

[DeadLamb-11334]

@Archimedes-12229

always a way to balance a game

Well sure, but at what cost? Should Widowmaker start to get shield piercing rounds if more than one shield is being played? Should Winston get his jump back 50% faster if the other team is running certain anti-munky heroes?

I guess on some level that’s a more “let me play just one hero” sort of balance but it would kill the over all feel of the game.

hero pools tried to address this issue, people didn’t really like it. Hero bans might work but odds are only at a top level of play. Map design helps too but certain elements of the community just will not play their role, only a hero.
I don’t think that can be balanced.

[Krotoan-1841]

Don’t fighting games have tier lists usually? As far as in the competitive community anyway? I can’t play them worth a damn so i don’t usually get into it but I’ve heard discussions about it and usually see the same teams in games like MvC and KoF.

[Archimedes-12229]

@DeadLamb-11334

“let me play just one hero”

No, I never said I wanted to play just one hero. I used Brig, Symmetra, Doomfist, Mccree, and I missed out on Bastion and Mei to think about. These characters are so useless now it’s a joke. I still agree with you.

@Krotoan-1841

Don’t fighting games have tier lists usually? As far as in the competitive community anyway? I

Yeah but they are completely useless. It’s just mostly a bias list to say “my characters are better than yours” list hahaha

[FruityXNinja-11850]

I guess we’ll just pretend the same 5 heroes that have always been bad aren’t still bad and the same 5 heroes who are always slaying have not been slaying.

At best, the devs deserve a prize for having 7/8 tanks actually playable for a change .-.

[Akary-1113]

@Archimedes-12229

I play a lot of fighting games and I think Overwatch should balance like a fighting game. Listen, I know OW is a FPS game and the mechanics are totally different, but in Street Fighter 5 or Marvel Vs Capcom 2, every character is viable and it’s more about the skill of the player, not if a character is overpowered and is a must pick for the meta. For example I played Dan in SF4 and he’s a joke character, but I manage to win fights with him due to my knowledge of the game. Doomfist, Brig, Sym, Dva, and Mc Cree should be balanced better not for the meta, but for the mains that enjoy their kits.

They can be, some just take more or less skill based on map and the current situation your team finds it self in.

[Mitrovarr-1405]

@LuckyTiger-1120647

Dan was definitely under powered. It was possible to win matches with him but he NEVER won a big tournament or even came close. The game really wasn’t that balanced to the most skilled players

It was usually the same few characters winning, I remember it was a big deal when a single player in the world got really good with balrog

This is still a lot better than OW, where a good 1/3 of the roster is unplayable trash even on the pubs.

[princess-22817]

Cheese heroes also have rights to be "viable"

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…

boom.

[srikar76-1164]

Boom

https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/overwatch/t/just-because-a-character-is-annoying-doesn%E2%80%99t-mean-that-they-deserve-to-be-bad/557280?u=srikar76-1164

[princess-22817]

Can we take underperforming heroes seriously now?

since we are in the “most balanced state ever” were no specific hero is domaining the ladder and all heroes are “viable” that is what everyone saying now days can we take underperforming heroes seriously now? here is a short list of underperforming heroes… mei bap mccree kinda sym bastion and please don’t throw the “that hero is cheesy therefore they should never be viable” or the "no one mains that hero and nobody cares about him" if a hero is cheesy why not try to rework him inste…

another boom with my other account.

sadly there is still people that will still throw the “cheese heroes should never be viable”
or the “just git gud” at ya when you write about any underperforming hero.
mei and symm are not being played for a reason.

[Blabooskii-1306]

Facts. The amount of “we lost because we didn’t have [blank]” or “why didn’t you switch to [blank] because [blank] is bad” is insane.

[Baja-11423]

Oh the overwatch community is plagued by “blind-follow culture”…

what do I mean by this?

It’s one thing to have a majority opinion…that’s exactly what meta is…the community’s popular opinion of what the best heroes are…not the actual best heroes…majority opinion…it’s not exactly rooted in scientific truth…

I always bring up goats…goats was not the “meta”…something else was “meta”…but someone decided to play that combination out in a tournament and had success and lo and behold “oh hey guys this meta we’re playing…the ‘best’ heroes’…isn’t as good as that thing” => goats is now meta…the other thing is no longer viable even though it was JUST meta

So whatever there is a “meta”…there’s always a meta…big whoop…the point is that as a community we have become slaves to this concept…we do not question it…in fact we do the opposite…we treat those who would dare not conform to this ideology with disdain (Remind you of something else?)

“How dare you use the 7th listed person on overbuff!!”

“Um so and so so on YouTube said that hero is garbage…please get off”

“Hero X isn’t used in OWL…clearly it’s trash…I’m reporting you”

“Hero X has a .3% higher win rate…use them instead”

Like I said…most heroes are perfectly viable…and will work in most situations…but it doesn’t matter…because people are only interested in what popular opinion says