Because for me those are downsides, not benefits. And if anything, you want to not weaken enemy teamâs meta, but their counters to your teamâs meta. Make sure they canât pick counter to you.
Hero bans are double-edged tool, and work both for good and bad purposes. And while you believe, that it will be used for good, I am very skeptical about it.
Uhh⌠when we say meta we are talking mirror comps first off. There is no âthis meta vs. this metaâ going on hereâŚ
For you, it kind of sucks if you canât adapt. You can dislike it, you can run from it, you can quit over it, or you can accept it if it happens and adapt.
My DPS role mains are Mei/Sym⌠and I still support a ban system even though it means I likely will miss some opportunities to play those characters because i am able to do more⌠better players strive to be good on severalâŚ
This is the main problem I see with hero bans. If they implement this, you should not be able to see who your opponent is until after youâve banned. This leaves the decision to ban up to meta, map synergy, etc., but keeps you from, say, denying Bastion if youâre playing against Kolorblind. Thatâs just one example, but targeted denial of main heroes to specific known players will just make them less likely to want to play and is an unfair advantage against well-known players. Also in OWL, people want to tune in to see the best players on their best or most well-known heroes, and that would be ruined.
That is exactly what hero bans are often used for - to deny enemy team their best player.
I know, which is why Iâm very skeptical of them coming to OW. Nothing to do with the small hero pool or meta concerns.
Again, thatâs the pointâŚ
Then there is reason to avoid becoming good on purpose. So you can freely play your hero, and not worry, that someone will say âoh, I know them, ban their primary heroâ.
Given that this is a game and is ergo intended to provide fun, I think is is reasonable to expect that ALL modes (and most especially the main ones) to be fun to play, not just QP classic
For playerâs that think that way, yes. But its then relative, so âgood is goodâ enough⌠see how that balances out?
If you cannot handle bans, and the game is not âfunâ then you need frankly to move on if it comes to pass. Overwatch is evolving.
Thatâs certainly one solution for games that allow hero bans and show you who your opponent is up front.
Rather than encouraging your player base to avoid getting really good, though, why not just make a system that keeps a player from getting singled out?
Thatâs how it will work on the ladder I bet, there is no way to mask who is in OWL unless they rotate players⌠which might be very good for the game⌠how does Excelsior do when JJonak isnât playing that roundâŚ?
Depending from balance, there still may be problem I already described - your team picks certain composition, and bans only hero, that is critical for counter to your composition.
Thatâs not really good, in terms of SR, as it will require enemy team to be more skilled, that usual, to make it even match with suboptimal counters.
Iâm all for bans in OWL only. It makes watching OWL a lot more fun.
Theyâre saying that hero bans sucks s
I think its wayyyyy too early for hero bans, League of Legends did this only after they had like 80 champions. These devs never cease to amaze me by putting one step forward (2-2-2 role que) and then going 2 steps back (hero bans and 1-3-2 role que)
If they are hated because they are broken, or stupidly annoying to play against, they will get changed. Ban systems help developers see what the playerbase genuinely thinks is busted.
have you seen his baptiste? itâs insane
yeah hero ban sux man because you try to get really good with a hero and then that hero just gets banned and you cant use them like wtf
How is it bad or support or tank mains exactly? Ironically, out of all the roles tank and support role is the one most restricted by the meta. Bans actually allow us to play more heroes from the role, i.e. If we ban Orisa we canât run double shield.
If tanks canât flex to other tanks, there being only 7 others, than itâs gg no re: for them.