Hero pools are the wrong way to go about banning

Why change heroes banned every week when we could have a phase before each ranked match where each team bans 1 tank, 2 damage, and 1 support? This will make each game unique in its own way, and it can prevent playing against compositions that are not fun to fight. Every player in the game should vote together on which heroes get banned, and in the event of a tie, it should be random between the tying heroes. If no heroes are chosen, then that means the player in that match opt to not ban any heroes from that particular class. This is much better than 4 heroes being banned for an entire week. Some players choose not to play entirely, until the hero they want unbanned, gets unbanned. They would be more inclined to play when they can choose which heroes are banned in a particular match. This will bring players back to the game that left due to imbalance and lack of fun. Implementing individual game bans will also more clearly expose which characters need changes because if a particular hero is more frequently banned than the others, it means there is something wrong, whether it is overpowered, or just not viable…

1 Like

well look at siege…

literally low elo bans are just:

  • jackel
  • clash
  • echo
  • caveira
  • tatcher (so smarts we are heheheh)

people will just ban the same stuff…

Game Director Jeff Kaplan explains why a ban phase for Overwatch doesn’t effectively shake up the meta game as hero pools can:

2 Likes

Per match bans only make sense at the pro level where you try to force a comp that you feel will be superior to your opponents. In ladder, there would just be meta bans that would pretty much be seen in every match. The different ranks would probably have different meta bans, but within a rank they would naturally settle on the same heroes every match.