High skill / Low skill, what if people are right?

General Discussion
1

Ok, lets break down the high skill vs low skill arguments around balancing.

Now, I am going into this, FULL willing to embrace either side, but, only if we go all the way with it.

This, we want high skill heroes to be stronger in the higher ranks than low skill ones, but ONLY for certain heroes, and only under certain conditions can go burn in a fire - because that means the person arguing it, DOESN’T actually want to do the thing they are arguing for isn’t balance but just bias.

The good thing is, we can pretty easy work out if a hero is high skill, low skill, overpowered or underpowered.

But first, lets break down the 2 camps and WHY they feel like they do.

The 2 camps are high skill heroes should be stronger in high ranks, and all heroes should be equally strong in high ranks.

All heroes should be equally strong in high ranks.

  • because, it means that you can play the hero you like all the way up, and don’t get gate kept out of playing the game with that hero in high ranks. (good argument, it sucks being locked out of a hero, it especially sucks if you were good enough at fps’s that the kind of hero you like, is ALREADY locked out for your natural level, so you never get to play them where they are meant to shine)
  • because we don’t trust people to even be able to work out which is high or low skill. (bad argument, for reasons below)
  • All heroes should be viable in high ranks - by raising the skill ceiling of all heroes. (Tonusu added) - and yes, this IS the argument I love the most, but I realize the realities that it won’t happen, balance should be around what is, not what should be)

High skill heroes should be equally strong in high ranks.

  • because they put more work into them, so they should get rewarded more (awful argument, but, funny enough, it still leads to the same place as the next bit, which is a good argument)
  • because all heroes should have a chance to shine, and we can ONLY do that if different heroes shine at different ranks (which is a pretty damn fine argument)

ok, seems like good and bad arguments, some in either camp (if you think I missed one, or miss represented a camp, then please please tell me, and I’ll edit the post, if it is a good argument)

Ok, so, lets see where the arguments take us.

If the low skill camp is right, then, low skill heroes should be super strong in the low ranks, and on equal footing in the high ranks - put that way, it doesn’t really seem fair, EXCEPT from the esport point of view.

This is funny as hell, because it means this camp is ALL TOO HAPPY to balance around GM, and want to treat the game as a real esport, Which is NOT how they are though of.

If the high skill camp is right, then low skill heroes should be strong in low ranks, and high skill heroes should be strong in high ranks.

This is ALSO funny as hell, since, typically they then TYPICALLY argue to NOT do this. shout out to ArmsRacer for being actually willing to walk the walk on this one - they are the one who convinced me that this camp isn’t all people willing to be inconsistent, which made me sit down and write this

So, but the high skill camp DOES give us a good definition of low / high skill, if they believe their own position

Low skill = good at low ranks, not great in mid, bad in high ranks.
Mid skill = good in mid ranks, but not great at high or low ranks.
High skill = bad at low ranks, not great in mid, good at high ranks.
Very high skill = only good in OWL, where it isn’t enough for YOU to be good, but that EVERYONE on your team is really good, and they have practiced enough to co-ord the plays perfectly.

If a hero is good in the low ranks, they are NOT high skill, by definition, since the low skilled players are wrecking with them OVER the heroes people define as low skill.

Which leads to the next 2 definitions.

Over powered = good in ranks they shouldn’t be.
Under powered = bad in ranks they shouldn’t be.

If they are both high AND low powered, by this definition, then they are NOT the skill rank you THINK they are, and you should have a good long think about how skilled the hero really is.

So where does this leave us?

Well, it SHOULD mean that the 2 camps can agree on a lot.

But, a lot of people who SAY they are in the high skill should be stronger in the high ranks, are using it to cover for a bias for their hero, and don’t ACTUALLY believe their position - which leads to the low skill campers not believing that the high skill campers EVEN BELIEVE THEIR OWN POSITION.

But, let me tell you, it isn’t always true. Some people do, and for them, I have the greatest respect.

16 Likes
2

No it’s not an awful argument. It’s always been the typical standard for competitive games

  • Lower skill=Less value at the trade of being easier to use and pick up
  • Higher skill=More value at the trade of being harder to use and pick up

If a lower skill hero can get the same amount, if not more as a high skill hero then why would you ever play the high skill hero when there’s an easier, safer version.

16 Likes
3

Yes, but the REASON for that is the second argument, not this one. You can have a bad argument, for a good outcome.

I don’t deserve to have a stronger hero because I choose to play with my feet.

JUST because you have chosen to do something harder, it doesn’t mean you should be rewarded.

The argument is a bad one, but it leads to a good place - which is all heroes get a place to shine.

Has a more interesting part to it as well, in that, it does NOT mean you should get more value JUST because you picked up the harder hero. Because I suck at widow, it doesn’t mean I should get more value from her because I picked a hard hero while I suck.

If I get more value out of the hero, ONLY because of the hero I picked, that ESPECIALLY means they are not a “high skill hero”

If your argument is that they should be stronger AT THE HIGH END, then there is a good argument for it, but it isn’t this one.

PLENTY of games have races / modes etc which are the “hard one” so you can show off your skill. They are not “the hard one, unless you have done 50 hours in the game, then they become easier than the easy ones” they are just the hard ones.

3 Likes
4

Unfortunately, they can be happy with heroes shining for a vast minority of players, and only in specific circumstances. Take Bap. I run into people here who think he’s fine because T500 and OWL can get good value out of him, even though this is only the case when Orisa’s around.

Let’s be honest. The truth is that most of the time, any “skill” argument is just used as a fig leaf for dislike of a character. Take Widowmaker. I think she’s just an obnoxious character to go up against, but I won’t deny that she takes skill; you’ll see folks here, though, who claim that she’s nothing but a “click and point adventure”.

1 Like
5

Yes, but, it doesn’t have to be. The “high skill camp” has a point. It is just that most of the people who SAY they are in the high skill camp are not. They are just in the “I am super biased for/against a hero” camp.

Which is why I didn’t have a lot of respect for the high skill heroes should be stronger camp, because they don’t tend call each other out for being hypocrites much.

But lately, I’ve run into people who actually DO believe their position, and are willing to go to the wall over it, and god damn they had good argments.

On the other hand, the RESULTS of the arguments are not usually results that the high skill camp would normally go for.

Like, Ana nerfs, because she is doing well in low ranks, which is NOT where she should be doing well in.

1 Like
6

Gonna read this latter, but it seems you are good at writings, cloud you write me an essay ?

7

Well, if they’re being completely honest and not trying to add a veneer of respectability to their opinion, then I’d say it’s damn hard to quantify skill. Yes, I think there are some heroes easier than others, but for example, how do we say whether Tracer or Genji is more skilled? And if we can’t even quantify skill, how can we hope to establish who “deserves” to be seen as a skillful character?

I’d much rather the devs took the fighting game route and have “acessible” and “skillful” loadouts for characters than have whole characters doomed to a life in the mediorcity mines.

8

I get what you mean, and honestly I agree but the problem is that it leads to a huge skill creep problem. Like imagine in an alternate universe where Mercy and Ana are the same power level. Why ever play Ana when mercy is way easier? High skill heroes need to get more reward or else no one will ever play them because people will just say “Oh just play x it’s easier” this has been the case in many games before and its nothing new.

It depends on your definition of high skill. My definition of high skill, means you have to sink in many hours of time and practice before you actually start improving. In this case anyone who hasn’t played these heroes before should be worse at them.

Keep in mind I’m not saying high skill heroes should automatically stomp lower skilled heroes.

If one of the game’s I play, payday 2. No one ever runs sniper’s because shotguns and lmg’s can get more value for lesser the skill

1 Like
9

Well, the idea that all heroes should be good in some ranks, GIVES you the answer to that. If you make it so all heroes are good in some ranks, the ranks they naturally end up good in give you the high / low skill split.

They are NOT arguing for them PICKING who is high or low skill, but just that all heroes should be good for roughly the same sized are on the ladder, and let the rest work itself out.

Which is a position I have a LOT of respect for.

THEY don’t make value judgements on what they think is high or low skill…

Right, but that means you would EXPECT Ana to be worse than Mercy in the low ranks right?

Otherwise your basis of “Ana is harder than Mercy” would be wrong.

The idea that YOU determine which is high or low skill isn’t good, since everyone then claims their heroes are the high skill ones.

But you CAN let the system naturally fall to a place where high and low skill become apparent.

10

Yes of course

11

Ana is doing better than Moira in silver both for pick and win rates…

Which is interesting don’t you think?

As a card carrying member of the high skill camp, what does that mean?

12

Maybe that one particular dude you cite in your OP feels this way, but this is absolutely not my experience on these forums at all. People are very happy to talk about which characters they feel are skillful or not.

13

Right, but if that IS the argument, and they were willing to go to the wall over it, would you respect them?

Hear me out…

It is NOT that the balancing ideas are wrong, it is that many of the people who SAY there are in that camp, are hypocrites.

But… that doesn’t make the idea behind it wrong.

I dismissed the idea entirely, BECAUSE so many were hypocrites. But, the camps position is ACTUALLY a reasonable one.

14

Moira’s just had an overhaul of her healing, so I think the better comparison would be Ana vs Mercy - and Mercy is indeed doing better than Ana all the way up to, and including, Diamond.

It does because if there’s no way to design characters to have a specific level of skill, then balancing is even more impossible than it currently is.

1 Like
15

But, the thing is, they don’t have to. They ONLY have to make sure the areas they are doing well in are roughly the same size.

They CAN balance the game with different skill level heroes, IF the high skill camp is to believed.

BUT that means that the high skill heroes HAVE TO BE AWFUL in the low ranks, by their very nature.

They give a REALLY good and consistent way to balance.

If a hero is good in too many ranks, they should be nerfed. If a hero is good in too few ranks they should be buffed.

That is it. Good, *Easy, Consistent, and Clear.

* well, not always easy…

The idea is NOT to design a hero to be high or low skill, but to let them fall naturally into the position of high or low skill in play. I mean, they CAN, and they can even change the heroes to move them around, but for BALANCE, they should make sure they are good in their narrow band.

16

My answer to this dilemma is this:

All heroes should be viable in high ranks by raising the skill ceiling of all heroes.

This way, you achieve variety and reward skill, practice and effort.

A solution that benefits both sides, but unfortunately also the hardest from a balance and design point.

7 Likes
17

I was going to mention this.

But ultimately that is the low skill camp position. I should put that in their arguments.

I’m off to put that in their arguments.

Ok, thanks for that… it is VERY much a good argument. But, as I have now put in the top, I think balance should be for what is, not what should be…

HOWEVER, this SHOULD be aimed for.

1 Like
18

How exactly this is a low skill camp position? I admit I’m a bit confused here.

19

That all heroes should be equally viable in high ranks - both high and low skill ones.

20

Ah ok, it makes sense now.

1 Like