Heroes with more defensive playstyles have proven time and time again to cause way more problems than aggressive heroes. I feel like the game would be better if all of them were nerfed. A defensive playstyle, in general, is way stronger and easier to play than an aggressive playstyle. Furthermore, mechanically and mentally, it’s way easier than having to push in and plan out your moves on the fly while reacting to a target that is ready for somebody to push through one of Blizzard’s world famous chokepoints… You’ve got way more control when you’re on defense than offense. This is why defensive heroes…really should only ever be played during a defensive team position, at best, like defending the payload.
Furthermore, regarding fun, nobody likes playing against Orisa, Torb, Bastion, Widow, Mei, Baptiste, Brig etc. They LIKE playing against Rein, Winston, Reaper, Lucio, etc. I feel like the game would be much better if defensive playstyles were just always…bad. Obviously burst damage needs to be toned down if this change were to be made, but I feel like it holds some serious need for consideration. I don’t think defensive playstyles should ever really be meta. They’re not fun to play, since it’s a ton of waiting around for nothing, nor is it particularly fun to play against…Look at GOATS, DB, and the current sustain meta.
I think we just need to accept it: Offensive, aggressive heroes should be meta the majority of the time, if not all the time. The more passive and defensive ones do not fit the effort/reward ratio, nor do people find them particularly fun to play against, unless they’re a weirdo.
The game is objectively easier if you play defensively over offensively. It’s been this way for a long, long time. I quit because friendly lifeweavers were killing me too much lol. Defense has a natural advantage over offense position-wise, so the heroes need to be weaker to balance it out. It’s literally objective fact.
If you seriously find defensive playstyles difficult, I find that ridiculously baffling. They are not hard for normal people.
Tracer/Genji mobility can be used for either. Most would say they are offensive, but time and time and time again completely disregard how amaingly small they are and how quick they move. In an RPG, they are effective the equivalent of a dodge tank. Genji can be played insanely defensive with how tight you can play to cover with wall climb, ledges, terrain, swift strike times, poke from long distance, and deflect to stall out 90% of the dmg sources in the game to get away.
Similar with Tracer where you have so much mobility you can play cover incredibly tight have recall to undo your distance, refill health, and have a perm no thought evasion on being small. When your targets are immobile with projectile, its even easier to play defensively against these heroes and simply gain value for doing nothing by getting people to burn time trying to kill you.
With how bad Genji players are at generally staying alive I think many are not that well attuned with how to respect their own life and ever really learn how to be present, annoying, and survivable.
Shadowburn here in this first vid for the first minute is simply playing incredibly annoying by being difficult to pin down. Doing very little damage. Not really getting any kills and just surviving.
But I probably somewhat agree,
Since I would argue that overly durable compositions and sniper based poke really slow the game down. And that faster compositions should be the meta.
Mostly because “Play-to-Win” should be as similar as possible to “Play-for-Fun”.
You shouldn’t have to decide between Winning and Enjoying yourself while doing it.
So it’s less that individual heroes need to be specific tierlist ranking at High ELO. But rather that maybe overly defensive heroes, should be powershifted to being more aggressive and less defensive.
For example,
Make it so that Orisa is more about an “aggressive, get in your face” playstyle. For example
This is absolutely true. I play literally every hero in the game with a defensive style because, well, that is how I approach everything.
My sister is the opposite. She is very aggressive with all the heroes she plays. Hero kits can favor one aspect over the other, but generally it is the playstyle that is more relevant here.
In many cases, the best players are simply the best at knowing how to ebb and flow going from defensive to get out abilities, then go on the offensive during an advantage. Lots of players are very impatient and rush headlong into things without first waiting for the right advantage.
There’s nothing wrong with defensive playstyles. If you want constant fast paced metas where heroes like Tracer and Genji are always strong, Overwatch probably isn’t for you.
Nobody enjoys metas where it’s a slog to kill anything, but the only people who enjoy metas like Dive are the people playing the meta.
There is no reason why defensive heroes should be F tier to low B tier. Ideally, no hero should ever be F tier. All heroes should be equally viable picks for general play. Not talking competitive play here, just general run of the mill quickplay.
Heroes shouldn’t artificially be prevented from being good simply because you don’t like their playstyle or kits.
I think heroes should be tierlisted based on how “Desirable they are to Play-As”, versus how “Undesirable they are to Play-Against”.
And if we’re talking high ELO meta, then it should be based on the overall preferences of high ELO players.
But that the way you would move a hero up on that tierlist, is by making them more enjoyable to play Play-As, and less frustrating to Play-Against.
(Although that’s probably not possible for all heroes).
That is quite the call out. You sent homie a formal request!
This attitude is prevalent almost everywhere. In the fighting game community, you would have rushdown (aggressive) dominating the meta, but anytime a zoner (defensive) would succeed it is always because it is “so easy and low skilled,” apparently the game as a whole favors it. Lots of cope.
This argument literally does not even make sense in Overwatch where we play both sides in ranked. Even if it was objectively true, one team is going to be better overall or it is going to result in a draw, obviously.
While I agree with what you’re saying, what you’re saying and what OP is saying are two very different things. You’ve made some very reasonable suggestions, and they would work for the majority of the roster.
What OP is suggesting, however, is that defense heroes should purposely be kept down so that they are always inferior to offense heroes.
Since my approach WOULD involve lowering the pickrate of a lot of overly defensive heroes. But mostly while they are in the waiting room for their more aggressive powershift.
Their approach sounds more final, to me that’s an intermediate step.
I don’t know, nor care, about fighting games community. I don’t play them, but thanks for that info I guess (-;
The thing here is, I am open to the idea that defensive heroes are too strong in the game. But you know me my friend, I ain’t just gonna take this claim and run with it without good justification (-;
I don’t agree with it… Yes, if the compositions are mirrored then better team will win (since both get to attack then defend). But thing is, some people don’t like certain heroes so they refuse to play them… If the best composition is symm + torb on damage, then someone who wants to play genji or tracer is at a disadvantage. Now, we need to establish how big is this disadvantage and how often (all maps? some maps?) this occurs.
Of course. The same applies to fighting games. Or any other game I have played. People tend to prefer the faster pace. People tend to prefer being rewarded for making plays as opposed to denying them. Blah blah blah. I am just saying that you have to defend and attack so any favoritism is irrelevant from a meta perspective. Both teams have an opportunity to attack and defend. You can win games by being a stronger offensive team just as you can win games by being the superior defensive team. It is somewhat map dependent, admittedly. But whatever, there is a lot of nuance to the discussion.
