You look at the statistical data and decide purely based on that which hero needs buffs and nerfs.
After that you should enter a discord of high profile players which main said hero and ask for suggestions for nerfs and buffs.
Then you test them internally and if it feels good to play you throw them on experimental.
Then you add an ingame vote system where you can either agree or disagree with the change of the hero you played when the match is over.
Then based on the community feedback and the data they got from experimental they can decide whether it should go live or not.
6 Likes
You really think they don’t already do this?
2 Likes
No, because statistical bad heroes are kept being bad.
5 Likes
I’ve always skipped the in game vote, myself.
If they did, then doom wouldnt remain untouched for two straight years outside of nerfs.
At least regarding the part of asking pro/high level doom mains how he should be reworked or changed
so if you buffed bap a month ago because he wasnt picked what happens
1 Like
You ask high rank bap players about the state of the hero and how he should be changed
If they say he’s fine, dont buff him. If they say rework immortality, rework immortality
They had a “rate the match” vote. Which was pointless. I want to give everyone who played experimental to give their feedback about a hero change directly.
the problem with community feedback is most of them are biased
like if doom were about to get buffed, even that buff is balanced and needed
i think most of people who dont play him will refuse to buff doom
i think balanced should be based on:
60% dev decision
20% from actual data
20% from community (both pro and casual)
1 Like
The thing is you only get to vote on a change after you played the hero on experimental. The devs can see your data on the hero after your vote. If you have 0 hours on Doom and then play him and vote no against all buff attempts then they know your opinion isnt worth considering.
Statics is one of many tools that can be used to balance heroes, but should not be the end all be all.
Otherwise a hero like genji would have been nerfed three times over simply for being popular instead of a hero or interaction that might actually need tuning.
doesnt work like that, you have to use in game context aswell
Popularity is also tied to viability. D.Va used to be one of the most popular heroes in lterally every rank in the game. Not any longer as she isnt as viable anymore.
Ah yes, because they throw darts at a dart board to choose who’s going to be OP this month…
Nope the devs where even confused about their being so many Genji players even after trying to kill dive for like two years straight.
Hate to break it to you but most of OW players don’t come to the forums, don’t check the patches, or even know what top tier heroes are.
And for the most part they play whatever they like.
Statistically it is a fact that hero pickrates drop after nerfs regardless of popularity. You just cant “nope” that.
People which dont care and play whatever are casuals playing quickplay.
Sure ya the thirty or so percent that keep up with that kind of have a habit of over reacting. Or if the buff or nerf is so significant and people start seeing super unkillable initial mercy 2.0 flying around.
And ya people will start playing them.
But to say it’s the absolute determiner is fundamentally wrong, and can miss actual issues as to why certain heroes are actually strong.
Like did you know double shield was created to counteract Mei?
You wouldn’t have known that if you were just looking at stats.