Watch me say “I put 501 hours in studying this topic” and let me know if that fills you with any sort of feeling that makes you think you should “just trust me bro”
The only thing youve proven about the 6v6 discussion is that you can link URLs about a completely different genre of game (Sid Meiers) and snobbishly ask people to define “balance” like either prove a point
Arguments from authority are highly documented logical fallacies. Tell me more about how long youve studied.
I’ve probably written more Role Queue posts, than you’ve written total posts.
Also completely irrelevant and proves nothing. Im proud of you though! If that makes you feel any better.
Because outright thats yet again just another argument from authority. You are proclaiming yourself an authority on the subject and you love pointing out how much time youve spent on this, but it really doesnt mean anything you think it means.
Havent spent the time doesnt mean you spent it correctly. Think of all the people who have spent thousands of hours in video games trying to improve but never make it past plat. Trying to argue that you should be believed merely because you spent the time is crazy.
If youve spent this absurd amount of time learning, youd be able to make an actual argument that isnt “trust me bro, 500 hours bro, its a long time, could you imagine that? Anyways look at what Sid Meier said about his design philosophy for a genre with no relation to Overwatch”
Not saying I’m right.
But I am saying I’m almost 100% certain you haven’t thought up a valid solution that I haven’t already rejected for comprehensive reasons.
You’ve never studied game design, and yet want to gripe about Source quality.
Which is basically bad faith by default, and essentially an appeal toward ignorance as a virtue.
Congrats Im glad youve stated “Im 4 parallel universes ahead of you” and once again still given zero actual proof to anything that isnt just “Trust me, I did it!”
Cool, glad you know me buddy, and once again! Argument from authority! Seriously brother you need to look those three words up and realize that no matter how many times you bring it up, your hours put in, or the things you study, dont automatically allow you to dismiss the words of those who havent. USE the fricking knowledge you gained to make a proper real argument instead of sitting there repeated ad nauseam “but ive done THIS and you HAVENT”
Youre entire argument for the last 5 messages has been a flimsy attempt to discredit, and claim that youve made yourself an authority on the subject and should be trusted blindly because of it. The point of learning isnt to say that you learned, its to enhance an argument with deeper knowledge, which Ive yet to ever see you do
And by the way Im not griping about source quality! Im griping about source relevancy, because outright what Sid Meiers says he feels about how he designs a game has precious little to do with Overwatch. Every last idea thats gone through his head comes from the lens of top down 4X turn based and real time strategy game. His type of game that hes spent his whole life focusing on has precious little in common with Overwatch, and the idea that design philosophies magically overlap through genre is laughable. Sid Meier is a well studied authority on top down turn based strategy games, not FPS/MOBA shooter hybrids.
You mean if not when as it will never return stop coping.
The big issue with trying out 6v6 is that a lot of heroes have been reworked and/or rebalanced for 5v5, so I think there would be a lot of work to make 6v6 work properly. If they just made the current game with 2 tanks per team, it would probably be an awful experience.
I vaguely agree? I am actually surprised so many people are adamant about 6v6. I am a nostalgia head, so I prefer Overwatch before it’s first update. You can say I do not really believe it all you want, launch Overwatch was the best. Albeit, I have very different ideas about the game relative to most here. I am surprised that, for once, I am in the majority.
If people tested it again, I am almost certain they would change their minds.
What’s the point of discussing sourced material with you, if all you do you find excuses not to read it?
You wanna talk about “Authority”.
If you aren’t sourcing things, then you are essentially just claiming Yourself as an authority. Which is not true.
You are not an authority on Game Design.
Same
I have no issue reading relevant source material at all! The issue I have with you is that I never see you actually making arguments yourself, and instead constantly link to long video essays or publications that always talk about a million other things that arent relevant to the current conversation. You force people to wade through literal pointless garbage! Its like modern day service agreements, filled with pointless technical talk meant only to annoy you to the point where you give up and just say yes.
You make it impossible for people to actually respond to you when you do this because they physically have no idea what theyre supposed to address when everything you link talks about a thousand other things.
And you trying to throw the whole “authority” thing back on me tells me youre lost for sure, because Ive never once acted like one unlike you. When asked to give my reasoning for things I actually give them, and dont just say “Ive spent more time on this than you, trust me”
Unlike you, Im here to debate! I give reasons thats up to you to either accept or to deny and give your retort! Thats called a discussion, and I dont need to source myself when I say Hammond counters Widow. All I do is when I debate I make sure I dont make claims I cant back up. If I need to say something that requires a source, I get it! And a relevant one too, not just some dude from a genre 30 times removed from FPS games.
How would you know they aren’t relevant if you never read them?
If it bothers you that so many people have a singular gripe with the game that is obviously shared by very, very many at this point, then you are the big-headed jerk here. I’d recommend a break from the forums if that is the case instead of trying to shut people up on a forum designed to accept feedback and discussion.
And yet you’re making declarative statements about Industry Best Practices for Game Design.
When you’ve never studied the subject.
as I said:
tanks that are too invasive, or too nerfed to adapt to this scheme, or too little space for dps, or too much work for supports, or too much time queue, or too much Metas impossible to break if you don’t do mirror compositions.
further reminder: tanks were buffed to resist their solitary role.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgczDOhCqjI
the tank section from OW1 contains countless amounts of tank buffs. Tell me if you really believe they would keep the current tanks without nerfing them in a two tank scenario. 
…
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/17/4b/1e/174b1e68df6ad484669599c17a0e7cd3.jpg
Yeah, sure.
Nice work, glad again youre pretending to be omniscient. Ive read through the publications you link, and watched some of the video essays linked. This is how I know that you treat these things like a Terms of Service agreement, hiding what matters behind pages of nonsense.
The very least you could do is timestamp the video essays you link, or just copy paste the paragraphs you find relevant in the publications and then offer the link as your source.
I mean honestly 6v6 even in the format we have now would probably be pretty ok
like double shield was a huge problem near the end of ow1 and orisa ended up getting reworked anyway
if she was tuned more as an offtank getting rid of javalin spin she’d probably fit right in to other comps
JQ and Mauga would absolutely be great as offtanks (of course adjusted accordingly)
I feel like Ram would probably be problematic but still he could work
a big complaint w 6v6 was just constantly shooting barriers, but dps has powercrept and generally shields aren’t as big of an issue
rein’s shield got nerfed and the only other real barrier is sigma
like, the other heroes with shields could probably do with a nerf, like winston bubble was mostly for zoning out a target and buying winston time, ofc its been adjusted for 5v5
also with the introduction of heroes like lifeweaver flanking/1shot hog wouldnt be as bad as it was (but honestly hog rework would be pretty ok)
also suzu wouldnt have as big of an impact cuz its pretty tough to hit that many people at once, and hey, theres an extra tank to deny space for those supports to run rampant
im not gonna pretend 6v6 wasn’t flawed, but it was fixable at the very least
most of 5v5’s issues stem from things out of the players direct control and it feels horrible
The very least you could do, is actually have sources of your own.
Instead of just making stuff up off the top of your head, then declaring it as fact.
and Im not at all! Im telling people what I feel is best for overwatch, and giving my reasoning as to why I think that way, and instead of saying “you havent put in the hours I have, therefore Im right” when people offer me retorts I actually read and respond instead of saying “come back when you can define balance”
Its called having a discussion, buddy. Try it sometimes instead of relying on logical fallacies