It Has Begun - Swap To Kiriko - I Don't Have Her...whelp

[Poytheon-1466]

@yeetles-1497

I think this is the root of our disagreement.

I see a restricted hero pool for one player and not the other, and believe that the second player is at an advantage. A restriction is a disadvantage in and of itself.

You see those same two players and believe that the restricted hero pool isn’t necessarily a disadvantage, since other, superior choices may be available.

(Correct me if I’m wrong on that).

There’s a bit more to it than that, but that’s the general gist. As long as there are viable alternatives (like there are in Smash, League, Apex, Valorant, Smite, Paladins, and OW2)
then the game can’t be Pay to Win in my eyes, because in my eyes Pay to Win means you spend money and you’re significantly stronger than anyone who doesn’t spend money, like Diablo Immortal. If someone spends $1000 in Diablo Immortal there’s no overcoming that advantage.

@yeetles-1497

And I think, at the core of the issue, we both agree. You can indeed play around the issue and still win, I absolutely believe that.

Always happy to find common ground

@yeetles-1497

I also ask, though, do you acknowledge that there is SOME advantage to having access to a locked hero? Even if the hero may not be particularly powerful, do you believe that having access to 36 heroes is a slight advantage over having access to 35 (even if the advantage is unnecessary for you to win)?

I’m really not sure how to answer that, I’ll give you a specific reason why.

I play every hero in OW2, all 36, but only a handful of them do I play at what I would consider to be a high level. Any of those other heroes being available to me doesn’t benefit me at all, not one bit, I’m better off playing the handful of heroes that I’m really good at. With that in mind, they could be entirely removed from the game just for me while everyone else can play them and I don’t think my capability of a player would change at all. Having those extra options means absolutely nothing.