Just a suggestion, but I wouldn’t bring in other heroes to suggest change to Symmetra.
Your focus of the thread needs to be constructive and voiced towards your main point: symmetra.
I know how tempting it is to bring emotion and opinion into things, but statistics of a hero’s underperformance will catch their attention more.
I mean yeah, the Shimadas are meta. If I have to see Genji’s squirming butt and Hanzo’s left nipple every other match, they’re certainly not off meta.
And I think it’s obvious I’m venting. I would think you would too if the devs made a weak excuse to not pay proper attention to your hero who is in need of attention — oh and they talk about buffing heroes your hero has had a history of problems with (Winston) and who don’t need no buffs (Zarya, who is also quite literally stronger than 3.0 Symmetra in practically every way; she’s Zarya Poppins y’all.)
Well meta is what’s mostly ran and is the path of least resistance, which I recall is GOATS. There is also no meta really for quickplay/arcade modes, since people play what they like, not what’s going to give them a win.
Genji is balanced in my eyes (and a lot of other people besides the forums) and is Viable but he never dictates a meta (he was ran in metas, but mostly tagged along for the ride, never really took the wheel)
Hanzo, it’s hard to tell, he was never meta or really viable before in his 1.0 form, and in his 2.0 Gravdragon is the only thing I can recall (which was much more uncounterable and a path of easy resistance, nanoblade has a lot more counters and is easier to deny value, so it’s more of a combo than a meta)
Some heroes are used often because of popularity and playstyle/design, not necessarily strength.
It’s like this scenario:
Would you rather work at a job you DESPISE but gain lots of money from, or work at a job you love but make minimum wage.
Wasnt a rework it was a deletion and redesign
I brought the others in because they were also addressed. And had I not, someone would have inevitably brought them up. I also think characters ignored by balance favors should be paid attention too.
You can look around the forum and find several threads by me and other Symmetra players who talk about Symmetra more eloquently, but like I said, this is my “I have Mcfrickenhadit” thread.
Geoff literally just said they’re going to look at Symmetra:
They just buffed Reaper like crazy, and the next patch is probably going to make Symmetra primary really strong…
the reward is increased with skill which isn’t true for every hero in the same way.
you can’t really touch them without making them easier and subsequently broken at high tiers.
and the reverse happens for the heroes who are good at low tiers but is lacking in high tiers, if you buff them for high tiers they will be broken in low tiers.
the only way to change this is a complete rework of the hero itself.
my suggestion though is to not change anything because metas aren’t static.
i’m mean i personally didnt like sym’s rework too, but you can’t really say they don’t care when they did something. if they didn’t care they would of just done nothing.
The game is in an entire paradox itself then.
Heroes should exist who’s power scales with the skill of the player very well. But there should also be starter heroes who casuals can pick up and play so they can enjoy and stick to the game. But if the starter heroes are so much better than the more demanding heroes, what’s the point of playing the demanding heroes?
It’s just the flaw in the games fundamental design, which you can’t really change.
Psst…they probably would have if it wasn’t for the owl commentators and this one little owl factoid at halftime this one match blaring “HEY SYMMETRA IS THE ONLY HERO NOT PICKED IN THE OWL”
I’m basing this off of memory, but I do remember Mercer saying “We saw statistics, and noticed that Symmetra had very little time in OWL, and hoped that the rework would change that”
Any argument that is based off speculation like this is a bad argument.
watch around 8:44 where spirit (a consistent t500 reaper onetrick) talks about low skill heroes like reaper, etc being meta
there’s really no way around it unless you make a comp like goats where the ease of use actually trumps possible inconsistent high value.
and those are essentially flaws of how the game is set-up.
high value = inconsistency
mid value = consistency,
in a graph way they even themselves out to be about averagely the same except when pros actually can make high value consistent enough to out value mid values.
or if pro’s can make something so synergistically sound that they can get inherently high value out of it.
and through that you can’t really factor in what’s going to happen every patch they change something, or if the meta is going to stay the same because ideas and how the game is played matures with time.
the best example of this is perhaps smash bro’s melée, it’s inherently easy to play but some characters just ends up higher on the tier list, however even this tier list can be shaken up due to unforeseen ideas about how the game is played.
I’ve played melee to some extent, but I have better experience with Smash Ultimate, so I can better compare it.
Smash Ultimate has 70+ heroes of ranging difficulties and skill-sets, there is literally no possible way to make this balanced. The low skilled heroes of the roster will always have a few decent abilities in order to be decent to pick up for casuals. But the high skill heroes will require a series of movements and chain-combos to be effective, which logically since it takes more effort, should pump out more value.
Skill gaps are pretty much a necessary evil for certain game genres to have depth.
yeah im sure they put time and resources into reworking characters they don’t care about frequently
exactly, unless an idea is introduced that changes everything.
i can’t remember exactly but i think in ssbm kirby wasn’t really meta for a long time until someone changed everyones perception of the hero, and let me remind you there was no patches to the game, the game evolved on it’s own.
however with patches and balance fixing the game this means that you really don’t have to do anything but just wait until they change something.
meaning it’s harder to explore if a mid to low tier character can become high tier.
and tier lists isn’t necessarily evil, it’s just the perception of it that some heroes might not be top tier that they shouldn’t be played but that’s false. as there is a casual crowd that can play them and have a different type of meta.
meaning you don’t actually have to change anything really.
If they cared about Sym or the people that loved her they would of enhanced the things that made her unique. they would of kept a low aim intensity primary instead of turning her into one of the highest aim reliant heroes making it so a large amount of the people that loved her for her accessibility would still be able to use her.
The problem is, Sym kit still remains situational. TP is her only ability good right now.