Release Orisa was completely fine and if we started claiming that every single new thing that has ever frustrated low ranks was at fault for making people stop playing then the game could have never, ever been popular in the first place.
Specially because when Orisa released the game was far more balanced and the DPS roster wasnt as absurdly imbalanced as right now.
Thats not even counting the amount of people attracted to the tank role and the game at large thanks to the first barrier tank that wasnt a melee character. To this day a lot of supports and DPS mains loved to play Orisa due to being a tank that wasnt a fat DPS OR melee locked. Orisa being made obsolete as a main cornerstone/pivot tank goes hand in hand with tank queues becoming worse and worse.
Rein has no cooldown to compensate, and Winston is fairly more mobile than Orisa is, with a far stronger survivability ultimate to boot.
Lets not compare things in a vacuum or ignoring certain things.
Roadhog, no mechanical skill? Clearly you don’t play roadhog or watch Cyx. I agree he’s a bit too oppressive though in OW1 even with ana keeping him in check. I’d consider him one of the hardest carrying hero in solo queue. The reason he is never played in OWL though is because in highly coordinated environment, sigma basically does what hog does but better. So hog is just a strong hero in solo queue.
OP just saying that devs can’t make mistakes in hero design, which is very far from reality. They are human, and their data is limited before releasing a hero. They can not get a hero tested with pro players or do mass tests, they can only have internal tests - mistakes are expected. And they correct them once they realize them - by rebalancing or even redesigning heroes. This happens in every game with different characters, not just overwatch.
I do agree - every hero belongs - some may just need some changes sometimes
but yes there are designs that don’t belong in the game.
notably, kit or ability designs whereby they don’t take the quality of the user’s inputs much into account into determining value. e.g. current res whereby you straight up can’t have the opportunity to res let alone the actual success of the process unless everyone else in the match lets you to.
and why such designs don’t belong is simply because we have core mechanics in the game that assumes that value attained is a monotonic increasing function of the user’s quality of inputs.
i.e. if you play a hero whereby their value doesn’t depend much on the quality of the user’s inputs, then SR, MMR, how the matchmaker works and how to even go balance such a hero goes straight out of the window.
e.g. one objectively can’t argue whether mercy’s damage boost is too easy or too hard for value. why? because how much value attained and how difficult it is to get value entirely isn’t sourced from the mercy’s gameplay.
i.e. we can all agree that getting boosted winston damage is far easier than getting say boosted ashe scoped shots. but in both scenarios mercy’s largely just holding right click. one’s obviously easier than the other, and the difference isn’t in mercy —> is it too easy or too hard for the mercy? you can’t make an objective determination at all.
—> how to pick a fair team for someone that plays such a hero?
—> how to award SR or MMR fairly for someone that plays such a hero?
Overwatch 1 wasn’t initially poorly received and it only started to receive negative feedback due to numerous changes and balancing problems, for the most part.
This isn’t really fair to say, and it’s ignorant to say it in such a “all or nothing” way like that. Overwatch 2 isn’t even out, and the Beta was around for a very short time. In that same timeframe during the beginning of Overwatch 1’s release, it received massively more positive feedback in comparison. To state that a game that hasn’t even come out yet is “receiving massive amounts of popularity compared to the original” is wrong when comparing 5+ years to about a month.
And that’s ignoring the *massive amounts of negative criticism" that is coming with each new piece of information for Overwatch 2. People are incredibly upset about the “Seasonal Model” and the swap to F2P, mostly because you need to buy the Overwatch 1 Legendary Edition again to get certain aspects of Overwatch 2. Many people are also incredibly upset or disappointed in some or all of the Hero changes, like with Doomfist being dumbed down and less “Doom-fist-y” and more “shotgun-y” for example. And don’t even get me started on the whole PvE aspect that was supposed to be the main CORE ASPECT of Overwatch 2 being delayed and seems to be a background thought now.
I personally disagree,
designs should be consistent and follow a design pattern.
All designs by themselves are fine but you can’t make one hero like Junkrat that has clear pros (high damage,easy to hit, good against space covers,good at close-medium range) and cons (big hit box, lack ranged damage, his damage is easy to react to) and another hero like Soldier:76 who’s completely general without any major ups or downs…
By this criteria I can just put random stuff on a hero creating the most broken hero there is and the worst hero in the game and they all would be fine because there’s no real law…
Like most things in complicated stuff like video games, you first need order. The more you make things similar in pattern the less problems you’d have. I don’t think a hero should be removed but there are for sure heroes that don’t contribute anything unique and heroes that are designed so differently you’re not even playing the same game anymore.
There is a big difference between using the competitive rule set without a losing penalty and having your SR on the line. Its like playing pickup basketball at the Y verses playing in a real game in an organized league. They use the same rules, but one has actual stakes attached to winning and losing. People have higher expectations of your performance in a real game that aren’t present in the pickup game. This causes them to treat bad performances very differently.
Sojourn is terribly balanced, the character has the power to one shot without having to charge the shot. She charges insanely fast for the rail gun and she doesn’t slow down before she fires like any other sniper in the game. Her grenade does a ton of damage on top of the slow which to me is already overkill. Sojourn is a terribly designed hero, she lacks the drawbacks of literally any sniper and with a pocket mercy? Shes unstoppable unless you also have a one shot on your team. The beta always came down to who was the better sojourn even after she got nerfed
Accretion cast is faster. On a close target it will actually hit faster than Hack. But even on targets that are further it has the other aspect: It does not get interrupted itself. I think this is where accretion is different. You can reasonably interrupt things like Death blossom, coalescence, etc. Hack just can’t. The time to cast means you are going to get sprayed and interrupted. Neither ability really interrupts that many things. But accretion interrupts far more. On top of that there are the abilities that don’t technically get interrupted, but accretion does kind of. Think of things like Tec visor. It is a transform so accretion and hack don’t actually cancel it. But accretion stuns the target. So, it is a really short interrupt, but it does interrupt damage. Hack doesn’t.
In the end, neither interrupt that many things, but there will be a lot more things accretion interrupts that hack doesn’t (or at least not reliably). It will feel more impactful that way.
While there are a couple things you can interrupt, by and large that is not really a reliable function of hack. So, not really a strength. In all but a few situations hack is nothing more than a way to increase damage to a point you match other heroes, at the cost of warning them you are there and going to attack.
I think it was two things. One, people decided they did not like Brig and were looking for reasons to hate her. Blaming her for Goats was an easy way to support the opinion they already had. Two, bandwagon. People like to just jump on it and ride because it is easier than using critical thinking.
Widow was a factor for sure. She was not the only factor. For example, Tracer played a part as well. When you have things like Widow 1 shotting people or Tracer 1 clipping people you start looking for options that let you survive. And Goats was a good way to protect against a Tracer.
As a side note, to clarify: I was not suggesting Zarya was the cause. She was just the hero that allowed it to work.
She is a product of few weaknesses high output. It is the same reason Soldier has been so dominant for so long. When a hero has the mobility and range to easily choose their angles and position and also get away from threats coming at them they end up really hard to eliminate. When that same hero has high damage, low TTK, they end up just dominating the field. In short, she doesn’t have enough weaknesses to compensate for her output.
it’s just an example of things that do not work or fit and are actively being detrimental, to what would otherwise be great.
Things that if just held true to concept would have given us more to see and the workers work.
but i keep forgetting that people cant understand that tho some things may not be 1:1 the core causes are the same.
Here lets go to something that wont fixate people, quake champions, it wasn’t arena shooter that killed it, it was hero selection, it was the removal of the fairness through champions that killed it.
Ja, I totally agree. I aktually think its fun if not everyone played the same. And often times i think hitscan gods play bad, but just dont get the deep levels of skill they use crosshair placement, the spesific reason for the positioning.
So i would never tell them to do this and that. I can suggest it but i would say something like: “We can go left side?!” And then they can decide if it fits into there strategy.
The cast itself does. Only after the initial half-second is Accretion’s projectile independent.
Likewise, Hack can interrupt those things, so long as it isn’t damaged in trying. For Death Blossum, that comes down to the 88% greater range (15m vs. 8m).
On all else, I’m in full agreement, but it really is as simple as just “Can cast be interrupted (by Stun/Silence)? Yes? No?” For which the answer is always yes. It’s just that cast speeds differ and that Hack is uniquely interrupted also by damage.
Hack in not meant as a revealed/front-line interrupt, no. And as a Silence, not a stun, it’s obviously not going to stop as complete a portion of damage over its duration. But, in OW1 its duration is over 6x as long, and in OW2, it is on 40% the cooldown. And it comes with a damage amp and wall hacks, etc.
They’re kinda apples and oranges here, overlapping only over the small part that is Silence (which just happens to be bundled, obviously, into any and all stuns as well).
I think you misunderstand. Shooting Sigma while he is casting accretion does not stop it. Anything touches Sombra while she is hacking stops it. This means to interrupt she has to be positioned in such a way that she doesn’t get hit by random fire and does not also get sprayed by the ability she wants to interrupt, etc. That means it is not something that you can just react with.
Which is the key point. It is important to remember that for it to be a useful interrupt it has to be reactive. In other words, the target starts doing X and Sombra would react with hack. The cast time is long enough that her position at the time she needs to react has to be perfect. And she can’t be hit by anything during it. This makes it extremely unreliable as an interrupt. Sigma can react and interrupt, Sombra really can’t. Hack is not a viable interrupt.
The wall hacks are not the use. They are only slightly more than a ping (which Sombra can do for her team since she can see the target).
True. The whole point of comparing them was that CheifWamBam said:
Which is why I pointed out how Accretion was a stronger interrupt option.
Bottom line: Hack is not a reliable interrupt tool. It is not what hack is all about.
In OW2 the only real purpose of hack is to let you do almost as much damage as other heroes. In almost every case is the only thing you will use it for. Hack needs to be more than ‘If you get a cast off that also warns the target you are there then you can do almost as much as other heroes who do not have to warn ahead of time.’
At lot of early suggestions seemed to center around asking that it be put on a sort of resource (similar to Rein’s and later Sigma’s) or that it’d at least decay over time, such that breaking it near the end of its duration wasn’t simply a waste. That, or that it’d get start with 100% DR, fading over 2 seconds, but its total HP would be nerfed tremendously—usually paired with increased projectile movement and deployment speed for clutch saves.
Can’t say I think any of those were necessary (even if nicer, perhaps for very low ranks), but it would have been interesting to experiment with, at least.
lol launch brig was perfectly balanced ok. a dps having 3 ccs is perfectly balanced ok, a dps who is designewd to be weak against being dove gets12% more hp while having hard CC lol nope overwatch is dying becuase they nerf everything to appease to dps players
What about Widowmaker?
She’s not playing with her team, she doesn’t push the payload, she doesn’t help breaking shields, she misses every shots and most who actually manages to land a hit turn out to be cheaters anyway.
What’s her purpose in Overwatch except pissing off your teammates and making them wish there was a friendly fire option?
