Symmetra is a close range character.
She has medium range capabilities, but she’s focused on close range to get good damage.
Also, this holds true for every close range character except Reaper. Every character has a distance attack of some sort, mobility, or an attack with mobility. Reaper is the only one who can’t really use his mobility for range-extension purposes.
I mean, a lot of the toxicity for most ELOs is basically
Where a lot of that goes away if the other Tanks can get buffed to Rein tier.
And there is no second tank player to coordinate with.
As for design stuff, I got some tank buffs in mind.
No shield tanks in Overwatch 2 on defence like Kings Row? - #29 by GreyFalcon-11737
Also, there’s a lot more “emotional leighway” to buff Tanks, if there’s only 1 player representing the entire role.
And to the extent that you still get people complaining about Tanks being too strong. There would be less DPS quitting over “OP Tanks”, than those quitting over “Bad queue times”.
We don’t agree on much, but I can tell you tell you for certain at least 30% of the tank players will call it quits and go Support and/or DPS. Most likely DPS.
For things to be induced there has to be an existence of that supply. If argue that roads is a social service, then yes, increasing the number of roads induces demand for more roads (or lanes).
For social services beyond that, though, inducement would depend on the service. For the most part - and what history has shown - usually there has been a demand first for that service and then supplied afterward. For example, building a second elementary school in the neighborhood where there’s only overcrowded school, increases the supply of schools to meet the demand and reduce overcrowding.
It gets a little tricky, but it’s not a blanket statement that every social service is inducing demand.
For a general service, it holds true. Accept it. As we said, the point in the first place is of course “existence” or we wouldn’t have a discussion on it.
Which is why it’s critically important that Tanks are fun to DPS players.
Unlike your traffic example that is quite broad, the difference here is we only need one tank, not two.
Games will start immediately after a tank joins. It’s not as simple as saying “more dps will negate the positive effect” as each game will begin as soon as the tank joins for each side.
To be fair, the off-tank role has always been a ‘beefier-dps.’ This is proven by most off-tanks having enhanced damage potential.
This is further proven by talk ‘tanks’ will be renamed to ‘brawlers’ in OW2.
Not necessarily. This argument completely ignores an updated philosophy over map design providing more natural cover as push maps seem to have.
Existing maps may be tweaked but more likely maps made moving forward will simply cater for the solo tank.
To be fair, OW1 was designed with an attack/defense/hero swapping philosophy in mind.
It quickly became apparent people didn’t like this (attack torbs, etc), one tricks, etc.
That said, OW1 was handled poorly after all the initial events launched and they quickly fell in to a cycle of recycled events and an outdated monetization system (loot boxes) when other games used battle passes.
OW2 is clearly an attempt to ‘start fresh’ and it’s unfair to hold past failures against them when it’s quite clear what they’re doing with OW2.
People do not want to play with tanks, that are just DPS. It simply isn’t working, as tanking and performing DPS role are two different activities.
Devs are persistent at forcing players to do what they intend them to do. But instead of figuring out, why players aren’t doing expected thing, they just leave them no choice.
From my perspective.
They need to fix queue times, and to do that they need to be convincing existing DPS players to play Tank instead.
As far as the RPG/MOBA minded definitions you got there.
I’d argue that class based shooter “Heavies” have been a thing for decades in other shooter games. And that is what Overwatch Tanks should be modeled after.
People who put more importance on accurate labeling, ahead of making sure a role is fun and sufficiently popular, can quit.
Heavies and Tanks aren’t same, though.
Again.
If you think the label is more important than the gameplay and popularity of the role, I disagree with you.
It’s not label, it’s simply entirely different role.
So then just label them Heavies.
Our OW has to adopt 5v5 because OW2 is basically an overlay of OW1. It’s not a new game, according to Blizzard. So when OW2 launches it should be the only option.
Won’t make them more desirable to have on your team, if reaction of players towards having off-tanks is any indication.
One thing tanks and heavies have in common is their high durability, but that’s where similarities mostly end.
So then just make it so Zarya/Hog/D.va all have the near equivalent of a barrier.
And then make Hammond into a DPS.
And on top of that, nerf/counter things that are problematic during DoubleOffTank metas. I.e. Snipers, Ult charge feeding, Earthshatter, and AntiHeal.
Generally, the goal is making it so Tanks are about 75% as lethal as DPS and 75% as Resistant/Protective as main tanks.
And overall the main mental hurdle to get over is that Tanks will probably be getting almost as many kills as a DPS, in addition to Tanking.
Tanks would have more overall value to the team than an individual DPS player. Which is fine, if you view equalizing queue times, as more important than balancing the game as if role limits isn’t a thing
I’m going to push back against this. I think the more enemies that are in play, the more you are required to keep track of things in a game. In other words, there’s more nuance you need to cope with the more enemies you have.
Same applies to teammates. Yes, less people means each individual has more impact; however, it reduces the requirements on how much communication you need to be successful.
If we take this to the extreme, we get a 1v1, which is actually MUCH less skillfull than a team game in my opinion. 2v2 is less so, and so on and so forth.
5v5 is going to take less skill than 6v6 in my opinion.
The end is nigh, cherish OW while you still can. Forget a tank exodus, a Support exodus is coming. The simple fact is that OW1 was designed to be like a game of football, support, dps, and tank are in a deep interplay relaying on each others separate but equal skills as gamers to win. OW2 is being designed like its basketball, except your only swapping out the football players for basketball players but keep the rules (objective based gameplay i.e football/ow1) the same. Now I’m not a genius but something tells me that won’t work out very well. Well for everyone not DPS. Tanks will feel the unfun the fastest and the hardest as their only contribution to the team will be to die first.
However supports… oh poor supports. Their player agency? Gone. No more picking whatever support you want and daring your team not to be grateful. No one is peeling for you so any weakness in your support kit will be exposed by the enemy DPS over and over again. Contribute to the team? Nope, your either stuck trying to heal over extended DPS or fighting a losing battle against a constantly outflanked tanks health bar. The only thing support will be is the 2nd and 3rd players to die so that the DPS has an extra .2 seconds to snipe the other team. Its going to be hilarious and normally the support players will have to suck it up, but OW2 has given them one final escape valve. PVE and once they get back to playing whatever heroes they want in PVE their not going back.
LOL!
The less players in the game, the more an individuals lack of performance will be apparent.
Try a 3v3 elimination in the arcade vs a 6v6 elimination. 3v3 will quickly highlight which player isn’t contributing.
Perhaps devs finally realised, that their dream of actually “team” game is not to be.
Situations like this is when I want to throw my whole team in trash compactor.