offtank df, offtank mei, offsup sombra, offsup sym, possibly offsup torb.
that’s the way to go.
back to basics oldschool like.
but with reworks that are fast and ttk-modern. we don’t need massive tank ttk clunk. mistake padded ttk all-in ult script macro while u fumble micro for days. need a little more micro skill diff doesn’t all have to be aim can be apm/cdbrain. tdm/open with multi dps are ur baselines.
builders shouldn’t be turn-based and we don’t need healers to ignore 1hp targets because they expect “teamwork” in a hybrid fps. we still need some kinds of moba/cd usage (traps, bangs, snares). just not over the top. mobility shouldn’t thrive for free there should be some low-apm low-aim req high effort counterplay that is viable for some ranks. etc etc.
not hard but they’ve somehow got little to show for 4+ years dev time.
geoff and his team of 4-5 make $500k/year? that’s a million bucks of balancing ideas in that timeframe. ppl will do the job better for free so step up or step asside.
i actually believe metro when he said ow2 is done but then they realised they would need to spend 2 years throwing balance spaghetti around to get enough of it to stick.
This is why I’m not concerned. A lot of people are assuming (for some bizarre reason) that them telling us about the difference between internal playtests and what we’ve seen from the pros means that they are ignoring or biasing towards pros.
It’s like people already have the view that OW2 will be bad and are looking for reasons to confirm their own bias.
It’s abundantly clear to me they are just being transparent on the process.
They are just telling us the story.
Dev: “Pros said Zarya is weak, playtests show Zarya is strong”
Forum member: “OMG they don’t listen to pros!!! They are bronze! The game is failing!”
Dev: “Sombra was clearly more OP in pros hands than our hands. We’ve toned her down in current playtests”
Forum member: “these guys only listen to the 1%, never us! This game is failing!”
Yes, that’s what common sense would tell me.
They are explaining the decision to reduce healing so we never saw what she was like before the pros got their hands on her.
“Balance team” LOL Seems a new name might be due. Look what they tried to do with Sombra in the next game… look at how Soldier is still a running Bastion with an additional rocket attack.
The amount of error in their logic is just mindblowing tbh. Here is the complete breakdown.
They said, that with the removal of 1 tank, the damage overall in the game went down, so supports dont need that much healing. Okay.
But we all know, that every tank is getting changes on top of the removal of one. So their damage goes up and their defense down. Reducing overall healing in the game as an addition to this is just ridiculous.
Not to mention that now they state that supports are the most important role by far. Guess what, if the supports would be strong enough healers by themselves and not just function as a duo, that would not be such an issue.
I said it many times and i say it again, as long as the best a support can do, is delaying the inevitable, that means its a horrible state. I dont know if i can mention even 1 decent game where a balanced healer means 1 DPS could kill a target which is getting healed constantly. In OW it happens even with 2 support sometimes, depending on the DPS and the healer. And this is why we are going to be back at 10+minute que times within a few months after release with supports being a new bottleneck. 4v4 in OW3?
Makes me wonder, how they would handle the removal of a healer.
Because following their current logic, they would just increase healing by a small margin for healers and give defense buffs to DPS heroes and some additional passive damage increase.
Tanks? Nah, the tanks are fine because tank durability is always somehow too strong and needs nerfing in the game’s entire lifespan anyway so its just in time for another shield nerf.
Here is the thing: you are saying that based on your theoretical idea of how the game will go that net damage will go up. However in their ACTUAL playing of the game they noticed damage went way down and fights were lasting too long.
Now having watched OW2 the fight length is largely unchanged so therefore whatever changes they did do seem to have caused the game to have the exact same TTK as OW1 which was seemingly the goal.
Now it is noteworthy that there are some exceptions to this being that sustain damage seems to actually have value whereas currently a lot of sustain damage simply feels like you are charging the enemy Support ultimates
Do you know the precise percentages that they have each gone up or down to make the judgement that it’s “ridiculous”? Or are you just guessing?
So in your ideal Overwatch healers would be able to keep up their entire team infinitely? Do you not see that that would cause a problem?
Also, it seems like you see supports as healers only despite the fact that Discord and Antinade exists. Supports are meant to kill too.
I don’t see how you can call the results of a play test lacking in logic when you don’t have the data.
Once you’ve played the beta and you have similar thoughts, I would understand. To say that their playtests are not representative of your ELO, I would understand. But this stance seems bizarre to me.
Am I the only one more concerned about how OW2 Zarya plays than her power level?
Currently, I’m assured that I always have a bubble for my own personal use, and I have one to use on others. Sadly, E-bubble usually goes to my co-tank, but there are times where I get to use it on that Doom or Reaper or ulting Genji/McCree/76.
In OW2, there’s a risk that the way to go is to double bubble myself, which strips Zarya of a dimension of gameplay. Or it could be the other extreme, where the play is to double bubble the Doomfist Mei while I cower behind cover. What was wrong with the OW1 model that number tweaks couldn’t fix?
