Also this does not work in the slightest.
You cant do that because once the minority start climbing they get infinitely stuck at a certain rank because the game is completely different for that other rank.
1 Like
Didnâtchaknow? They just want to make sure theyâre always stuck at their given rank so they never again have to worry about advancing!
Not short-sighted at all.
1 Like
- See thatâs assumptions.
- My post is basically numbers. And numbers are facts.
- Who cares if people want to have fun?
- I thought games were suppose to be fun?
- Iâm know gold players donât want to have to play against an op character all the time. Fun or not. No one wants âmust pickâ character in their games. Thatâs an assumption also⊠but come on lol
- I canât tell whoâs invested more in the community. The forums are not the only way to invest time in the community.
- Does it matter?
- Again. Ranks around gold are the majority. Satisfy your biggest player base. Or get a dead game.
- And being gold means you are average. Not that you donât follow patch notes and the community.
Thatâs far from an apt analogy, though, or itâd see mostly linear differences over the ranks as to how they are affected, essentially flattening the curve. Trying to adjust for metas in rank that barely have metas and when used those metas, by nature of the rank, are barely understood is far, far more chaotic.
Itâd be more like adding a bunch of additional rules or restrictions, separate for each tier, just so the players arenât obliged to improve or optimize.
This doesnt exactly work out well, considering blizzard has always balanced around the top, and considering thats not what ow is being eaten alive by, i doubt thats going to be reason for its demise either
So majority the player base leaving because itâs a frustrating game means it wonât be dead? Foh.
This if they buffed âeasy to playâ heros for GM.
1 Like
They didnt leave because blizzard balanced around the top, most of the people who have left have left because they ran out of interest for the game, a lot of people bought the game in 2016 to see how it is.
They have balanced around the top since 2016. The game hasnt died, and it wont die just because now the balance patches are seen as more nefarious than good.
If you want to reflect on how you want to leave but cant because youre addicted to the game go for it, but dont generalize an entire community to fit your own portrait
1 Like
its called a learning curve. Some characters like reaper and junk are good in lower elos, and thats good for the game. Learning how to defeat those characters gives you basic skills that you can implement into ur gameplay to succeed and increase in rating.
1 Like
Then I got the combo wrong, but my point still stands.
When thereâs 2-3 viable heroes of an 8 hero pool, perhaps whoeverâs balancing isnât doing a good job.
Because 86% of players have only a passing understanding of this game.
1 Like
Thing is.
The ballance is REALLY WEIRD.
Rein-zarya is meta in lower ranks.
Double shield in high ranks.
Brig is also a must pick in Gm-Top500 comp, but not in proplay. (instead just seeing a lot of playtime, not MOST of the playtime)
Yes please.
The meta down there is stable, but the communication and overall mechanical skill isnât on par with higher ranks. I was always annoyed that WE, higher ranked players get the most attention over the majority of the playerbase. Itâs dumb and silly marketing.
Different patches need to go to different set of ranks. Casuals are different than higher competitive players and thatâs ridiculous. Hopefully it becomes a reality.
You can balance across more than one rank at once for a lot of abilities.
They donât, but you can.
Blizzard: âSend us your C.V. we need financial advice of this caliber effective immediatelyâ
Also regarding the title, why donât you tell your dad to create a game satisfactory to your requests and visions, that would be a win-win situation.
In my opinion they donât really have to choose⊠they just need to understand there are multiple ways to balance.
and they need to balance according to both medium ranks and high ranks.
If a hero is too strong or too weak in rank the first thing you need to do is understanding why is so?
after you understand the problem you need to choose which step will harm the other part of the leader the list.
usually the options are:
- buff/nerf counters/heroes the hero counter
- buff/nerf heroes with high synergy with the problematic hero.
- buff/nerf the ability in numbers. can be cooldowns, damage,hp,speed or even size.
- rework the ability.
- create new hero/es for the problematic hero to counter/be countered by
- add more heroes for the hero to synergy with
*note- when buffing/nerfing existing heroes or adding new heroes, itâs best to add heroes with skill that will fit the rank it should help, on high ranks add/buff/nerf high skill heroes and on rank add/nerf/buff low skill heroes that themselves will be easier to counter.
Remember high skill players got more coordination,positioning,aim,cool down management and team work.
6 simple solutions for you to choose from, so you need to find the one that will be the most efficient.
I would like to give 2 examples from the game that shows what happen when they do follow this concept and when they donât.
Follow-dive
In the dive meta, the problem was how easy it was to kill support back in the day.
no support except for Lucio could protect itself against a full dive comp and so the meta dominated all ranks.
people could run this in a low rank as well since the divers didnât take a lot of skill in order to get a kill.
-The divers problem of divers wasnât stats, concidering the fact they had balanced damage compared to other heroes and they only had advantage over the dps.
- the divers had counters from both the tank and dps category and so the problem was not dealing with them but rather help the support.
That leave us with add support heroes to counter the composition.
No existing support should have been an anti diver and so weâve got Brigitte and Moira, 2 anti dive support heroes that helped all ranks deal with the meta (Brigitte was problematic because of other heroes, the point was we needed anti dive support. if the hero itself is op by stats thatâs a different problem to deal with)
Don't follow- double shields
Double shields was problematic in high levels especially.
It was fine at low levels as well but really got much less impact. dive was a very good counter to it.
people complain shields hp to be the problem, but if it was the only case why not running dive to just go through it?
That was a smart question to ask and so the devs buffed dive in order to try making it a counter but it still didnât work, which means the shields alone were not the problem.
The composition had 2 big problems.
- The tanks add too much survive ability in all ranges
- Sigmaâs shield was used in the wrong way, considering the devs original intentionsâŠ
in low ranks Orisa was played for sure but she was not as op as high ranks.
Instead of staying true to the heroâs job as a long range tank to protect stationary heroes, they nerfed the thing that makes orisa orisa, in high levels this change was fine. sheâs still played a lot but much less op.
but now in lower ranks sheâs concidered to be F tier heroâŠ
Fortify was the real problem with the hero⊠Sure her shield could have used a small nerf but not something so drastical, and fortify should have never seen buffs.
What they should have done to fix the problem was giving Orisaâs shield a tiny nerf just to make it a bit weaker since in low ranks breaking it was also a problem sometimes to a tiny nerf.
But look more at fortify- if a hero supposed to control the longer range, then her weakness should be in a close range, just like Rein canât deal with long range at all and Winston got noting on medium range (just out of reach, but got the damage to deal with him).
So already nerf fortify to be more problematic for long range rather than close range.
They could nerf it from 50% damage reduction to about 10%-20% but increase itâs duration OR lower its cool down a bit.
damage resistance harm close range heroes the most since they commit to an attack, but cc canceling works better for medium range.
As for Sigma, they had couple of ways to fix the problem, but in my opinion the shield nerf was also a fine way to deal with it⊠(although personally I would have liked increasing Sigmaâs shield width in order to make it better for itâs original goal with the less hp)
Because they thought about high ranks only, Orisa got over nerfed in lower ranks and got to F tier for not doing her job properly
If to conclude,
high ranks are important to show what perfect control of the game is, and itâs important.
but just like that important, itâs also important that the heroes will be viable to all players in the player base.
so changes should fit all ranks and not just the top rank.
help them as well but not ONLY them.
if youâre gonna make this an esport you better make the game skillful.
Yes, it is.
Why? Overwatch is a one-time purchase.
The Overwatch League is CONSTANTLY renewing sponsorship deals and ad deals for CONSTANTLY changing revenue from viewership and corporate deals.
They want to appease their corporate partners so they get millions upon millions per MATCH. Let alone per session.
Friendly reminder that each team in the Overwatch League sold for well over a million dollars (iirc, that is).
Except- not really, because, balance decisions donât effect how people spend on lootboxes as opposed to pumping new skins out for the Overwatch League teams, MVPs, and Championships which have so much care put into them that the community WILL spend money on them.
A bronze player will have equal, if not MORE fun in OW2 than they will in OW1 because itâs against AI and completely unranked.
So, itâs not an argument about OW2 sales either.
Take this from ANY other angle. ANY other angle.
Money is not one you will succeed at.
-GM Tank
I suppose when OW2âs PVE arrives, nobody will really care about these figures.
and this is because the game offering many other blizzard titles does not really show you in its IP (except for archives). You have only multiplayer, the only way to admire certain heroes is by playing.
but oops, your hero isnât always decent because of the meta. no need to say anything about how this script ends, right?
Every Damage buff ever.
Halo and CoD didnât start doing this until recently. Which Halo games are viewed as the best? 2, 3, and Reach, or 4 and 5? Which ones still pull pretty sizable playerbases relative to their age? Same for CoD. Which ones get glorified and remembered as excellent games? MW2 and BLOPS, or Advanced and BLOPS4? Fact is, catering to the majority fanbase and their ability to enjoy the game tends to earn games far more repute than catering them to the competitive sweatbois, unless the two are done in such a way that they donât impinge upon each other. That latter case isnât the situation for Overwatch, in which top-down balancing has been highly disruptive for the ladder playerbase.
I think the fairest thing to do, and what other games have done, is to split balancing between the competitive and casual play. There are different ways this can be achievedâfor example, you could create a League Rules playlist for people to play, and then balance the other modes based on ladder. Halo did this back during its glory days with the MLG playlist, and it worked out pretty well. Lots of real world sports also have different rules depending on your levelâhigh school vs college vs pro football for example have differing rules, because people can recognize that what works for pro players isnât what works for high schoolers and vice versa. Video games are no different in this regard, so thereâs really no good reason to treat them as though they are.