Papa Jeff not putting hero bans

[Affinity-12848]

And they’ll have to get over it when hero bans do become part of the game. And they will in time.

[Prett-1169]

the post they’re quoting

The one by Jeff?

Currently that was posted 4 hours ago.

Edit: Or do you mean the screenshot of Jeff’s 2016 post in Wyoming’s OP?

[Reith-1609]

Maybe when we have 50+ they might consider it with tank/supports being more filled out compared to DPS. But they won’t any time soon.

[Zeron-11203]

And they’ll have to get over it when hero bans do become part of the game. And they will in time.

They wont put hero bans. Sorry to burst your bubble and your fantasy in wanting to control other peoples choices, or that you cant ban heros you think are making you lose.

Trust me, you wont get better or win more games. Sorry.

This is what people thought was going to happen with lfg parties, until they found they are just as bad as they thought they weren’t because of blaming unpopular heros.

[Huevoasesino-11543]

That s the same or worse than hero bans

[Affinity-12848]

My bad I thought it was a different post Wyoming posted.

But from his post:

@JeffreyKaplan

As I’ve said before, we’re not of the mindset that we’re opposed to the idea entirely and will never add them.

@JeffreyKaplan

I hear a lot of people attack hero bans because they only want to play one hero, or “one trick”… To this, I think our stance is pretty clear. Overwatch is a game about mastering many heroes. We don’t expect you to master them all, but you should play a few of the characters.

@JeffreyKaplan

Now, we don’t explicitly prevent you from only playing one hero. But we also don’t encourage it. We think the game is more fun for everyone involved if you play at least a handful of the heroes.

[Affinity-12848]

It will come eventually. This isn’t fantasy this is just basic for most competitive games, especially those that have moba elements.

[Zeron-11203]

It will come eventually. This isn’t fantasy this is just basic for most competitive games, especially those that have moba elements.

This, as it was first stated an announced, is supposed to be a shooter pvp game. Their first one, and wanted a game in that Genre, as they have other Genres already.

Metzen said it when it was first announced at Blizzcon. Not a moba. This is why they are making efforts to bring it back to that.

So, sorry, no hero bans.

Just get better.

[Prett-1169]

@Affinity-12848

this is just basic for most competitive games

Jeff actually addressed this:

@JeffreyKaplan

Coming at this from a game design focus, the number one thing we ask is, “what is the problem that we’re trying to solve?” We’re not fans of just adding ideas that are in other games “just because”. We call this bottom-up design. Sometimes the right design decision for one game, is a terrible decision for another game – even if the two games are very similar. For example, with World of Warcraft we did not impose forced grouping, a slow leveling curve and a punishing death penalty with level loss “just because” the other successful MMO’s had those features at the time. And as a player of those other MMO’s, I thought they were the correct decision for those games. But not for WoW.

[Affinity-12848]

Metzen isn’t here. Activision is.

[Andough-1183]

Dang, it’s like even when there is an explicit answer, some people REALLY trying to claw and grip on that, “BUT IT WILL HAPPEN EVENTUALLY” vibe

[Zeron-11203]

Metzen isn’t here. Activision is.

Don’t see your point.

Anyway, this is a SHOOTER game, based on heros. This is where Blizzard wanted to be different. To make it about heros, but a shooter game.

End of.

[Affinity-12848]

Meaning if Activision decides it wants ow to go a certain way then regardless of what Jeff may want it won’t turn out that way.

[Zeron-11203]

Dang, it’s like even when there is an explicit answer, some people REALLY trying to claw and grip on that, “BUT IT WILL HAPPEN EVENTUALLY” vibe

I know right? This is how you can tell its the ones that want to stop those nasty bad heros from being on their team causing them “to lose”, when its more than likely the other way around.

Attitude is also a fundamental key to winning.

[Zeron-11203]

Meaning if Activision decides it wants ow to go a certain way then regardless of what Jeff may want it won’t turn out that way.

Youre also wrong there. Blizzard still kept its rights to develop games as they see fit. it was part of the agreement, thus is why its a partnership. This is why do don’t see Blizzard games really in the EA access like overwatch.

[BrutalSurge-1153]

He’s actually looking down on the community, but in a subtle way.

Reminds me when Widowmaker was laughing at Tracer’s naive mindset.

[Andough-1183]

From a business perspective, this is much harder to pull off than you are giving it credit for. It isn’t so much as Jeff saying, “this isn’t what we want for the game” and Activision’s CEO overriding it.

[Reith-1609]

Case in point, Jeff literally convincing them that merging OW1 and OW2 together is the right thing to do and to not leave OW1 players behind concerning new heroes and maps. But still having to pay for all the new PVE stuff.

[Affinity-12848]

Believe what you want. I’ll remember to get back to you when they come in. Just like RQ did when people didn’t want that and brought up quotes from the devs then too.

[Andough-1183]

Especially now that Jeff literally took it upon himself to flat-out say hero ban isn’t coming when a wave of people were stating that it was because it was a good move for the game.

That’s not to say it won’t come at some point in the future, but you’re so definitive that it will - making it sounds like it’s coming soon - that it’s incredibly off-putting.

Also, role queue and hero bans are functionally, vastly different. Role queue is more palatable than hero bans are because role queue restricts you into one role but lets you pick anyone. Hero bans literally say, “no picking this hero” for whatever reason. And that is something that Jeff has flat-out said is something they don’t want to do and will look for workarounds.