Firstly, the Devs themselves said adding in more players is near impossible for the servers. Even with OW2’s engine upgrade it might be a heavy strain. That’d make the system requirements for OW much higher most likely, and lag more common.
Secondly, if you are referring to 3 DPS, they’d all need to be nerfed quite a bit. Tanks are being giga buffed when there is just one of them to fix the power flux of losing a number. Tanks therefore gain carry potential and impact. Gaining one DPS means all DPS need nerfs. You now piss off the DPS players and make them feel like they barely have any solo impact or carry potential.
Also, even if DPS are nerfed, imagine playing against a Widowmaker and Ashe spamming you while a Doom or Tracer harasses you. Or having a Reaper, Mei, and Mcree all rush at you. Or being a support vs Tracer, Doom, and Genji at the same time.
7v7 is not fun for anyone. That’s a horrible idea.
What will the team do if Dva, or worse yet, Hammond, just fly/roll off into the distance? What will hog do?
I’d not want to be the one player on the team that everyone tries to tell them who, and how to play. Let alone all the blamestorming that will happen when a team lost. “I told you we needed (x)” or “Report our tank for throwing. They picked (x)”.
I mean there is so much random spam and clutter in the game now that 2 less players might be a good thing overall. The only concern is how the tank role would be reworked to make sense. But the idea of 5v5 isn’t that crazy imo.
I wouldn’t hate 5v5. Paladins is an example of a hero shooter that does it but without role queue and it works okay there, playing a solo tank equivalent feels fine even if the enemy has 2 tanks.
If they want to put the final nail in the tank coffin, they will make it 1/3/2 or 1/2/2, i am a tank/support main, if they switch to those comps me and many other tanks will just stop playing tanks at all
No I did not read it, and explain then how 1 tank with 2 DPS and 2 Supports is more complex than 2 tanks, 2 DPS and 2 Supports. You cannot just make a denying comment without a reason to support it.
Damn there was some real chance there to revolutionize how online team shooters work.
Should have done:
2 Defensive support
2 Offensive support
1 Damage
But the thing is, this is meant the way I wrote it: No more tanks, no more healers. Rather there’s only one slot for a non-utility role, say Widowmaker would naturally fill this.
Everyone else either brings some strong defensive utility, or offensive. CC, shields, healing, turrets, displacement, etc etc etc. The thing is though, these would always just be minor effects , no one is built around them any more. But since they’re so ubiquituous, teams would still have a lot of it.
Well then, since you clarified, let’s go a step further: clarify exactly what is checkers and what is chess to you? Because checkers is: every piece is the same, while checkers has different unit types and different pool size for those units.
There’s there’s more strategy into getting into correct positioning as 1 tank than a tank that has another one support their off-positioning, or mistake. Chess is unforgiving like that too.
It’s also more strategic to be in the correct positioning as one tank to block the LoS of two dps than it is to block the los as two tanks vs 2 dps, this would also apply to chess while you’re covering pieces in the event they overextend without proper counterplay.
It’s about diminishing returns. By your logic, 16v16 would be peak strategy compared to current game. right? Wrong, because you diminish the weight of the actions. 5v5 isn’t an arbitrary number:
it’s the golden rule for team based strategic action games in terms of maximum capacity. Every added number increases chaos and makes teamwork suffer for most of the population playing the game.
It adapts to the userbase-> players in OW have shown tank role is not desirable, because they’re so relevant to synergy (point 3), that it means that you’re obligated to play exactly in joint with the other tank, where your decisions alone may not be even relevant. The biggest problems when tanking, from my experience, comes from the other tank goofing and leaving me vs 2 tanks that simply make winning unavailable. Even if we lose one tank in 5v5, you won’t be jumped by the other tank in the way that currently two tanks can do and negate ANYTHING you can do.
Synergy. As I said, synergy between tanks has been the definite aspect that has molded overwatch, because they negate damage before it reaches the team, so they’re even more important than support themselves.
Absolute numbers. From an absolute number perspective, tanks are already two units in one, health-wise. All the tanks are at least worth two squishies in hp, and they come with defense mechanisms.
There’s also more strategy involved on an individual level when you have more repercussion.
So if we reduce it down to say 3 v 3 by this same logic, we have a more complex game? I am sorry if I don’t buy the “magic five” number here… but I am willing to try it.
As for the checkers and chess saying, lets not overthink it. We all know it’s a common saying to indicate relative levels of complexity, its silly to debate the actual play in comparison.
getting into a situation where one role is better then the other is something that already happens, imo the whole “what if i get a crappy tank” is an invalid argument against it.
Though something i agree with, is killing tank synergies would be sad. good ol rein zarya/winston dva are so much fun to pick up a friend and play together.
That being said, that doesnt mean I dont think there are any merits to 1-2-2. Though we lose the tank synergies, I think the idea of tanks becoming raid bossy is a blast. Where you can do crazy things like giving rein 2 fire strikes. This change would also benefits qs overall for everyone.
it’s not magic. It’s the product of nearly three decades of multiplayer games and the failure to address it in 6v6 (I mean, just see how the units that receive the most changes within overwatch in general are tanks because if they don’t address their synergy it means that damage can’t go through) with the oxymoron of tanks in plural. It’s a TANK, not TANKS. They’re meant to be a pillar for the team, not two columns.
And yes, 3v3 is inherently more complex by weight of actions, while it also gives more agency to the player. Thing is, it’s not more strategic team wise because it diminishes too much the team aspect. 5vs5 is a proven formula with decades of success.