By redesigning the game. Probably through a sequel or a major expansion that may or may not be in development right now.
3 Likes
I think you are beholden to fives on past experience. This sounds an awful lot like âwe did it this way and know it so it must be betterâ. Do you tank?
1 Like
Well, we did 6v6 for nearly 5 years and the problems come over and over due to the tanking role. So maybe, and I mean MAYBE itâs the reason why theyâre testing internally that it needs a drastic change, but doing 1-3-2 is too oppressive. This is my educated guess: 1-3-2 -> extremely oppressive. 1-2-3->extreme heals and still imbalanced queue-wise. 2-2-2 -> same issues. 1-2-2 -> fixes most issues without oppression due to dps or too many heals with certain support combos.
Fair. If they go through all the changes necessary to make it work.
Read the other sentences, theyâre all 5 what weâd nowadays call âdamageâ. Just subtypes of it.
Donât you worry then the game will devolve to just kill the tank? Because in 1-3-2 that is all it wasâŚ
I dont see them going that route at all
And the response was extremely negative for good reasons
Nope. Anecdotal, Jeff said so. They have no actual data statistics, nor quizzes,etc. What people didnât want, me included⌠Is that state of 1-3-2 going live. So people were extremely vocal about it
Youâre right on the way of thinking that it could actually devolve into that. But the thing is: the least area they can cover means that even if you lose one tank you can work around it.
1-3-2 tank experiment was kinda good because tanks felt better (playing them, except dva as many point out). I canât also take the experiment that was just quick changes without giving a second thought compared to the actual take on solotanking.
Having said that, I prefer the transfer losing one dps to avoid a flanking creep.
If the workshop actually allowed tuning individual values, we could see attempts at recreating 5v5 in OW1.
I recall about 50% of the tank players hated it, the other interestingly, loved it. I kept telling people Blizz was not done with 1-3-2 and it might come back in OW 2, but it even surprised me they would do it in a 5 v 5 format.
I have also been saying that Blizzard would easily sacrifice half the tank players if they thought they could go to it and âsave the gameâ for OWL.
Thereâs no actual data to provide that sort of feedback. Itâs all anecdote and estimation on their part. What was seen from that estimation, is that people actually grew to like it more than the other way around. Considering it was a wild change, I think getting a split review on an experimental card that only lasted⌠three weeks or so? was quite the successful experiment.
The data is as I recall based off of Jeffâs hot take at the time, and the informal responses on the forum when a thread asking directly what tanks thought. You can also go off the responses to the patch that Blizz still has up. It wasnât even three weeks, I think it was just two.
Yes, Jeff himself says itâs anecdotal. Thing is, the participation of the forums shouldnât be extrapolated. Itâs more important to check the people that played at least 1 hr on experimental and then when itâs over, offer an ingame survey of your feelings. Thatâd at least have some quantifiable data. Forums are generally people screeching.
All members of pro teams are currently looking at each other like lobsters in a restaurant tank.
1 Like
Its the best we have though. I do not understand ad hoc refusal to admit the forums have any position worth respecting. People were not âscreechingâ about their feedback in most cases, but as I recall (and I played it) it was polarizing.
The imagery this evokes 
You do know that people generally are faster to pull the trigger when they donât like something than when they like it. Also, there was a scare factor where many experimental changes went live, so they clearly NEEDED to let Blizz know. I didnât hate it and I didnât participate in discussion. Hell, Iâve only recently started participating⌠yet I have a plat border and played 1-3-2 extensively.
Of course they are. OTOH, this called âfeedbackâ. We donât take significant negative feedback and in turn regard that as âpositiveâ on the assumption this must in turn mean a larger number were therefore in favor but said nothing. That is just non-sequitur thinking in my book.
No, you donât get what Iâm saying. Many donât do the action of going to the forums over something they like, or participate in feedback rounds. They usually go complain when something is WRONG.
Localized in-game surveys would prove to be more appropriately quantifiable than forum feedback
I know what you said and meant. My point is, if thatâs the feeback you get⌠that is the feedback but to use that to in turn say âwell, there must have been therefore many who loved itâ in turn. That is non-sequitor.
Again, I am the first to say the forums are biased and imperfect, but any polling system for this is. Again, I would bet a poll would show a 50/50 split or darn close to it.
Oh no no, I wasnât making that conclusion. Iâm saying that if 50% liked it on the forums compared to dislike, thatâs quite the success, for a two week value tweak experimental that didnât really adapt with a solid foundation to 1-3-2 and worked more like a workshop mod.
And I just added that if they actually cared about feedback theyâd make standarized in-game surveys to qualify and quantify the results.
Because I donât know how we went from: wow, this reaper buff is good, finally gives him a bit more flexibility to stay out of cc range and still be able to shoot without feeling heâs wasting ammo to -> letâs just take out 0.5 damage per pellet from the experimental just because.
They do the wildest things. I have seen people disliking the exp reaper for not being so powerful in point blank, and others liking the increase in accuracy to have better hs ratio at close-medium range.
But somehow blizz went and pissed on both fields.