My guess is that Blizzard believes that tanks are unenjoyable to play for most of the Overwatch community. By making there only be one tank, they can buff all the tanks and make their playstyle overall more aggressive and interactive (how they wanted tanks to be brawlers), which is the playstyle. Additionally, I believe that because they are enjoyable to play for most of the community, Blizzard removed it to also make q times faster. As shown in almost every single rank in the competitive menu, queueing for tank is the fastest and will continue to be. Blizzard is possibly thinking that if there is one less tank, that means that games will fill up quicker, preventing longer queue times and prevent unfair ranked matchmaking (since there are less tanks and games need to be filled up, sometimes they might put tanks in matches that are way higher or lower then their sr;got to one this morning playing against low diamonds/plats as a masters myself)
Again, this is just my thoughts on why Blizzard could have possibly made it 5v5. What is your guy’s opinion on this topic?
Multiple shields are a problem history proved that.
By including a rule like one main and one offtank would skyrocket the queue times for the other roles again…
I have fears that having one tank per team will be used as a partial justification for there being just a miserably small number of tank options. It’ll be like like we’re at the point where there’s 32 dps, 15 supports and 9 tanks. And we’ll be like “When are we getting another tank already.” And they’ll be like “Uh, it just so happens to be the smallest playerbase with the least number of that role per team. Anyhow here’s our next Hero… It’s a dps!Squee!”
Unlikely to happen. There will still be a shortage of tank options, just as there are a shortage of support options, as development of the game tends to favor a development parity. Meaning that a new damage hero, new tank hero and new support hero will always be in the wings every year.
I’m not mad about anything. Just saying I could see this happening. There are less tank players, from a business perspective they could very easily decide that tanks will garner them the least return, we dont’ know what monetization will be like and Activision has tighter reigns on the team than ever with Jeff’s departure.
If anything upsets me it’s trying to apply this to me. I’m not saying this was said or getting mad about it. I would love for it to not pan out like that. Until the game actually arrives though I won’t know if it will happen or not. Rationally I tell myself they wouldn’t do that, they want people to want to play the role, but like I said it’s a fear. Fears aren’t always rational. But you know, fingers crossed.
Synergies is different from your typical teamwork. It’s how two or more heroes, just playing normally, automatically works well together without actively coordinating or communicating. One of the more famous ones is Lucio + Reinhardt, where just the Lucio being present allows the Reinhardt to steamroll the enemy tank. No need for signals or pro level coordination, just two average players playing normally.
Goats had never been a thing on ladder. For it to actually be an issue you’d need to have more tanks than DPSes, and you know very well that never happened.
What the goats “meta” did allow however, were really strong synergies that allowed a team with one tank and one healer to be viable. You only ever saw goats on the OWL streams and pretty much never on ladder.
Synergies make balancing complicated. What’s game breaking at one tier (ex: goats in OWL) is a non starter on ladder (3 tanks = Junkrats having a field day, assuming you can even find three players in one random game willing to tank). Removing one tank, the role that benefits the most from synergies, simplifies things.