Proof why roles are never the issue

Competitive Discussion
1

NOTE: this post is under construction please check back in a week or two

6v6 Turn based combat

Damage: 200hp, 1 point of damage per round
Support: 200hp, 1 point of healing per round
Tank: 400hp, 0.5 points of damage per round
Tank2: 400hp, 0.5 points of healing per round

it doesn’t matter which roles either team picks, this scenario will always end in a draw, no matter how many rounds your run it for

This proves that roles do not matter, it is balance that is the issue. Always has been always will be.

2 Likes
2

But Overwatch isn’t turn-based…?

And certain heroes work better with each other?
And some players might just blatantly be better than the others (better game sense/mechanical skill)

17 Likes
3

it doesn’t matter

if you wanna talk about initiative and CCs, that’s fine too, they have to be balanced

again, a balance issue, not a role issue

we’re assuming we have the 12 best people in the world running this scenario

4

I’m sorry, but this makes no sense whatsoever. Throwing random irrelevant stuff about a very oversimplified turn based game doesn’t translate into proof in any way whatsoever.

17 Likes
5

So you’re saying that role queue is flawed because it might affect 12 people?

There will always be ways to win/lose, sure metas may be more limited but people won’t always be able to play the same heroes on attack as defence, so this already prevents stalemates.

6

how is the turn based game different than overwatch on a fundamental level

the damage, support and tank stats and ratios are correct, are they not? That is what the role strives for, no?

secondly, there is not difference between having rounds and not having rounds, each team has the same amount of time whether broken up or not

I’m saying role queue does nothing. The only shining aspect is that it has separate SRs for the roles. (Some may be better at different roles)

If they would’ve had a robust LFG feature and guilds and scoreboards from the beginning. Ladder would probably still be No LImits as well as OWL.
(if they balanced it correctly)

stalemates are what should be strived for in balance, because then it only becomes a test of skill

7

Oversimplification

No. You’re considering too few variables. Your abstraction has no relevance to the real Overwatch game.

8 Likes
8

There is knowledge and maybe even skill in knowing what heroes to use for what situation and when.

If all heroes were to be exactly the same in every situation and there would be no good composition/meta, a large element of this knowledge and also fun would be lost.

1 Like
9

OP has a point, imo. Going to get a lot of hate though, lol. Role queue is fun and shiny rn, but it really isnt going to change anything fundamentally because… there are too many variables that make it irrelevant.

3 Likes
10

we need to get rid of as much irrelevant data as possible

you could change that scenario to real time if you want, I just put in rounds to make it more clear

the more variables you add end up on both teams, so what does it matter how many you add.

you don’t understand the point I’m trying to make.

if there is one hero or 1000, roles don’t matter. when there are 30 heroes it’s tough to balance.

so you’re a fan of lopsided hero balance?

11

They created the heroes with an assumption of 2-2-2, and started trying to balance them that way. Now the hero balance will be more structured. They won’t have to balance for 3-3-0 AND 2-2-2 AND 1-1-4 AND 3-2-1 AND AND AND.

The core idea is that all heroes should be playable. They don’t want heroes to be required picks. If they’re required picks that tends to imply that the hero is over powered.

Balance is about synergies and counters and all kinds of things that are far too complicated to write in a few numbers. Changing from completely open role structures to 2-2-2 makes it so there’s an expected general makeup for each team to balance the heroes within.

They don’t have to do 1v1 balance, because it’s not a 1v1 game. Trying to make it so every hero could survive and be effective in Deathmatch is a completely different balance issue than focusing on just 2-2-2. Narrowing the balance scope will be very good in the long run.

4 Likes
12

I agree that 222 helps a game with unbalanced heroes.

never said they did. but if you balance around rock/paper/scissors, and don’t have at least 6 of each type, you’re in for a world of hurt

the ultimate reason why No Limits should have never been abolished.

1 Like
13

You keep NOT saying things and then saying those are the reason for things.

You didn’t state a reason that No Limits should have been kept. You just asserted that it was a mistake with no logic behind it whatsoever.

You seem to think that what is in your head are all givens and assumptions that everyone shares.

I apologize, but I’m done with this post.

4 Likes
14

the reason No Limits should be kept in is because 6 pharahs would have been the correct counter to goats

I forgive you. Bye.

15

This just goes against your argument in the OP.

2 Likes
16

I said if you wanna do a rock paper scissors thing.

in the OP all roles are equal

17

So your basic premise is that if all things are equal then it doesn’t matter. But that is irrelevant because things are not equal. And you’ve already argued against your own premise which proves that.

3 Likes
18

we’re getting way off course and i’m going to have to start from the beginning.

healers and dps should damage and heal the same amount correct? because if not then it’s unbalanced. think of soldier and mercy, the gun and the staff… all other abilities are additions. Would you agree? or are you in the school of “soldier is rock and mercy is the scissors”

then we can discuss rock/paper/scissor, well you need six of each type to ensure things are fair.

you make it seem that if I can’t explain it to you, then it’s not true.

would you be willing to discuss it over comms? it would be much easier and quicker to explain. if you don’t want to talk over comms then we’ll just do a back and forth one question at a time

correct, and that’s why you should be able to play 6 pharahs on one team. One points out if things were equal and another points out rock/paper/scissors

2 Likes
19

I understand what the OP is trying to say and I agree with him.

Balancing is the main issue… lets take JUST the damage category, so that it is easier to understand.

If the game was balanced, then all the DPS would have basically the same damage output. You take one hero, say mccree… and balance around him. You factor in reload… accuracy… so you can have a bunch of different ways to shoot and play… but to someone with the same skills, they put out the same damage.

You put a value to their stuns, boops, mobility, or other ability so it all matches up.

I had a similar argument with old Symm… when people would cry for a healer… but Symm’s SG was just as good if not better than healing. The problem was perception, because no one ever knew how much shielding was used because the stat was never tracked for the SG. Her value in the support slot was massive, especially for low HP/flanking heroes like Tracer. I could get so much value out of her kit on ladder… because her old kit had so much value she was the swiss army knife of the game. Master of nothing, but avg at everything… something no other hero had. But you get into top tier play… you only play min/maxing… something Symm was not possible to do.

Anyway, I went off on a real tangent there, but the point is there. If the hero balancing was better… where the peaks of the highs were properly balanced with lows in other spots for a character… it wouldn’t matter what role you were in.

It is the reason why GOATS lasted so long… is because the healing the 3 supports put into the tanks… were able to out perform and outlast damage that was being pumped into them. Goats wasn’t unbeatable… in fact by the time Stage 3 was done (which was done on an old patch before the mcree buff) goats was pretty much dead. It just took someone to actually practice another strategy OTHER THAN Mirror to break the meta.

There is so little creativity in this game because people are so monkey see monkey do. But i think a lot of that has to do with them catering to solo queue instead of giving true teams an advantage that they should have in this game.

The playerbase will continue to play selfish if they see that the best way to rank up is alone. If the best way to rank up would be to group up in a team… you bet that the community would actually form teams which would have solved ALL the problems the community is expecting role queue to solve… when in reality, this new system will solve nothing.

It’ll be the shiny new thing to get ppl hyped like when LFG was introduced. But when they realize how restrictive role lock actually is (you can play live with it now in LFG)… and you get people that can’t do their roles… the toxicity will be magnified.

But now, instead of being able to fix it on your own (or at least thinking you can) during the match by swapping to a hero that fills the hole your team is missing… your left powerless which leads to even greater frustration.

Which of course leads back to balancing… because well, if the game was balanced properly, if you were always playing your best hero… ANY hero… ANY role… it wouldn’t matter, because you would be able to outplay your opponant.

2 Likes
20

Well put.

I say LFG didn’t succeed because they left half of the QoL out.

If I had this QoL, I would never use matchmaker again

1 Like