Then how could we buff Sym without breaking her? We can’t buff her weapon without removing her auto lock, which means she can’t be a better DPS. She can’t become a better support without healing (which is something many Sym mains don’t want).
The problem is that those changes don’t make her a better support or DPS.
When used Zarya and Zenyatta as examples of hybrids that worked, you ignored the fact they work primarily in one role and have a high DPS.
When you used Mei and Sombra, you didn’t mention how they’re not that good in either role. Your changes would put Symmetra in the same place as them.
Mei is in a good place right now. Only need to fix a few bugs, and it’s set.
Sombra need some work (as I also said above), but I don’t play her that much, so I don’t know what specifics she might require.
Not really, it’s because they are classified as “tank” and “support” in the game role, so since part of their kits works in those slots, they place them there and never question it again. Symmetra is the exception mostly because a lot of people think support equal healing (and looks like Blizzard now abide by that as well, which is sad), and since Sym don’t heal, she can’t possibly be a support. So people start discussing how she actually should be a DPS.
Which brings another problem I have with 2-2-2, that is “DPS is a loose term that have no meaning in context for Overwatch”. But that is literally discussion for another thread.
The problem you seem to be ignoring is Symmetra will always be sub-par to other supports due to her lack of healing. In what situation would utility be better than healing?
Discord Orb, Damage Boost, Shield Bash, Nano Boost, Speed Crossfade… all are utility skills. If you can see the value in Lúcio using Speed song instead of Healing song, you already know when Utility is better than Healing.
Shield Generator allow your team recovering from chip damage with a little cover while your healer stays in the big target (boosting phat DPS or healing the tank), and literally becomes a secondary objective that the enemy team have to deal with, and this can split their team.
Turrets slow (IMO, the slow is more important than the damage) and can act as an tripwire, telling your team which way the enemy team is attacking from even if they approach sneakily from outside your sight.
Photon Barrier is extremely useful, and probably the best part of her kit outside of ultimates. But its usage is more akin to old Defense Matrix (the one that was on a cooldown) than Rein/Orisa barrier. That thing have a ton of HP, and its extremely rare that it will break before just hitting a wall.
Yo, this is actually beautifully wrote. Did you take any philosophy classes, by chance?
These all come along side healing. Symmetra only brings utility.
The devs could had to choose either to make her a healer with high damage or a DPS with utility. We know whitch one they chose.
I’m talking specifically about abilities, not the full hero. But ok, let’s make a thought experiment.
Let’s start with a baby D.va. A plain hero with a terrible pistol that have 150 HP and no active ability. That hero have a passive that makes everyone’s Quick melee button activates a Tracer’s Blink.
That hero have no damage, no healing, and no tankiness. But its extremely OP providing only utility. And giving everyone in the team Blink is much more effective to raise the team’s survivability than healing.
The fact that such a hero can exist means that there is a sliding scale of utility. Somewhere within that scale, there is a sweet spot where the utility of a hero is equal to the benefit of having a second healer. In my opinion, Symmetra is close to that sweet spot. In your opinion, she is not. In the devs opinion, they gave up trying to find that sweet spot and opted for a solution where they no longer need to search for it.
Is this a question…? orrrr are you telling me what I think?
Why does she need to do damage?
Do you think it is a bigger problem that one character out of twenty-eight and counting is not used at the professional level, or that a whole class of people is barred from playing the game?
But finding that sweet spot would likely mean changing her accessibility, which is the whole point of this thread.
I’d actually be interested in seeing what data you have on where Symmetra is successful or not – is this something they have on, like, Overbuff?
Why would it need to change her accessibility?
I believe she is very close to being balanced, and her biggest issue right now is her reputation with the community, not the strength of her kit.
Currently, her beam is not even her most useful feature, its an emergency tool like Mercy’s pistol. What makes her accessible is not “oh, she have autolock”, because we have a bunch of other heroes that don’t require aim (Mercy, Reinhardt, Winston, Moira…), and they are considered balanced, and are not accessible the way Symmetra is.
What make Symmetra accessible is a combination on how her whole kit works. That’s why you don’t mess with it carelessly. And when the rework hit PTR, I actually expect the devs to send alongside it a very carefully written response regarding those worries. Not doing so means the dev team stopped caring about accessibility as an objective, and that is a much more problematic issue than an unnecessary full rework.
Can you cite a source for this?
you are using emotions instead of reason. If there is a hero that is not viable in higher ranks and is considered a throw pick it means the hero isn’t accessible. It promotes bad design and encourages bullying and prejudice against certain type of players. Unfortunately symmetra’s kit needed HUGE changes and that’s what she’s getting. This is for the greater good and i feel bad for the OG sym players but this is honestly what had to be done.
This is not how you define if a hero is accessible.
Also, highest winrate amongst all heroes since launch. She isn’t a throw pick, only seem as one. And that is a community issue, not a nerf/buff issue.
jeff has explained why symmetra has a ridiculous winrate and why they don’t take it into account. This information is very accessible and you can google it if you’d like.
Yes, when they were talking about doing her first rework. Symmetra 1.0 was terrible, and deserved every buff she received. Her winrates at that time were even more ridiculously high literally because people were only using her on defense. Nowadays they are high, but not high enough to point out for a “defense-only-and-swap” like previously.
After the rework, other than “we are keeping an eye on her”, there were no word about Symmetra rework before this post. And after that, it was the Geoff bomb that a lot of people are complaining about.
We got 15 months of silence, after a 6-month long thread of suggestions and feedback, and were greeted with a rework out of the blue.
let me ask you a fair question… Do you think that OW devs who have made this game from scratch and have statistics we the common folk will NEVER have access to, SOMEHOW have less of an idea about which hero is not good and can’t keep up with the rest of the cast?
Because you seem to have a hard-on for logic, i’ll just say…
"She’s more impactful with three turrets than with six, because the turrets do more damage." -
“This argument is fallacious because it assumes that the only way to contribute to a fight is through direct damage, not via strategic manipulation of the situation”
False. Saying something is “more impactful” doesn’t imply that this is the only element at play.
"You actually have to be more strategic now, not less, because she has fewer turrets."
“With this definition, reducing Reinhardt’s shield health to 500 would make him more “strategic” because he now can only block critical shots on reaction or on a read, rather than using his ample barrier to create situations that your team can benefit from. You can see how this doesn’t actually promote strategic play.”
False analogy. The turrets, while half the number, are far stronger. The impression i’ve had is that the damage at play will be around the same. Considering this, it is like Rein having two shields, both half the size he presently has, each independently positionable, vs his present single shield. As the two could do just the same job as the one, but also could do more, like block a side and a front attack simultaneously, the level of strategic potential increases exponentially with how many times you divide the shield. Likewise the turrets.
"There are plenty of other characters disabled players can use."
“This argument is fallacious because it assumes incorrectly (a) that other characters are as accessible as Symmetra”
False. It doesn’t assume they’re “as accessible”, it only assumes that they’re accessible to disabled players. Like the first point, this is you exchanging analog for digital. Someone is talking of degrees, while you are talking about on/off. (or vice versa).
“it also, incredibly, makes normative statements about the experiences of the disabled players of this game. Think about how insane that is, to tell another person what is or isn’t accessible for them.”
You’ve done precisely this. You declared her accessible, without consideration for anyone’s specific disability. You didn’t define ‘disability’. Is she accessible to people with no arms? No, so when you’ve declared “Symmetra… …is accessible”, you’ve made " normative statements about the experiences of the disabled players of this game. "
"It’s more important that Symmetra be viable/meta/not niche." -
“This argument is fallacious because it assumes that Symmetra’s “viability” (how? at what level of play? to what group of players?) is more important than her accessibility”
Something is only fallacious when it is logically flawed. The statement might not be logically flawed. You’ve not argued that it is. You claim accessibility matters, but you’ve not shown that it matters more than viability. You can’t scream fallacy because you can’t show it.
"Symmetra is no-skill, these changes just make it so that you have to have skill to play her."
“…fallacious because… Overwatch was presented as a game where that wasn’t the only way to contribute”
The fallacy is yours. You are equivocating skill with contribution.
"The only reason you like this character is because she doesn’t take aim to be good with." Yup, that is about the size of it."
“Yup, that is about the size of it… …This argument is fallacious because it assumes, again, that only mechanical aiming skill matters in judging a character’s contributions to a match.”
It isn’t fallacious. You’ve agreed with it. What is implied is a bias towards skill vs no skill in their enjoyment of a game, or the assumption that you have the contradictory bias. There is no reason at all to think they are blind to the effectiveness of a character (“contributions”).
"Maybe you should try another game if you can’t handle Overwatch."
“This argument is fallacious because it sets as normative the speaker’s preferences for the game, without considering whether accessibility matters (Premise 5) or whether other players’ experiences matter as well.”
Bias =/= fallacious. It’s a mere suggestion and you’ve no idea what else they’ve considered.
"Just adapt and move on."
" This comment is fallacious…"
Just stop. Using this word is adding nothing to your arguments. If you don’t think you can adapt, say you don’t think you can adapt, or not everyone can adapt. Drop this pretense, it makes you sound like an edgy 13 year old.