What makes you think that? I could easily just say more people know how to play against Sym now so she’s lost more often than she use to.
Almost every player in Overwatch will tell you she is still a niche pick, and I’m a Sym main who plays her in any situation that would agree with them. The changes Sym 2.0 gave helped but did not ‘fix’ her.
Keep in mind that dive has been re surging for most of Sym 2.0’s lifespan, which also lowered her winrate
Thats a good point, dive really countered Sym even in her niche picks.
Every Symmetra player I talked about that told me they started used her beyond point A defense a lot more after the rework.
The large disagreement is if she is viable in all maps and all sides (I stand in the side that believes she is), but I have yet to find someone that tells me they play her often, and only play her for point A defense. Back in Sym 1.0 times, it was the norm, not the exception.
There is also the point that a lot of Symmetra haters complains that Sym players never switch. And while I think there is a lot of exaggeration there, every hyperbole have a pinch of truth.
As someone that really likes the new Sym rework due to the options it presents to me, I understand all of these points and agree with them. I just like it for what it does for people like me who play different characters to adapt to the meta and play to the best of my ability within it. I do, however, see the issue with this rework for some players. I wish the devs would talk about this post, however they really don’t listen to almost any of the viewpoints of their community (ahem mercy megathread), so while this should be seen and responded to, I don’t think it will 
A lot of your points hinge on the accessability argument.
Has it occurred to you that non-disabled players also enjoy many aspects of her kit, but don’t get to use her because of her current weaknesses?
The thing is, in a fast-paced shooter, this is often a weakness. See also Sombra or Mei. I agree that it’s a flaw, and the devs should be able to design utility-based characters, but imo current Symm isn’t good enough. You are right, her rework is the devs giving up on a utility-based kit (partially), in favor of a more traditional beefcannon - but this benefits many players
Essentially we have Group A who likes new Symm, and Group B who wants to keep the lock-on beam. Group A is larger, but Group B has disabilities and feels excluded. It all seems a bit of a grey area to me.
PS: we haven’t seen how thick her beam will be, its effective damage output, how exactly the new turrets will play out (remember you can slow enemies down in firefights more reliably), or the sick teleporter strats - i.e. just how much less accessible she will become, if at all
Except that in this case, the developers are (a) going back on explicitly-stated design goals toward accessibility that they espoused at launch and prior and (b) ignoring the fact that these changes are hostile toward a class of people who purchased the game under the pretext that they would be able to play it using this character. It’s not as simple as “this character will be different.”
It is that simple.
People quit playing their favorite characters in video games all the time because of changes/full reworks.
Game updates for a character should not grind to a halt because people want them to stay the same forever. If the character needs a change, then it should happen.
People aren’t upset because the character is different, people are upset because there is a risk that THEY WILL NO LONGER BE ABLE TO PLAY THE GAME. Can you really not see this?
If a person only plays a game for one specific character and that character gets reworked there is a chance they will not play again.
It happens across mobas all the time.
Symmetra is the only reason I play as much as I do now. If I do not like her rework then I won’t have a reason to play anymore. She’s the only thing that makes me come back to the game.
But that’s a choice YOU ARE MAKING. The problem with Symmetra’s accessibility is that people are having that choice taken away from them. Please tell me you understand this distinction.
I do understand the difference but everyone is treated as exactly the same in Overwatch.
I’m trying to treat people how everyone is treated all the time in every game. Your favorite character isn’t exempt of being updated or changed because they are your favorite character.
Updates shouldn’t grind to a halt because people don’t want the change. Once that happens the game would be going towards a bad direction.
Are you saying that there should be no form of accommodation for players who are not fully abled to play every single character? One of the premises of the original post is that Symmetra is currently designed to be accommodating and accessible. Therefore, it is literally, empirically true that everyone is not treated “exactly the same” because there is a character whose design is accessible.
Let me use an analogy that is not video games. If there is a building and there are stairs to get into the building and a wheelchair ramp to get in, are you advocating for removal of the ramp so that “everyone is treated exactly the same”?
Lol I can’t play every single character, my top 3 most played heroes are heroes that require no aim.
If you’re talking about literally, can not physically play, then if the accommodation harms the game then I can’t support it.
Did they say specifically Symmetra was designed to make her easier and more accessible to people? I’m genuinely curious because I don’t know.
Are you saying someone who is accessible isn’t for people who play more skill oriented heroes? Accessible in theory means accessible for everyone right? They don’t say “We are going to specifically design this hero for the disabled community.” just like they don’t say “We will make this character unplayable for the disabled community.”
Nope because having a wheelchair ramp isn’t harming the building.
But you’re defining “harming the game” in a privileged way that excludes the idea that having an accessible character is good, regardless of whether the character is viable or not. You have to justify that definition or it’s meaningless.
That’s correct, they don’t say that. What I mean is that different heroes are designed for different purposes. In the same way that a wheelchair ramp means they are treating people who use wheelchairs “not exactly the same” as people who don’t use wheelchairs, Symmetra’s accessibility means they are treating disabled gamers “not exactly the same” as fully-abled players.
Regarding Symmetra’s accessibility specifically, I don’t have a statement from the devs explicitly saying that Symmetra was designed intentionally for disabled players. I have a statement saying that accessibility was a key design goal (google “Venture Beat Jeff Kaplan Accessibility”) and I have players in this very thread saying that her design enables them to play the game. The premise that her design is accessible is based off of observations like this, and statements about Symmetra’s accessibility by many in the community since launch.
I have never said having an accessible character isn’t good.
I specifically said Blizzard does not know how to balance the current form of Symmetra to make her a viable and successful pick. And no I’m not saying she can’t be successful.
That’s not true at all. Every game has characters with varying difficulty. They aren’t treading disabled people differently because there is an easy character to play.
So the answer is no they haven’t said they specifically made Symmetra to be accessible.
Have you ever thought that they just made the character that way because they thought it was cool and meshed with her lore?
I get what you’re saying, but the current Symmetra already had a rework and she still has one of the lowest pickrates in the game which kind of blows premise 2 out of the water.
I have to agree with you that she doesn’t have to be viable at the highest ranks, but why not make her viable in general while still being accessible? I mean if disabled people only have so many characters to chose from they should be good.
Ok, I was going to let this go, but I can’t.
Let me fill you in on things from the perspective of someone who went from able-bodied to not.
Imagine being able to do practically anything within reason, like going up stairs, running, playing sports, writing, going to a movie theater, playing video games, pursuing a specific career, etc.
Then something horrible goes wrong with your life and you are thrust into a world where many, most, or all of those things are no longer possible. Everything you enjoyed, loved with a passion is now out of your reach or ridiculously difficult and/or painful to obtain or partake in.
You now have to deal with constantly finding roadblocks to normal daily activities. You have complete strangers spouting off about what things should impact you, and what shouldn’t, and often ignore what you say or refute it because clearly they know better. For those with certain physical disabilities, you also get the added fun of people talking down to you, yell-talking slowly at you, completely ignoring you, or gawking openly.
So what do you do? You seek refuge in family and friends (those that don’t ghost due to not being able to handle seeing how you are now as it reminds them that they are not immortal), and you grab on to anything that you once enjoyed that you can still feasibly do, while you navigate these waters and try to find enjoyment elsewhere.
For many of us - that’s video games, and there is no “just” or “only” about it. So when someone’s design oversight results in our losing our ability to partake in yet another thing, you cannot be surprised that we will make a stink about it.
Because it’s not just a video game.
It’s an escape.
You made a comment to another user about this being just a video game, in an argument about their (apt) analogy regarding accessibility. I offered you my perspective on why, for some of us, it is not just a video game. I offered this perspective because everyone has their own unique view of the world, and often times seeing something from another’s viewpoint can expand a person’s understanding or view of an issue. It’s part of why civil discussion is important in our society.
The only assumptions that have been made here, are by you. (And rude personal attacks as well.)
Unfortunately, your further assumptions are incorrect. You made a comment about how you feel it is only a video game. I gave an example of how, from my perspective, it is not just a game.
Actually, it is in the same ballpark, as US law feels that games should be moving towards accessibility. For instance, the FCC has granted game designers their final extension (until January 2019) for becoming compliant with the 2010 21st Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act.
Like the discussions, committees, and laws that gradually led to things like federally mandated accessible access to buildings, this is the first in many steps towards accessible gaming as a whole. Certain, more for-thinking companies (Microsoft and Unisoft) are, as we speak, working to break accessibility barriers to modern gaming.