That is forcing a person to take a turn. If their response is to sit it out, it doesn’t change the fact that their favorite hero was removed and had to wait out their week in hero jail.
No it does not. It doesn’t “force” anyone to do anything. You can never force people to play things or heros in this case they don’t want to play.
Wat te f*** i’m moving to Quickplay only 
1 Like
… For OWL. They had a seperate blog post about OWL changes. I’ll tell you now it’s going to be bad when this comes out. But I know the community wants it spelled out for them so…
Example :
Lets say there is a guy who likes to one trick doomfist, we’ll call him Chipsa ( Totally made up anme. ) And lets say that guy just got on to a OWL team. Now lets just say that under the new pools for OWL they ban doomfist. Do you think Chipsa ( Totally made up name ) or his team will be very happy about their chances to win? Players, Teams, and Blizzard all have money riding on those games. There are quite a few one tricks in OWL that will be out of a job once these changes go into effect.
You couldn’t be more wrong. The original meta included 3 Tracers and 3 Luicios and then 2 Winstons, 2 Tracers and 2 Lucios. The meta was horrible and it’d be even worse if nothing had been done. When Brigitte was released in the op form the meta would probably have been 6 Brigittes all stacking armor into each other. And we’d be playing some other sort of 2-3 hero goats.
The heropool will change every week so no meta has chance to form or whatever meta forms only lasts few days. Like he said they can even make it change every day. No strict meta can form in those conditions.
I really don’t care about OWL but I’ll humor you, how popular is Doomfist in OWL?
Exactly. These people who are against “one tricks” (mainly because they want a scapegoat to blame for losing games) do not realize, so many top players ARE one tricks, for the simple fact that a player tends to get the best when they spend all their time on one thing. In this case a hero.
1 Like
Idk if its intentional or not, but you are missing the very obvious point. We are saying the exact same thing, you are jsut being pissy over the word forced.
Good thing OWL teams have a roster limit of 12 so they can switch players around just like they have been able to do now.
Ah, I reread your post. Indeed we are on the same thing.
And wouldn’t “force” piss u off too? lol
1 Like
Typically when i read a specific word I dont like I read something 4 or 5 times to make sure its not just a misunderstanding, but it happens. <3
I literally never played a game where they restricted the players choice so hard like in overwatch. If there were like 60-80 heroes and they ban 2-3 per week and you have enough alternatives, okay. But the amount of heroes they release is just ridicilous. There should have been 1-2 new heroes every month when they released the game. Or they add 30 new heroes to overwatch 2, so its worth a buy.
How is removing a choice not a removal of choice?
2 Likes
Well since Blizzard apparently isn’t allowed to nerf doomfist, mei, or reaper into heroes that are fun to play against, they have to take the nuclear option and temporarily disable them. Remember how everyone had a heart attack when Blizzard dared to nerf the doomfist to make him 0.00001% less op? I really think hero pools are a good thing. You can’t just spam double shield mei doom every. single. game. it’s going to make the game more about strategy and planning and less about using the most broken characters in the game and winning every match souly based on the fact that the character you are playing is better than what the other team is running.
I’d disagree with that statement.
In basketball, teams will have a set baseline of plays that they’ll use on the court, but depending on the team and the lineup being sent to play on the court, the plays will change accordingly.
This applies to a LOT of major league sports as stagnation not only makes them very predictable and easy to read, but after enough time, the audience grows tired of watching the same thing and as a result viewership goes down.
I don’t understand it, we constantly complain about the META every time a new one is introduced and then when a solution is presented, we still complain…but it’s whatever.
It’s as people said…role queue was the first step, now hero pool is the next.
I’m used to flexing between roles so, this is the first time I’ve received some good news in a long time.
Because if you have all the characters, the meta will stagnate no matter how aggressive you are with balance, having a few heroes blocked for a week will shift to a new meta, then those next few heroes will make another new meta, etc. etc.
BUt a choice as still removed I don’t disagree the meta will change but every player is having choices removed. Saying otherwise doesn’t makes sense there are less choices than before becasue they were removed
But one choice being removed introduces more choices.
Blizzard has done this since the 2010s.
Originally, they were a company that supported player creativity and innovation. And since then (maybe the activision merger?) they’ve just been concerned about removing choices from player and making it easier on themselves to balance things - which if WoW is anything to go by, will NEVER happen. So all that these arbitrary changes result in, is players having less options and less fun.
And eventually moving on. Or the die-hard fans continuing to play with the shred of hope that things will get better.
2 Likes
The same is true here: stagnation makes OWL teams predictable and easy to read too.
What you said applies to pro Overwatch as well, under any specific meta. Yes, there will be certain characters that are more or less mandatory, with possibly a few variations. But teams will position differently, engage differently, defend differently, and players will also take different decision and display different level of skill too.