What a beautiful argued reply, thank you…
I actually agree. I think it’s a decent idea for ranked, but the fact that OWL will be using it too baffles me. Hero bans were a bad idea for ranked, I understand that. But for OWL it feels like a slam dunk, especially since they are adding MANDATORY HERO BANS ANYWAYS.
Wrong.
Youre completely wrong and randomly mixing stuff together.
Im also surprised with this new system. skeptical lets see…
but some old system had to go or were great.
Balance and the meta that came after IS A SEPERATE topic.
1-hero limit is logical must and prevents a lot of stupid ideas.
222 was good for non dps players, just balance was in bad spot. now with better balance the game feels 1000x more fun than half a year ago - same system, different balance.
What?
We currently have 30+ Choices they are removing that down to under 28 we don’t suddenly have 50+ choices I don’t see how we suddenly have more choices after things are taken away. How does that make any sense?
1 Like
It definitely got better; you’re talking as someone who seems to have never seen 6 Dvas stall the point.
It did. Double-shield sucks, but it’s hilarious that you think 2-2-2 caused it. Sigma was also introduced, and was arguably the most powerful tank by far.
If we go about this like the previous two, then you thinking it won’t work tells me it’ll work incredibly well…for everyone who plays multiple heroes.
You’re right about balance being the core issue, but people hated replacement metas which lasted MONTHS. The fact that you think week-long metas are even comparable shows your blind bias.
From COMPETITIVE. Competitive rule-sets are there to make it more competitive, and that’s why they’re testing it out.
If they keep their promise for more active changes, they may scrap hero pools after a season. To be 100% honest, I hope this is the case, but ONLY if they maintain quick balance changes.
Flexible players will do better with bans, and those who can only play 1-2 at their level will struggle.
It is interesting how your argument sounds like this: “If you don’t let me play and practice just ONE hero, you’re limiting my choice.”
Currently only 6 of the 31 characters are viable at a time. Hero pools expand that way more from 6 to a ton more heroes
because stuff like that was fun to play agains
it was a necessary evil to get rid of GOATS, which it did
sure barriers are annoying but atleast you weren’t competing against an almost unkillable team.
About the whole situation: I don’t know if that is the right way. For example. If I want to play as Lucio and he is out of the pool it kinda sucks
Players: Solve meta faster than balance update frequency.
Devs: Adds hero rotation to force meta instead of making game less solvable.
Players: -_-
Idk freedom is a double edged sword, player freedom is no exception. I dont particularly like having my choices limited, which is why I dont like the role queue on quickplay. But I can still understand why they would use hero pools. The ideas are interesting. Ill wait to play first.
Solve metas faster? If it wasn’t for forced 2-2-2 we would still be seeing Goats related changes
They literally had to ruin Orisa as a tank, and Baptiste as a support to move the meta again recently
Players solved the meta to be optimal, which is goats.
Blizzard balance speed and severity is way slower and smaller than players’ability of solving the meta into a single optimalized comp. This is the meaning of that reply.
1 Like
I’ve loved everything Blizzard has done. I’ve never been the person to uninstall on news, but I will not play the game if I can’t play the hero’s that I want to. Why would I? Even if it’s not the case, I’ll have the idea that I won’t be able to play them at some point. So until this is gone, I’m not playing. I’m not having the anxiety of, “Maybe I can’t play what I want today. Guess I’m not having a good time.”
Edit - I want to be constructive and not just complain. I love the idea of hero bans in the players hands like LoL or other moba’s. One per side is ideal I think, but I don’t know how they would implement it exactly. I’m not a game developer, but I hard disagree with the hero pool idea.
Also I love Overwatch, it’s my favorite competitive game. Please let me play my characters. I just don’t want Blizzard taking them away for periods at a time. If a player decides my character is too strong, that’s almost a compliment in a weird way (Rein main). Although I understand the outrage that would induce, but I feel like that is a better fix than this one.
1 Like
Your role isn’t forced. You choose the role you want to play and stick with it.
I’m glad I’m not in Jeff’s position. It’s impossible pleasing some of you.
2 Likes
+1 , amazing how common sense isnt common these days, no more survival of the fittest i guess
I couldn’t agree more. I wasn’t prepared for this change; but I am 99% certain I will hate it.
The rotating modes in arcade are a good example, I have a strong dislike on them. It forces me to play modes I dont like (assuming I play arcade at all).
I’m not liking this change for the OWL either, as OWL teams will have much less time to practice due to their crazy travel schedule, and may experience burnout too. This might make the matches far too random, and I don’t like that. I have stated many times that I watch OWL because I want to see skilled players do cool things with heroes I like. Effectively banning heroes every other week runs counter to that.
2 Likes
Lol smash
It doesn’t belong in Evo. The ACTUAL fighting games haven’t banned fighters, so poor example.
Na, that was the single hero limit and role queue. You’re overreacting. It was inevitable that people would
Smash is a fighting game you pleb
Arguably the best one, too
A common fallacious argument is the slippery slope, where you say “if thing
move in this direction, then they’ll move really really far in this direction”. This argument isn’t even a slippery slope. Jeff said that they want hero diversity and no stale meta, which is literally the exact opposite of a 6 hero lock for an entire season. You’ve gotta be a troll.
3 Likes