maybe its time that weâd realize that going into OW2 was a big mistake and shouldnt happen. but we already know why they pursued this path is because the marketing for OW2 was nothing but a cash cow as they put all their efforts and hard work into the battle pass. everything else gets worse by the day
A lot of your takes revolves around three things, that arenât going to help much.
1.) Snipers (They have been nerfed enough)
2.) Tanks being glorified DPS (Though most die if you look at them funny)
3.) That it does not matter what you deem is unbalanced, fun is what matters.
Fun does not matter in balance, itâs subjective. For example, I have fun with new Sombra, a lot of people find it unfun that I can do what I can with her. Do I want her nerfed? Slightly.
Do they want her nerfed? Dumpstered.
The entire concept of Overwatch is rock paper scissors, swap when you are getting countered.
Why remove the identity of the game, because some players refuse to help, feed, and throw by doing so?
Removing more counters would cause more than 7% to leave.
Dive would run amok, Tracer and Genji would be back to needlessly overtuned, Sombra would be unchecked. Winston and D.Va would instantly be meta.
You canât sacrifice population at all in a game that has gone from MILLIONS of players daily in OW1, to only 2-300k a day. Itâs dying faster than can be saved, and trying to get things changed that in the long run will only ruin the game, is not the way to go.
Incentivizing learning multiple heroes would be the way to go, and punish one tricking harder by slower SR gain and bigger SR losses.
Ranged instakills are NOT âClearly Telegraphedâ, and inspecting a blue rectangle or the pixels on a wall isnât âInterestingâ. And âSniping Snipers with more Snipersâ isnât all that varied. And generally to even deal with the Widow/Hanzo at all outside of âSniping Snipers with more Snipersâ, you gotta forfeit your entire gameplay loop to go play Whack-a-mole. Which is not Interesting for the vasty majority of players. (And not even that reliable, if they selfpeel and get peels).
Screw that. 7% of the playerbase isnât the âidentityâ of the game.
And Snipers going basically COMPLETELY UNTOUCHED except for a slight range nerf on Widow between OW1 and OW2 isnât any sort of âidentityâ.
Thatâs just 2 years of unprofessional procrastination on the devs part.
Why should I give a crap about economic opinions from people who donât understand what an Opportunity Cost is?
If you lose 1% of players, but gain 10%. Thatâs just objectively a good thing.
As I said, itâs probably different on the system you play on, but on Xbox DPS has been the most popular role for all of OW2 outside of new hero drops
I am not going to sit and read an hour long lecture, because you refuse to accept how Overwatch plays.
And once again, you loop it around to sniper this sniper that.
Sombra, Ball, Doom, Winston, D.Va, Tracer all exist.
So because people donât want to swap when they are getting absolutely hammered by someone that counters them, itâs a game problem and NOT a personal issue problem (Which it is).
Because they donât need it. Low ranks do not get a say in what is and isnât OP, when they canât even use the mechanics given to them to solve their issues. Once again, thatâs a personal issue and NOT a game issue.
You wonât gain 10% by doing what youâre claiming. Youâd probably lose more than you gain.
Letâs try thisâŚ
A lot of people want flankers removed, tuned down, or absolutely gutted.
There are a lot of Tracer, Genji, Sombra mains that play nothing but that hero. Letâs nerf them down to say⌠Bastion level of bad.
You would lose far far more players than you would gain, because then you have supports with no counter play going on.
You are solving ONE issue, and creating others.
A short population increase followed by an insane drop off isnât an Opportunity Cost⌠Itâs a game dying.
Because you prefer streamer takes from people who never studied game design?
Almost like those are massive game design problems.
Just because itâs possible to play Whack-a-mole the entire game, doesnât mean itâs enjoyable. Same as why they got rid of Mass Rez Mercy. Because âWhack a Moleâ duty sucks.
Pretty much. Like for real dude, you donât even know what âBalanceâ means at this point if you think a Choice Reduction isnât a Balance problem.
When thatâs the LITERAL DEFINITION OF THE WORD:
What is Play Balance?
Sid Meier once said, âA game is a collection of interesting choicesâ. It follows that game elements being out of balance and thereby eliminating choices detracts from the gameplay. Ideally, a game should be a series of choices, ending with victory of defeat or some other end condition. Sometimes, some choices will become unquestionably the only choice, or definitely not a valid choice. If there is only one valid choice at some point, but the game hasnât ended, there is a play balance problem. <**Nearly all situations commonly referred to as imbalances can be boiled down to a CHOICE REDUCTION. https://archive.gamedev.net/archive/reference/articles/article1765.html
You think how âFrustratingâ gameplay is, has nothing to do with Gameplay Design?