Yep, although I do think Illari is too strong and stats that we have available to us do suggest this. It’s more on her pylon allowing her to go and shoot freely than anything; I’d like them to swap it for something completely different and make it so that she is rewarded for doing more active swapping between healing and damage, rather than being punished for using the healing beam by it pausing her primary fire’s charge rate and increasing the amount of charge the beam has.
I think that Pylon is fine. I think that issue is more that she is good against Soldier who is meta right now in… basically everywhere.
No one destroys pylon, which honestly in and of itself its not even that good with its low healing.
1 Like
It could well be a product of that at the top, but idk I always feel like most of my healing is from the pylon when I play her, and that feels wrong.
lmao I’m honeslty always the one destroying the pylon. Supports destroying that thing takes forever and ends up feeling like the team is throwing by letting me be the one to do it since it means massive downtime.
That happens when no one destroys it.
I have been playing more Illari lately in masters and I have come to two conclusions:
-
if no one even makes sure to destroy my pylon but they try to outshoot me at range, it will rack up high numbers. If they do, my healing tanks immediately. But no one does, and its all because Tracer cant, so no one can, right???
-
Its still much harder to get 2 tap kills with Illari than to bodyshot+rocket someone for 200+ damage as Soldier in 1 second.
1 Like
I was under the impression that Kiriko was a top 3 pick until I went to look at top500 Kiriko stats last season and noticed the first 5 pages either had only one player with Kiriko as their most played or no players. She is still picked more than some others for sure and is a good pick, but she isn’t as good as I thought.
This problem isn’t exclusive to supports. Basically every new hero doesn’t have a clear weakness. Compare any new hero, not just in ow2 but end of ow1, to any original ow hero and you will see that the original heroes had clear weaknesses and the new ones don’t. It wasn’t, “oh they have low mobility so let’s give them insane sustain so that it doesn’t matter anyways” or “They have high healing but let’s give them high damage and survivability too” or “let’s give them cc, burst damage, mobility, and, survivability”
What’s the point of balance, though? The point of balance is to maximize the enjoyment people get out of the game. That’s the whole point of everything. So then how does it make sense to exclusively only try to maximize the enjoyment that a very small percent of the player population gets? Like, balance at lower ranks may well be largely a skill issue, but if those skill issues are endemic then they should actually be balanced around in order to actually maximize the enjoyment the player base as a whole gets. To say otherwise is to just reduce balance decisions to some hypothetical platonic ideal, completely divorced from the actual underlying point (i.e. that players have fun).
No its not. In fact, they two need to be always divorced from the other.
Balance is meant to bring parity to the options you have to face a certain situation, not be a glorified PR tool to pander to the players of what is most popular.
Heroes and abilities that annoy certain players (most of the time when they approach them while being counterpicked) are not necessarily balance issues or overpowered.
This is specially important in Overwatch where people insist on one-tricking despite being against a core mechanic of the game.
Should we nerf every single Rein counter into the ground just because Rein mains cant bother to swap? Should we overbuff Soldier until every Soldier player can just spray and pray their way into overpowering enemy heroes regardless of who they are?
Oh wait, both things already happened.
1 Like
Quite literally every unranked game I played over a course of 5 hours has a Soldier. I imagine comp isn’t much better.
2 Likes
Yeah, its not.
10 matches in masters and 9 had a Soldier. 6 had a Soldier in both sides. 8 had double hitscan. The one without Soldier was because I was playing DPS and got harassed for not playing a hitscan.
But lets nerf Symmetra instead, I guess.
2 Likes
I feel like every season, the devs play pin the tail on the donkey and the options are: Buff Soldier, Buff Cassidy, Buff Hanzo, Nerf Symmetra.
1 Like
I don’t think the younger ones on these forums know what that is (I’m kidding of course, mostly), but I do agree with you.
2 Likes
They arent doing things randomly tbh.
The issue is that balance has been a PR tool for years. Now that OWL is dead, it swapped to maintaining and pandering whatever are the biggest playerbases of the most popular heroes. In OW1, it was watchability and ‘‘exciting plays’’. Which is why they removed defenses like crazy.
Soldier and Reinhardt had buffs shoved down their throat for years on end. I am not really surprised that after you nerf a few key heroes, they become complete meta from bronze to t500.
They are the living proof that numbers matter and you can make anyone be meta.
2 Likes
If you’re denying that the point of a video game (and everything the developers do for that game) is for people to enjoy playing it (which results in more money spent on it) then you’ve just jumped the shark and should rethink the point you’re making.
stop, they do need a survivability nerf
stop beind delusional thats crazy
you cant have a role having :
insane healing
damage
self sustain
mobility
invinciblity
smallest hitboxes
and game changing ults
all of that without needing that much toughts (you can’t miss 90% of supports abilities/ults)
be realistic at one point, if dps had HALF of the supports kits you would be crying NERF NERF ITS OP
1 Like
The issue is that in a pvp game you cant prioritize what is fun over what is healthy for the game.
That turns the entire game into an boring slog for everyone that isnt the popular hero mains, and breaks the entire ecosystem of a hero based game.
In the end, ‘‘prioritize what is fun’’ should not be done because what ends up nerfed as heroes that OTHER REAL PEOPLE also play.
REAL people play Symmetra, and no matter how much Rein and Genji mains find her annoying to deal with, they should not be entitled to get her nerfed just because of that annoyance.
You can do it in a PvE game, but you cant base a PvP game around it.
2 Likes
it’s just you i bet some unfortunate souls have only sym-echo in their master games
Yes, Sym in all her 1% pickrate and 4 t500 players glory.
3 Likes
That award belongs to Tracer.
2 Likes
This makes zero sense. It’s a video game. What is most “healthy” for the game is whatever maximizes the fun players have playing the game. There isn’t some game that’s not fun to play but is somehow “healthy.” You’re positing that optimizing for players’ fun makes the game “boring” which makes no sense since boring is the opposite of fun. There’s just no debate to be had here. Balance decisions are about fun. Everything in a game is about fun. An unbalanced game is less fun and that’s why you want a balanced game. The question being discussed is whether that balance (and therefore fun maximization) should focus only on high ranks or not, and it seems manifestly obvious to me that specifically only trying to optimize fun for a very small subset of players is not good or “healthy” for the game.
Yeah I think Orissa is mid, DF is probably one of the best tanks for sure. Rein is just good with rush which is good rn. Soldier is played because every other hitscan is trash, and hes played in a way that a sub-dps would play as well.
All in all though, well played you baited me again