The best way to balance

General Discussion
1

I am proposing a balance criterion (for dps and supports) that I think is better than the pickrate/winrate that everyone loves (and for good reason - it has served us well).

Criterion:

A hero is UNDERTUNED if you cannot one trick the hero to 4.4k SR

A hero is OVERTUNED if its current state is gatekeeping other heroes from 4.4k SR

A hero NEEDS REWORKS if it must be in one of the above states to prevent the game feeling really unfair.

Justification - Alternative is bad

I, along with others, have posited that winrate weighted pickrate is a poor criterion for balancing because some heroes are more popular, and people who play them have prior experience. If a professional “Starcraft 2” player told you that learning “Age of empires” is easy you would rightfully be somewhat indignant.

Justification - Criterion is good

This criterion is good firstly because it gives serious players who want to climb a sense of personal responsiblity: if someone can climb to the highest level (the highest lobbies in overwatch, if you didn’t know, are 4.4k avg), you can too. You just need to “get gud”. Also, if nobody could do that, then why should you be expected to?

Secondly, this criterion is good because it implies that if you can one trick a hero to 4.4k, you can play any hero pool you want to 4.4k. So if you can one trick three heroes to 4.4k, you can definitly play those three heroes as a flex player to 4.4k (most likely higher).

For tanks, I think you can use the same criterion except held to the standard of 4.6k, because of the greater importance and smaller number of heroes. Go ahead and flame me in the replies.

2 Likes
2

Tbh, yes the goal of balance is higher variety of hero usage.

But I really question why only 1% of the players deserves hero usage variety.

If anything, I’d say +3500SR lobbies should have an improved hero ban system, that isn’t the same bans every time, that’s selected by the players.
Then balance the game somewhere around 3250SR.

2 Likes
3

Hero bans are stupid. Overwatch is a recreational game. The game should be focused on being fun in the recreational ranks (<4.4k)

The game should be “balanced” around that rank because (aside for the reasons I gave above) people who play the game full time have the most investment in the game. You can get to 4.3k+ playing bastion 15 hours a week.

1 Like
4

That’s why I would be limited to +3500SR average lobbies. Which usually would mean most the players are above that ELO.

As for your opinion that basically says “Only 1% of the players deserves hero usage variety”.

I’d say that’s a horrible business decision to act like the enjoyment of 99% of your playerbase is not important.

1 Like
5

I play at 3.5k and I play 5 hours a week. The game should not be balanced at that level. You can get 3.5k without using guns on ball.

Hero usage variety is not an important thing to aim for. Variety is not what makes the game fun. What makes the game fun is being able to play a hero which you have afinity for and have a good skill curve (time and effort put in → cosmetic things like ran put out).

1 Like
6

Hero usage variety is basically the definition of balance.

Otherwise, based on what you’re describing, only heroes with basically infinite skill curves should ever be used at high ELO. (I.e. Widow/Tracer)

1 Like
7

Horrible definition of balance.

Better: Effort and talent in → rank out is same for all heroes

Best: the above.

No you really overestimate how skilled people are at <4.4k. If you use the above criterion and acheive it you would not have only “widow/tracer” at high ranks.

1 Like
8

Seems like a pretty good one to me.

Here’s a design document by LoL’s top balance guy, that says basically that.

2 Likes
9

The problem with this is that it doesn’t really indicate issues of balance with the state of the of the character chosen, due to reliance entirely on skill level.

Good examples include Symmetra, Doomfist, and Bastion. Heroes that are clearly in the higher rungs of play mained by several players; but obvious balance problems exist within their state that wouldn’t be indicative based on this premise.

Heck, Bastion won an OWL game some time back. Clearly, there’s no issue with at all if he can win a game, right?

2 Likes
10

Forget about best, just pick who they are balancing for and the will be a dramatic drop off for what is and isn’t a problem anymore.

For example 1.0 Torb and Sym were completely fine for a game play for fun with friends and vs strangers. The turret(s) was weak but vs uncoordinated groups of people who also only played OW for fun it is worked and was a fairly good ability.

In a world where the game is trying to not only be an esport but also esports trying to carve themselves out a spot attempting to contend with traditional sports the characters didn’t work

Basically go top down or down top stop trying this middle ground philosophy

11

Trying to be a competitive team game, and not balancing the values between each role contributes is Overwatch’s fatal flaw. Tanks are far too strong and Supports get way too much value for relatively little challenge.

Meanwhile the most popular and populous role is struggling for relevancy. GOATS was inevitable and that was the balancing problem that Blizzard couldn’t fix without mandating a fixed composition. And now the metagame is defined by the tanks.

12

That is the point of the post. I am positing that there are no obvious issues with Symmetra, and Doomfist because they can be one tricked to high SR. Players who are lower then that are just bad. Not the games fault. Get good.

Bastion has been done to 4.3 and so has reaper. So maybe some buffs are in order.

The OWL game thing doesn’t matter at all and is not a decent criterion.

The tank issue you mention is a seperate issue from balancing, which by its nature (in 2-2-2) has to be compared in role. Tank is just a complete and utter design failure especially main tank. Main tank is the most essential and obnoxious role, and it is so boring that nobody wants to play it. That is why they are making an entire new game in part so they can delete this role.

13

I prefer having bans, like every other competitive esport.

Well, unless they plan on implementing some sort of CS:GO/Valorant economy system.

Either way, they don’t subject their entire playerbase to balancing for an extremely small minority of the players.

1 Like
14

Bans are a useful aid sure, but the philosophy of balancing is still going to suffer if they try to appease two crowds at once.

Game is going to have a hard time balancing the idea of fun wacky heroes who have cool abilities that do neat things that are often not always the most useful AND attempt to the esport of esports.

15

You’re overcomplicating the concept of “worthwhile usage variety”.

1 Like
16

Wanna say more on that or no?

17

Because sub 3500 you have (except or Sombra) 100% viable hero usage and can pick any hero you want and that hero choice does not matter (though if they try to hard counter you that is a viable strategy). There are too many big things that are way more important than balance that decide those sub 3500 games.

18

The concept is stupid. Heroes should be fun to use, and viable to use in every rank. That is it. Viable in high rank implies viable in low rank, hence the need to balance based on high rank.

And also it isn’t sub 3500. It is sub 4.4k you can play any hero, in any ammount and climb.

1 Like
19

Never balance for one-trick scum.

1 Like
20

People often get too tied up in their catchphrases to identify what they actually mean.

“Balance” is just a catchphrase for “Worthwhile usage variety”.

Similar to how “Making space” is just a euphemism for “Positioning advantage”