What if you're only allowed 1 healer and 1 tank per team?!

Competitive Discussion
1

Open your mind to this huge “what if” for just a minute. Really think about how the game would change by having a limit of only one healer and one tank in competitive. Much faster paced, less people expecting healers to keep them heal capped at all times, encourages players that use less mentally taxing characters to really explore the possibilities of their mechanics, gives mechanical skill based players a less stagnant environment and more opportunities to control chaos and other chaotic heroes on the enemy team. The more I think about it the better it feels. What do you think?

1 Like
2

I think that there are a lot more people out there that legitimately enjoy support and tank heroes than you realize, and your idea just locked them out of playing what they wanted. :stuck_out_tongue:

2 Likes
3

I would rather see people fighting for a healer sometimes than people fighting for dps all the time.

1 Like
4

My point is that all you’re doing is selfishly shifting the goalposts on the targets afflicted by a problem we all hate and should want addressed: People can’t play what they want, when they want to play it.

We need systems in place to facilitate group play where people can play the game how they want to, not punish the entire collective simply because we have no say in who we play with more times than not.

1 Like
5

Could be interesting. It’d also be interesting if what’s limited is random (but affects both teams).

1 Like
6

it would be chaotic, tanks and healers bring form to teams… without them everyone would be have to be scattered out, and because you are scattered out only a mercy or ana will be used. off tanks would simply cease to exist.

dive would become broken beyond repair

7

I would rather people be calling for a skilled mcree, tracer, hanzo or genji (high mechanical skill heroes) to counter chaos than more tanks or more chaos like we do now.

8

I knew what this persons rank would be before I opened this thread tbh.

9

then go play competitive FFA if you want a battle against aim

1 Like
10

The entire point of offtanks vs main tanks would be lost; they work as a pair.

11

Ranks only tell you how often you got queued with effective teammates. If there is any chance some people will only get queued with ineffective teammates you can’t really call it a “skill rating” can you? Yet…

12

oh no

20 character lim

13

This is a lie and you know it, especially when you are almost silver border.

14

a lie? it’s common sense, you are put in team with 5 other random people its very possible to not get enough effective teammates to climb rank.

15

It’s the same caliber of people that will be on the enemy team just as often. You can experience short-term volatility due to randomness/luck, but you cannot be held back in the long-term by other people. That would be your own doing.

1 Like
16

It’s my own doing if the game puts me with majorily ineffective teammates? No, I didn’t think so.

17

You’re creating a strawman, and I’m not interested in that exchange.

You have no control over your teammates (unless you’re grouping), but neither does the enemy. This is why short-term volatility exists. It’s reasonable to believe that your last 10 games had the worst teammates you’ve ever seen, and that led to you tanking a couple hundred SR. It’s unreasonable to believe that your last 100 games were all tainted by incompetent teammates while the enemies had their acts together. The more you play, the more accurate your rating becomes. And yes, I’ll gladly admit that climbing can take longer and be more tedious than many would like, as you can take hundreds of games to make only modest gains. That is by design, though.

Over time, the enemies are randomly exposed to crappy teammates and throwers/leavers just as frequently as you are. We’re all in this cesspool together, so to speak. If you aren’t good enough to win games when exposed to the same random variables as your opponents, you don’t deserve to climb.

3 Likes
18

you being better than your teammates increases your chances at winning, the higher chances at winning the more you win, the more you win the more you climb… how do many people not comprehend this?

19

So after almost 600 levels you’ve only had “ineffective” teammates? Yea surely it must not be you at all!

20

Yeah I carry my teams pretty hard nearly every time, It doesn’t mean I can drag them all to the top of the mountain. I am NOT placed with other players of my caliber. And to think there isn’t a large number of players out there that simply got queued with ineffective teammates a majority would be pretty ignorant in the face of common sense. Even if you take the time do to the math you would need a constant 3 games for every one loss to make the minimum climbing rate of around 10 sr every 4 games. If you take that in to account it kinda proves the only people that are climbing are just getting lucky and getting helpful teammates a majority of the time, which is why so many people are stuck in far lower rank they shouldn’t belong if it worked correctly.