Exactly as the name on the tin implies. Here we’re going to have a discussion of what makes heroes good in Overwatch, and what creates a problem point.
Note that this is a discussion, I’m not god and I want to hear the thoughts of others from all ranks. I’m masters personally but I’d love to hear what people enjoy all over the spectrum. No rank shaming, because a great hero should still be at least good at all ranks for the majority.
First of all, what does a hero need in order to be good?
- They need to be interactive
Interactivity in this discussion is just, do you get to have a chance to interact with them in a fight? Do you get to make a decision or is it just a reaction time test to headshot to end the fight.
Can you change the fight via high ground and the like, does range change their effectiveness. etc.
A problem point in this category is Sombra. Who can hack while invisible. With how low the hack timer is, it may not be the most overpowered ability, but you don’t really have much you get to do to stop it, counter it, or really pressure the Sombra off if you’re frontlining as a Tank. You just live with it and do nothing about it.
- They need counterplay.
No character should just be at a complete and utter advantage all of the time. There should always be ways around a designed disadvantage. Like it or not people do one trick in the game and it needs to be designed around.
Bastion as a good example is a tank buster, incredibly high damage, but plays a fun risk reward with his kit, baiting out pushes to violently melt them. But has risk in that his turret can also be baited out and then pushed into on the cool down. Additionally, if he gets too confident, he can still be killed in his turret from pushing too much. If he delays it, his team will lose in the long run as his standard state is weaker than most heroes.
He requires patience with his kit, he can’t hold onto it forever because that’ll lose the fight, it requires mechanics, game sense, and positioning to pull off. And almost everything in the game has a way to play around Bastion. They won’t always be at an advantage but they have ways to win the interaction in solo and team based settings.
His nade is a skill shot that doesn’t directly secure a kill (though it absolutely can), for it to finish a kill there needs to be mistake or some variety of risk taken by the person it hits, or by the Bastion itself.
Is it absolutely perfect? No. But it’s fantastic even as a Masters Rein Main.
- Their abilities and utility need to have this individually.
An ability needs to have mitigation methods that don’t devolve to swap to this specific hero to mitigate them. For instance Ana being picked essentially forces a Kiriko on the other team to cleanse the anti. Hog back when he had a one shot would require a Kiriko, Bap, Orisa. etc. to prevent the hooks entirely. That was their job.
The worst current examples of a lack of counterplay and interactivity would be Discord Orb, and Widowmaker. A reminder that this is a measure of hero design that includes fun factor. It is a game at the end of the day. Just because they can be killed and beaten doesn’t mean they’re fine. It just means they aren’t day 1 Soujorn levels of power.
- They should be viable on most maps. Not all certainly because that’s impossible but most.
As it says on the tin. A lot of people will one trick (not all), but it will happen. If they choose a character that is horrendous on the majority of matches, this is going to ruin the experience for everyone. There are a lot of one tricks in top500 keep that in mind.
End of ‘good’ criteria.
What makes a hero bad?
- They are overpowered.
Think Hog with a one shot in OW2. Think Widow currently. Think day 1 Brig. Think day 1 Soujourn. This is going to always hurt the game because no one likes playing against things that win because the character they play is better. People in competitive games enjoy showcases of skill.
- They lack skill expression.
I refer to discord orb. Current reigning strategy is to set and forget it on the tank. It uh. It does move to flankers occasionally but that isn’t really a skill requirement. Zen requires skill expression to play well but his kit doesn’t.
An additional example would be early OW1 sym lock on beam. It won fights for her back then, especially on Console.
- Something has hypothetical counterplay, but not practical counterplay.
Sombra is the problem child of this category. Hypothethically you can block shatter or interupt it, but even in top500 this isn’t realistic. Additionally combos like EMP Shatter, EMP Bomb and so on will just win a fight and negate the possibility of counterplay or interactivity. An ability that always wins no matter what is never something that can be enjoyed when playing against.
- A low skill ceiling.
Having fun with a hero is fantastic, and enjoying them is something I encourage. But if a hero is only good when people don’t understand how to play against them, or just frankly lack the mechanical skill to hit them, they aren’t a good hero.
Moira is the emblem of this category. Disappears more and more the higher the rank, but is the scourge of Bronze.
She is designed to be easy to pick up and play, but it’s at the sacrifice of limiting a lot of people’s enjoyment of competitive modes. A easy to pick up hero should of course be easier to get value on. But they need some kind of conceivable way to increase the skill ceiling far more.
Rein is a good example of a low skill floor but incredible skill ceiling. Low mechanical skill required, but game sense, positioning, and playstyle make all the difference in allowing you to climb.
Nonetheless though I want to hear the forums thoughts. What makes a hero good to play, and to play against? Do you have any disagreements you want to discuss, feel free to.
And keep in mind, it’s a discussion. Actually discuss it, don’t patently ignore the other person’s points and misconstrue their arguments all the time. It benefits no one and will just ruin any consideration people could have given you and your own points. Debate and discuss in good faith.
