It’s not that the roles are easier or harder to balance, it’s that enforcing a 2-2-2 cap limits the possibility of runaway synergies (like what caused GOATS). That makes it less likely that a new hero or balance change can suddenly bring a previously dormant set of synergies to the forefront in such a way that it becomes impossible to deal with without completely gutting every character involved to the point that they’re nearly useless outside of said synergy. And even if such a runaway synergy does happen, it’s much easier to deal with.
i wouldnt, the nerfs were fair ot they werent even nerfed at all.
If you get a spider in your car, setting your car on fire is way to never have that problem again.
How on earth does this comparison make sense?
Destroying all other composition variety in the game is certainly simple, but excessively destructive.
You’ve got it backwards friend, large portions of the playerbase quit because Overwatch is often a frustrating experience due to all of the issues role lock and role SR addresses.
RoleBasedSR isn’t required for a RoleLock.
I.e. Locked roles in LFG
I’m terribly sorry, I meant role queue.
I wonder if a flex system could work though, like if you play a predetermined amount of games on each role and they’re all within a certain range maybe you can queue Flex. The problem to be solved is how you adjust the SR for each role, given they may or may not play multiple per game.
So… your concern is destructive changes so…
Option 1 is: 12 or so consecutive Brigitte nerfs that make her trash-tier outside of 3-3, 5 or so consecutive D.Va nerfs, nerfs to Lucio, nerfs to Zenyatta, a global nerf to armor which has never been a problem before, Reaper buffs that make him cancer at low levels, McCree machine gun buffs, and a change to the entire Assault map type, just to name a few
Or…
Option 2: Limit team compositions to two of each hero type, which is how most of the playerbase plays the game already anyways.
Yes, one of these is definitely more destructive than the other.
The problem is half the playerbase ought to be playing deathmatch, but the deathmatch denizens are so hard to fight casuals dont do it. Instead they just hit QP and play the same way.
Option 3: Two healers max per team (Which I’ve been saying since Dec 2018)
Option 4: One offhealer max per team.
I’m not opposed to a 2-healer 2-tank limit, which still leaves plenty of options for dps-heavy comps (since dps have never shown themselves to be susceptible to the kind of game-destroying synergies that tanks and supports have). My issue with a “1 off-support limit” is that “off-support” is a community-created category that is blurry at best. Lucio can be either, Baptiste can be either (although he tends to be played as an off-support) and even Ana can be both (although she tends to be played as a main support)
“Has a big defensive Ult”
Lucio/Brig/Zen
So you’d define Baptiste as a main support? Also, after the bugfix with Rally I’d argue it’s about as effective as a sustain ult as Coalescence and Valkyrie. Does that make Mercy and Moira off-supports too? Also, you’re saying teams shouldn’t be able to run Lucio+Zen as a support line?
This also means you could still run Lucio + Ana + Baptiste which has been run as a 3-3 support line
Devs say Baptiste is a main healer.
I’d argue Brig is in this weird limbo of balance, where she could be buffed a lot, if she couldn’t be stacked with other offhealers.
I just feel like specifying “1 off-healer per team” isn’t really necessary. A straight “2 supports maximum” limit should work well enough, especially if you combine it with a “2 tanks maximum” limit as well
It would, but I like the idea of 2Any-2-2, (so you can counteract bad tanking/healing, and has with wider composition variety) and devs seem to be avoiding outright killing 3-3.
Baptiste is bugged atm anyways. His matrix doesn’t buff healing at all
Baptise has a lot of problems in general, his pickrate is the lowest of any healer, and doesn’t really go up or down across skill tiers.
ya he feels clunky to me