Not at all. The entire point of education is to enable players to break free of that perception.
That’s like saying that you shouldn’t tell your kid that Santa Claus isn’t real because they won’t believe you.
I’ve explained the education side at quite some length in some of my other posts so you can go back and find them if you like.
Its more like telling them Santa is real when its obviously you in a mask.
I dont have time to go back through your posts, so i guess this conversation is over.
while I understand that the above is an opinion, I dont know any reasonable basis for believing that a majority – much less a vast one – would disagree with the statement in question
Personal experience, the opinion of various streamers, the mere existence of a “meta”, people’s attitudes towards said meta and posts on this forum all agree with me that “all kinds of compositions” do not work. You could infer that the existence of 222 is also evidence of this same thing, as it stripped away a lot of particularly OP or weak comps.
Would you like to discuss with me why you think “all kinds of compositions can work”?
Objectively or ideally its the better competitive mode. Its the closest thing to any ‘strategy’ overwatch can offer by switching to the correct role depending on the situation.
In reality its terrible because of the total lack of any seriousness by its playerbase. People often literally dont even try in that mode which is opposite of a competitive mindset.
in fact, all kinds of compositions DO work (with “work” being defined here as resulting in a win), each depending somewhat on the situation(s) encountered but moreso on the effort and teamwork of the players on said team
Indeed, any comp can win VS any other if the enemy is AFK, so you are correct, it is possible.
Do you think that the playerbase of overwatch would agree with your definition of “work”?
If not, how would that affect any efforts to educate said playerbase that “all kinds of compositions can work”?
First, i know of no valid evidence to support the implied claim that such a majority exists
That said, I don’t see the question as relevant to the topic at hand. Something is true or it is false regardless of majority opinion of whether it is or it is not.
Let’s put it another way:
For the vast majority of the playerbase games are not won on the basis of team composition. It is never the deciding factor. It is just one of several factors. So giving up just because of team composition doesn’t make sense.
Games are won primarily by the individual skill of players on the hero they play, effort put forward by those players, and teamwork.
Yes, some team compositions are stronger than others depending on the situation.
But there is no one-size-fits-all as some players seem to believe.
Whether they would agree or not is unimportant.
What is important is that the truth is presented to them. They can then choose to accept or not accept it.
Some players did hold the idea that the only way they could win was if they had 222. Ideas like this need to be challenged.
The developers made no real attempt to even challenge these kinds of beliefs or put forward the truth.
To start with, get rid of those tooltips that said " you only have one healer." " you only have one tank." This already gives players incorrect ideas.
It seems you are unwilling to answer my questions so this conversation is pointless.
Your point here is “educate the players to accept that any comp can work and QPC will be fine”. If the players have already decided based on their own experience, very obvious evidence and the various other sources i listed that not all comps are equal, how will you convince them that very weak comps are actually fine?
You seem to think the devs should educate players - why is that? And why would the players listen if they did?
there doesnt seem to be a reason to answer questions that are irrelevant to the topic at hand
that said, the forum rules do not require a forum member to respond to every (or any) points/questions in a given post
The problem with a player relying on their own experience or interpretation of their experience is it is unreliable.
This is why we measure and display our skill with numbers in the form of SR.
Skill rating is a form of education. The player sees, in theory, if he is performing well.
Stats also help the player to determine if he is doing well. Medals and so on. Although sometimes these can also be misleading.
When a player has an illusion about something the illusion can sometimes be broken by the display of raw numbers.
The new form of education could be similar. You would see specifically which compositions you were successful with and which you were not.
The developers could also share the winrates of various compositions. Quite complicated as compositions can change on the fly but I think they could find a way to do this.
Indeed not all compositions are equal.
But it is really not as significant of a factor as players believe.
You won’t find the truth in the echo chamber of this forum.
They already do this in various ways:
Because players are very impressionable. They can be influenced to believe things.
Some players are influenced by YouTubers.
Some are influenced by other players. There is the phenomenon of the trickle down effect for example.
This is how players often form incorrect ideas.
Developers have sometimes tried to challenge these ideas. For example when Josh came on the forum and stated some truths in regard to the phenomenon described as “Power creep”. That was fantastic.
Sadly it feels like they are scared to challenge the community again in this way.
The player will, without fail, ALWAYS rely on their own experience over what the game tells them. Giving a player access to “which comps you are successful with” will compound their belief that some comps are more successful than others, which is directly against what you are trying to brainwash them to think.
Stats tend to backfire as they can be misinterpreted in various ways, e.g. “i have gold damage therefore i am good”.
High rank composition lists are already readily available.
Please cite your evidence of this.
I asked you why you think devs should educate players, not how they do it.
Little hints to impressionable people are different to explaining very complex concepts that go against the players own experience.
A forum post about power creep changed nothing for players who do not read the forums.
Every player deserves access to the truth.
There is no reason to withhold information of this kind.
A player can then make of that what he will.
Medals are fine on their own. But yes some players will misinterpret that information. Medals can be misinterpreted because simply doing a certain amount of damage or a certain amount of eliminations doesn’t necessarily mean that the player has contributed to the win as much as those numbers might suggest. The stats system could use an overhaul to possibly highlight more important things. But there is no reason to get rid of medals altogether.
This is directly opposite to brainwashing.
If a player sees that he wins or loses roughly a similar amount with different compositions then he is less likely to attach such importance to it.
Even at the very highest level - OWL - meta is broken frequently. Players who swap to their comfort pick or a hero that they are very good at have many times destroyed an enemy team of meta slaves.
Developers should educate players so that they have a better understanding of the game and as a result derive greater enjoyment.
this paints the canvas with far too wide a brush
it is not necessarily true that all players will act in this fashion
You didnt address my point - when faced with clear evidence you yourself would provide that some comps are better than others, why do you think they will believe all comps are equal? You’re not actually fixing the problem with this action, you’re confirming the opposite and providing evidence for players to NOT play certain comps.
I said that all kinds of compositions can work. Not that all compositions are equal.
You did not address my point yet again, and as such, this conversation has become pointless.
There is no reason for me to address points that are not relevant to the conversation or claims that I made a statement which I did not in fact make. This is known as the strawman fallacy.
In regards to this:
The problem that you raised was that some players feel forced to play tank and support heroes when they did not want to.
How often and why does such an occurrence take place?
It occurs because those players believe that they need to play those heroes in order to win.
If they are shown that this is not the case then they can break free of such an idea.
If they are shown that it is the case then the compositions need to be rebalanced so that compositions which feature heroes that most players actually wish to play are slightly stronger.
This reduces the occurrence.