Overwatch - It's the Chinese year of the 🎁🔵⚪🔵🔵 A limited time event!
999 replies, posted
I remember when Ana meta was around and people justifiably hated it, but at least there was some team flexibility after Ana and Rein. Now it looks like the entire meta is centered around 3 spots being taken by 4 heroes, and the other 3 spots being taken by 4 other heroes. It's pathetic.
People fucking BOO'd them
Imagine if they banned the most common GOATs characters in OWL.
Hold on, did you just suggest.. A ban phase, like EVERY VIDEOGAME WITH HEROES PICKING AS ONE OF THEIR CENTRAL MECHANIC? How insulting. This is the mighty Blizzard we're talking about.
They aren't going to do that, because Overwatch don't need that, Overwatch is perfectly designed and GOATS will stop at any moment now. Can't have that in our game, that would mean having
something another games have, that would mean not being unique, that would mean admitting failure.
Let's be realistic, the ban phase would outpace character releases and every match would just be the same 6 heroes that aren't as strong as the current meta. Overwatch's balance issue isn't something that can be band-aid fixed, it's a fundamental design issue of not only allowing character swapping, but making characters extremely basic in their function and role so as to encourage it.
The point of a ban phase isn't to prevent a strategy entirely, but to prevent specifics characters from being played or inhibiting the enemys team capacity by banning their main characters.
It's even more useful in Overwatch. Ban Ana, Moira and Mercy, and you have no possible GOATS as nobody have healing as good as they do. Ban Brigitte at her height, and you force the dive meta. But
ban both Brigitte and Winston and you prevent the dive meta AND the OP characters from being played. Ban Brigitte, Winston and Ana and you ban the OP characters, prevent the dive meta and severely
hurt a possible GOATS meta.
A ban phase isn't the end of all thing: But it help massively. I believe it is foolish to merely say "But there's more character than you can ban! If you ban those, then the pros are just gonna play the next OP
characters after them!" because there's much more that go into that. It's also a way to force the professional players to play more than 6 heroes, which is already better than nothing, and have a little bit
of characters diversity in your professional tournament, above all.
Thought the question is when do you want the ban phase to happens in Overwatch? I'd say it should be a quick time before each map begin so the players can specifically ban characters good at X map.
Ban widowmaker on map with long sightlines, for example. That would be HUGE.
I agree it would probably not help much in comp/e-sport Overwatch, which would only develop a ban meta. I do think it would work wonders for QP/casual Overwatch.
What if you took at a step further and included picks as well? You'd be almost guaranteed too not see the same team twice.
Wouldn't everyone just consistently ban Reinhardt then..?
I expect everyone to ban all off-meta or "unfun" heroes like Mei, Symmetra and Torb and stuff which just further strengthens the current meta.
And as a person who really like Sym; pls no....
How would a hypothetical ban system work? How many characters are there in the current game? 26? Would it be like older League bans where a single member of the team has ban control and bans anywhere from 1-5 heroes? Or would everybody get a single ban? I think actually going full-on MOBA would be a good idea for the pick-ban system, but, again, Overwatch has less than a quarter of characters that actual MOBAs have.
Instead of banning heroes just turn it into a gamble who gets to play a certain hero. Competitive Mystery Heroes.
Well, for the first claim: That's right, in Quick Play, people will just ban whoever annoys them the most (Since League has introduced its 5 ban system it is what happens in low rank elo and draft pick
where you get the usual pubstompers ban) but that effect of "Strengthening" the current meta cannot happens as there is a large enough roster to make it so you cannot ban every "unfun" characters so
you gotta put more thought in your single ban. Also, the ban phase is generally used when you want to play a specific character/strategy and you want to ban your counter/the strategy most efficient hard counters. I don't get why people get all annoyed when hearing about a "Ban phase" and instantly think "Duh, they'll just take the next 6 OP heroes" as if the next 6 "meta" heroes on the list are as powerful as the 6 banned heroes and the strategy is as uncounterable as if the 6 banned heroes weren't banned. It's also about surprising the opponent, and mind you, it's not like you have to ban GOATS directly
by banning Rein + D.Va + Zarya together instantly, you could ban part of it and weakens it instead.
Thought, the answers to your question is pretty clear: It depend on the amount of characters in the game. 1 ban for everyone is strictly for, say, more than 50+ heroes (it was added in league when they
had between 120 and 130 heroes I think? So I scaled it up to reasonable level for a game as slow as Overwatch when it comes to hero release) Because if you ban 10+ characters then you still have 40+ characters to choose from.
I know you were probably being sarcastic but this wouldn't be half bad tbh, if you could assign at least roles and no dupes.
It would enforce the idea of team work a lot more to figure shit out and would actually make people have to come up with new weird strategies instead of falling into the same old bore.
I really don't know about that ban system. It's pretty out of date just in terms of examples of banning systems (League has had a 10-ban system for at least a year now), and it completely misses why actual bans are so important - to prevent overwhelming picks from being the focal point of every game.
A majority of the time, picks are banned because there's no feasible way to counter them without sacrificing the rest of your teamcomp solely to stop the spiral out of control from the single pick. "Offering" the pick to the enemy team would never actually happen. It's a convoluted, confusing, and just strange solution. If you offer the enemy the strong picks, they'll just take them, and you're fucked. That's why in Overwatch, both teams pick the comps - because there's no way to counter them properly.
New update has been pushed to live.
Paris map is now released, as well as the new health system.
Below an infographic from Reddit that was posted here before.
https://i.imgur.com/HGdH0Z6.png
For the rest; only minor bugfixes for various heroes. Nothing special.
Those are reasonable point.
Speaking of both teams pick the comps - Mirror match should be outright banned in my opinion. To counters a meta in Overwatch, the solution has always been "Play the exact same characters as the
enemy team" and this is unacceptable.
You cant ban mirror matching, too many heroes have been balanced to be their own best counters.
So whoever gets to pick said hero first just has a massive advantage
What is interesting to me, is there is no "non-recoverable health" on the game yet. but they still mentioned it on patch notes.
Then you make one, huge, update akin to the heroes of the storm 2.0 update. Everything need changes in Overwatch, day-by-day since release it is getting worse and worse. Better to make one massive
update for an healthier game later on and easier time balancing (like League or DotA does massive update especially pre-season) than keeping up with a failing system.
On the other hand, you're right, the first who get to pick Tracer get a massive mobility advantage, but mirror match ban would happens when there's a lot of characters and that would mean Tracer at that
point would be one of the many mobile characters. Tracer godlike mobility isn't that good when someone else does the dashing thing better, but doesn't have her burst for example. That's what it means,
to have a large and varied rosters.
I'd feel really bad if one team managed to get Widowmaker and D.Va on the same team.
Regarding the Paris map, after playing a couple of matches:
A very pretty map with some interesting routes around second point. BUT they've managed to create a choke point near first point for the attackers that is somehow worse than the hanamura/eichenwalde/anubis choke points....
I was hoping that they would stop doing that....
i think the robot singer with cat ears is cute and i'd like the maps a lot more if they included landmarks like her in them.
She actually recoils when you hit her so I kind of feel bad when I watch 5 people punching the shit out of her.
Chokepoint apparently adds "flavors" and "challenge" so we're not seeing the end of it anytime soon
AKA it's the only way the balance team can actually balance A/D maps because pushing power is so overwhelming compared to defense power
If pushing power is over-whelming compared to defense power, then why concentrate defenses at a choke point? :think:
Choke points mean there's only a very tiny area that the offense can actually access the next objective through, meaning pushing power is forced to focus on breaking any hold in that area, instead of expanding via flank characters.
So then defense is once again forced to the same choke. I don't see how that helps defense all that much. If anything, forcing either side to split up to cover more ground favors the defenders because they don't have to go anywhere.
offense no flank
defense only need worry about doing damage
if offense no flank only some hero good for offense
meanwhile defense still have good hero like snipers
come on dude, it's not complex. If you have only one area you can push through, a junkrat, a good widowmaker, and a competent healer is all the defensive team needs.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.