Every week, hero damage/heals should be adjusted by 1-3% based on winrate.

General Discussion
Hero has the lowest winrate across Unranked and Ranked, buff damage or heals by 3%. The closer the hero is to 50%, the less buff or nerf they get by 0.5%, etc. Until the winrates of heroes align better.

Fixed.
"Fixed" what? What problem are you trying to address here?
Unfortunately it is not that simple. Low skilled players might not be able to get the most out of their hero compared with high skilled heroes. Simply buffing/nerfing damage might totally ruin balance at high skill play.

For example I regularly get 60-100% more damage than the average player with some heroes according to the post game popup.
F2P MOBA developers have 0 incentive to have a perfectly balanced game.

They always rotate out OP/UP heros every few months to force people to buy them if they want to win.

$$$$$
I don't know if weekly patches are necessary, and your solution seems to be a bit blunt if you're applying damage or heals universally, without looking at individual abilities, and talents.

However, I think many of us can agree, the rate of change, especially for minor balance patches that are only tweaks, and especially on those heroes that are clearly overturned, are sorely needed. It took weeks for Raynor to get nerfed, and his nerfs were clearly too conservative. It's now going to take another few weeks to bring him more in line. If this is their method, more frequent patches need to be released.

They can do it, they've done it in the past, but of course you have the people who argue that they don't like changes in a MOBA, which I frankly find a bit ludicrous since the origins of this genre is basically constant balance changes and heroes additions that shake up the meta.
So by this definition Probius is OP with his 54.1% winrate and 1% playrate.

https://www.hotslogs.com/Default

Clearly Blizzard incompetence.
If only we could have baddies try to improve to 4% 5% per week instead.
08/12/2018 09:38 AMPosted by TerranPride
"Fixed" what? What problem are you trying to address here?


Winrates per hero. If a hero has a 40% winrate while another has 55%, the damage should be adjusted on each until the heroes are all close to 50% winrate.
While the OP's solution is bad, I do feel that there should be far more frequent balance changes.

I would like to see every week a balance patch, I honestly want the SC bunker treatment to all heroes. We currently have some heroes, who are not viable, that have not seen any adjustments in over a year.
08/12/2018 11:33 AMPosted by FireSoup
08/12/2018 09:38 AMPosted by TerranPride
"Fixed" what? What problem are you trying to address here?


Winrates per hero. If a hero has a 40% winrate while another has 55%, the damage should be adjusted on each until the heroes are all close to 50% winrate.


This is how sociallists think.

If Mr. Bob is doing well and makes tons of money, since he runs his business properly and you suck and have no desire to run your business properly and yours is failing -- we will take some of Mr. Bob's earnings and give it to you, for nothing. Fair is fair.

You are so wrong I have no words for you.
08/12/2018 11:59 AMPosted by NoMoneyGill
<span class="truncated">...</span>

Winrates per hero. If a hero has a 40% winrate while another has 55%, the damage should be adjusted on each until the heroes are all close to 50% winrate.


This is how sociallists think.

If Mr. Bob is doing well and makes tons of money, since he runs his business properly and you suck and have no desire to run your business properly and yours is failing -- we will take some of Mr. Bob's earnings and give it to you, for nothing. Fair is fair.

You are so wrong I have no words for you.


You should keep to your promise and have no words then. Applying socioeconomic hierarchies to a video game where the intention is to create balanced gameplay is patently ludicrous.

First off the win rates apply to heroes not individuals which is the biggest mistake you made. Those win rates apply to all levels of play with all players. If even the worst of players are doing well with an OP hero that reflects on the hero not the skill of the player.

Secondly, if a business man is exploiting weaknesses in the system to get that monetary advantage that might make them smartish but it’s not really that high of a bar. Tons of people tried to make money off subprime loans, smart to cripple the economy because you are a crook, sure.

Most people who used Fenix to get a higher win rate weren’t actually good or smart they just used a hero that was inherently imbalanced. If you want to fool yourself into thinking hero win rates is equivalent to skilled players having success that’s hilariously sad.
You think it's that simple? Let's look at the numbers and hop, easy? Some heroes are very hard to play. Hanzo and Garrosh are in the bottom atm, yet they are good and often banned. Tass is the last one, yet often taken by pros.

Embarassing!

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum