Why is Roadhog being compensated for his nerf?

General Discussion
1 2 3 26 Next
Highly Rated
The nerf isn't even that substantial, is it necessary to allow his scrap gun to now also one shot things more easily when his hook is on it's whopping 2 second additional cooldown?
Highly Rated
Because Jeff loves Hog, Ana, and S76.
Maybe Blizzard doesn't want to destroy his usage rate like they did Dva? Ruining the only value he brings to the team without compensation is severe.
If only this devs would be more focused on releasing more heroes ppl would care less about balance.
Highly Rated
02/15/2017 09:12 PMPosted by Krul
If only this devs would be more focused on releasing more heroes ppl would care less about balance.


Actually... That's a really interesting statement. If we got solid hard counters to put more heroes like hog in check so they don't get picked all the time instead of focusing so much on existing ones' performances, we'd probably be golden
Highly Rated
his 2 second hook nerf is getting compensated for a stronger shotgun with less spreads so those pesky people within 21 meters who dodged the hook still get oneshotted
02/15/2017 09:15 PMPosted by Govictory
his 2 second hook nerf is getting compensated for a stronger shotgun with less spreads so those pesky people within 21 meters who dodged the hook still get oneshotted


Did anyone actually PLAY the PTR?

The spread on the scrap gun is still insane. It went from completely useless outside of a hook to just mostly useless.

02/15/2017 09:00 PMPosted by Meringue
The nerf isn't even that substantial, is it necessary to allow his scrap gun to now also one shot things more easily when his hook is on it's whopping 2 second additional cooldown?


2 seconds is actually pretty damn big for a hero that is LITERALLY built around that ability.

It'd be like adding 2 seconds to the CD on Winston's leap...

RH still has nothing to do when his hook is on CD. They'd need to tighten the spread a LOT more than 20% for that gun to be anything but buns.
02/15/2017 09:00 PMPosted by Meringue
The nerf isn't even that substantial, is it necessary to allow his scrap gun to now also one shot things more easily when his hook is on it's whopping 2 second additional cooldown?


You actually tried it on the PTR? Because right now, Hog is a whole different ball park. No longer pulls people in close. Zarya = instant counter for him. 8 seconds on the hook...he's literally been pushed down. Granted, he's still fun to play, but it is more difficult to do any one shots. It's all about checks and balances anyways. Just with the Bastion buff. Yah, he can do more in recon, but can't crit anymore in Sentry.

2 seconds in a FPS is an eternity.
02/15/2017 09:12 PMPosted by Krul
If only this devs would be more focused on releasing more heroes ppl would care less about balance.


you do understand the making of a hero and the people who balance are two separate teams, right? regardless; that argument is downright stupid- if they dropped balancing altogether and solely just released new heroes the game would be !@#$ with new guys being too good without much counters and old heroes being left in the dust. I hope you aren't this ignorant
02/15/2017 09:12 PMPosted by Krul
If only this devs would be more focused on releasing more heroes ppl would care less about balance.


No. Just, no.
More heroes over balancing would just make the game even more imbalanced. and that would hurt competitive, which is Blizz's actual focus.
lol why are you scared about new heroes, they even seem to dont like the idea of new op hero since sombra, so it doesnt matter. Do you not see how repetitive and lame this game is becoming due to its hero pool, custom games wont save it for much longer. Can't believe you enjoy basically playing the same game over and over again since the team comps are often the same.
02/15/2017 09:00 PMPosted by Meringue
The nerf isn't even that substantial, is it necessary to allow his scrap gun to now also one shot things more easily when his hook is on it's whopping 2 second additional cooldown?
You're forgetting, they also added the nerf to the distance at which people are pulled in front of Roadhog. Increasing it from 2 meters to 3.5 meters. I will admit that the 20% decrease to the spread of his Scrap Gun did make up for it, it definitely did make a difference.
Many players seem to think of things in a very binary or black and white sort of way. For example, a hero needs either a buff or a nerf. A lot of players also come at things from a binary point of view, meaning they either see themselves as that hero or the victim of a hero.

We try to approach things from a more objective stance (and many other players do as well), meaning we want to represent both the people playing a certain hero as well as those fighting against that hero.

While "maining" heroes is perfectly natural and bound to happen (even though it is a team-based game where you have access to all the heroes and team composition really does win fights more often than not), the "maining" mentality of calling for nerfs/buffs is often pretty flawed. When "mains" of a certain hero call for nerfs against another hero, they are often not satisfied until that hero has any viability whatsoever.

We try to be as objective, deliberate and careful as possible when it comes to balancing heroes. We don't usually think of things as simply as, "Hero X needs a buff or Hero Y needs a nerf". Heroes sometimes need to be adjusted... and that can mean a mix of tuning certain things up and tuning certain things down. We try to preserve what we believe to be the core of a character and try to balance around this core without destroying the spirit of what the character was supposed to be/do.

So I know not all of you think this way, but a lot of our players are only happy with very binary balancing: nerf or buff. And even though it might seem like that's what happens with a lot of heroes, we rarely start from that place in our balance discussions. We try to represent the players of those heroes as much as the victims of those heroes. In a perfect world, you all should technically be both...

I think it's totally fair to disagree with some of our balance decisions. I just wanted to share some insight as to how we approached balance.
02/15/2017 09:12 PMPosted by Krul
If only this devs would be more focused on releasing more heroes ppl would care less about balance.


We have new heroes coming. I don't think people will care less about balance though.

The reason we don't talk about new hero development more is we took the community feedback regarding the Sombra ARG to heart.
Highly Rated
02/16/2017 08:14 AMPosted by Jeff Kaplan
Many players seem to think of things in a very binary or black and white sort of way. For example, a hero needs either a buff or a nerf. A lot of players also come at things from a binary point of view, meaning they either see themselves as that hero or the victim of a hero.

We try to approach things from a more objective stance (and many other players do as well), meaning we want to represent both the people playing a certain hero as well as those fighting against that hero.

While "maining" heroes is perfectly natural and bound to happen (even though it is a team-based game where you have access to all the heroes and team composition really does win fights more often than not), the "maining" mentality of calling for nerfs/buffs is often pretty flawed. When "mains" of a certain hero call for nerfs against another hero, they are often not satisfied until that hero has any viability whatsoever.

We try to be as objective, deliberate and careful as possible when it comes to balancing heroes. We don't usually think of things as simply as, "Hero X needs a buff or Hero Y needs a nerf". Heroes sometimes need to be adjusted... and that can mean a mix of tuning certain things up and tuning certain things down. We try to preserve what we believe to be the core of a character and try to balance around this core without destroying the spirit of what the character was supposed to be/do.

So I know not all of you think this way, but a lot of our players are only happy with very binary balancing: nerf or buff. And even though it might seem like that's what happens with a lot of heroes, we rarely start from that place in our balance discussions. We try to represent the players of those heroes as much as the victims of those heroes. In a perfect world, you all should technically be both...

I think it's totally fair to disagree with some of our balance decisions. I just wanted to share some insight as to how we approached balance.
Honestly it just feels weird to compensate someone who on live consistently 1 shots 82% of the cast when we saw D.Va's use in tournments drop more than anything we've seen. Her play style has been drastically forced to be changed (no longer really diving in unless it is high ground contesting ) and hog remains the same. But he's still given the tools to fight better outside of hook. Hell Winston sees more use than D.Va now and you buffed his crit box.
02/16/2017 08:16 AMPosted by Jeff Kaplan
02/15/2017 09:12 PMPosted by Krul
If only this devs would be more focused on releasing more heroes ppl would care less about balance.


We have new heroes coming. I don't think people will care less about balance though.

The reason we don't talk about new hero development more is we took the community feedback regarding the Sombra ARG to heart.


you dont even reply to the hundreds of mercy balance threads. People will always care about balance changes but the developers dont care about what we think clearly.
Highly Rated
02/16/2017 08:14 AMPosted by Jeff Kaplan
Many players seem to think of things in a very binary or black and white sort of way. For example, a hero needs either a buff or a nerf. A lot of players also come at things from a binary point of view, meaning they either see themselves as that hero or the victim of a hero.

We try to approach things from a more objective stance (and many other players do as well), meaning we want to represent both the people playing a certain hero as well as those fighting against that hero.

While "maining" heroes is perfectly natural and bound to happen (even though it is a team-based game where you have access to all the heroes and team composition really does win fights more often than not), the "maining" mentality of calling for nerfs/buffs is often pretty flawed. When "mains" of a certain hero call for nerfs against another hero, they are often not satisfied until that hero has any viability whatsoever.

We try to be as objective, deliberate and careful as possible when it comes to balancing heroes. We don't usually think of things as simply as, "Hero X needs a buff or Hero Y needs a nerf". Heroes sometimes need to be adjusted... and that can mean a mix of tuning certain things up and tuning certain things down. We try to preserve what we believe to be the core of a character and try to balance around this core without destroying the spirit of what the character was supposed to be/do.

So I know not all of you think this way, but a lot of our players are only happy with very binary balancing: nerf or buff. And even though it might seem like that's what happens with a lot of heroes, we rarely start from that place in our balance discussions. We try to represent the players of those heroes as much as the victims of those heroes. In a perfect world, you all should technically be both...

I think it's totally fair to disagree with some of our balance decisions. I just wanted to share some insight as to how we approached balance.


Finally they said it.
02/16/2017 08:14 AMPosted by Jeff Kaplan
Many players seem to think of things in a very binary or black and white sort of way. For example, a hero needs either a buff or a nerf. A lot of players also come at things from a binary point of view, meaning they either see themselves as that hero or the victim of a hero.

We try to approach things from a more objective stance (and many other players do as well), meaning we want to represent both the people playing a certain hero as well as those fighting against that hero.

While "maining" heroes is perfectly natural and bound to happen (even though it is a team-based game where you have access to all the heroes and team composition really does win fights more often than not), the "maining" mentality of calling for nerfs/buffs is often pretty flawed. When "mains" of a certain hero call for nerfs against another hero, they are often not satisfied until that hero has any viability whatsoever.

We try to be as objective, deliberate and careful as possible when it comes to balancing heroes. We don't usually think of things as simply as, "Hero X needs a buff or Hero Y needs a nerf". Heroes sometimes need to be adjusted... and that can mean a mix of tuning certain things up and tuning certain things down. We try to preserve what we believe to be the core of a character and try to balance around this core without destroying the spirit of what the character was supposed to be/do.

So I know not all of you think this way, but a lot of our players are only happy with very binary balancing: nerf or buff. And even though it might seem like that's what happens with a lot of heroes, we rarely start from that place in our balance discussions. We try to represent the players of those heroes as much as the victims of those heroes. In a perfect world, you all should technically be both...

I think it's totally fair to disagree with some of our balance decisions. I just wanted to share some insight as to how we approached balance.


I know you guys balance in terms of metrics, were there any indicators that Roadhog was coming out of balance, or were the changes based on community feedback?
02/16/2017 08:14 AMPosted by Jeff Kaplan
Many players seem to think of things in a very binary or black and white sort of way. For example, a hero needs either a buff or a nerf. A lot of players also come at things from a binary point of view, meaning they either see themselves as that hero or the victim of a hero.

We try to approach things from a more objective stance (and many other players do as well), meaning we want to represent both the people playing a certain hero as well as those fighting against that hero.

While "maining" heroes is perfectly natural and bound to happen (even though it is a team-based game where you have access to all the heroes and team composition really does win fights more often than not), the "maining" mentality of calling for nerfs/buffs is often pretty flawed. When "mains" of a certain hero call for nerfs against another hero, they are often not satisfied until that hero has any viability whatsoever.

We try to be as objective, deliberate and careful as possible when it comes to balancing heroes. We don't usually think of things as simply as, "Hero X needs a buff or Hero Y needs a nerf". Heroes sometimes need to be adjusted... and that can mean a mix of tuning certain things up and tuning certain things down. We try to preserve what we believe to be the core of a character and try to balance around this core without destroying the spirit of what the character was supposed to be/do.

So I know not all of you think this way, but a lot of our players are only happy with very binary balancing: nerf or buff. And even though it might seem like that's what happens with a lot of heroes, we rarely start from that place in our balance discussions. We try to represent the players of those heroes as much as the victims of those heroes. In a perfect world, you all should technically be both...

I think it's totally fair to disagree with some of our balance decisions. I just wanted to share some insight as to how we approached balance.


Thanks. Haven't played the Roadhog changes myself since I'm on console, but I'm glad he at the very least got looked at.

Any words on Soldier 76 Jeff? Do the devs think he's in a right spot or are you looking at possible changes?
02/16/2017 08:19 AMPosted by NieR
02/16/2017 08:16 AMPosted by Jeff Kaplan
...

We have new heroes coming. I don't think people will care less about balance though.

The reason we don't talk about new hero development more is we took the community feedback regarding the Sombra ARG to heart.


you dont even reply to the hundreds of mercy balance threads. People will always care about balance changes but the developers dont care about what we think clearly.


02/16/2017 08:14 AMPosted by Jeff Kaplan

I think it's totally fair to disagree with some of our balance decisions. I just wanted to share some insight as to how we approached balance.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum