Balancing for casuals or for pros

General Discussion
Prev 1 2 3 24 Next
07/24/2017 03:36 PMPosted by JammyJay
07/24/2017 03:31 PMPosted by Psychokraken
...
Out of all the pro players that were main Hogs 1 complained about the changes Harblue, no one else. If you find someone else in a clip in his stream or post in the forums that complained please share it with the rest of us.


I never mentioned anything which suggested the Pros opinions on Hog. Perhaps you should read properly instead of getting triggered at the sight of the word "Hog" and jumping to conclusions.

I talked about the forums reactions towards Hog nerfs and how differences in the players skill level had an affect on their reaction to the Hog nerfs.

Ok bro. All the people that wanted Hog changes were low tier noobs and all the pros that did not say anything after the Hog nerf are also noobs. Flawless logic. Yes i get triggered when i see 30k posts a day fromt he same 20 people asking for Hog buffs when a week ago Geoff said they will buff him. I also get triggered when people say ludicrous things like "the dive meta would not exist if Hog was not nerfed" when the dive meta started 2 weeks before the Hog nerf... Sorry for that.
07/24/2017 02:52 PMPosted by CoGLucifer
This is a mentality that more players should have. And the game should be balanced to reward improvement
Ok my then i was wrong and you strength my argument. There is no reason to making a the rest game fit your rules due to a few a small number. i know you all hate that idea so whatever
07/24/2017 03:41 PMPosted by Psychokraken
07/24/2017 03:36 PMPosted by JammyJay
...

I never mentioned anything which suggested the Pros opinions on Hog. Perhaps you should read properly instead of getting triggered at the sight of the word "Hog" and jumping to conclusions.

I talked about the forums reactions towards Hog nerfs and how differences in the players skill level had an affect on their reaction to the Hog nerfs.

Ok bro. All the people that wanted Hog changes were low tier noobs and all the pros that did not say anything after the Hog nerf are also noobs. Flawless logic. Yes i get triggered when i see 30k posts a day fromt he same 20 people asking for Hog buffs when a week ago Geoff said they will buff him. I also get triggered when people say ludicrous things like "the dive meta would not exist if Hog was not nerfed" when the dive meta started 2 weeks before the Hog nerf... Sorry for that.


Never called them low tier noobs. I also never said all the pros who never said anything were noobs. Pipe down mate and stop exaggerating.

All I said was from my own experience on the forums, I noticed mostly high tier players not wanting the nerf whereas low tier players wanting it. This obviously means that lower tier players didn't have proper understanding of how to both manipulate hogs strengths and weaknesses otherwise we wouldn't have seen such an uproar for Hog nerfs.

As for your comment on Dive meta, I agree. Hog nerfs didn't exactly start it and we all know that. But it was a change which made Dive stronger
Balance for casual and you will end up with bad balance change similar to the Hog nerf.
07/24/2017 03:56 PMPosted by JammyJay
<span class="truncated">...</span>
Ok bro. All the people that wanted Hog changes were low tier noobs and all the pros that did not say anything after the Hog nerf are also noobs. Flawless logic. Yes i get triggered when i see 30k posts a day fromt he same 20 people asking for Hog buffs when a week ago Geoff said they will buff him. I also get triggered when people say ludicrous things like "the dive meta would not exist if Hog was not nerfed" when the dive meta started 2 weeks before the Hog nerf... Sorry for that.


Never called them low tier noobs. I also never said all the pros who never said anything were noobs. Pipe down mate and stop exaggerating.

All I said was from my own experience on the forums, I noticed mostly high tier players not wanting the nerf whereas low tier players wanting it. This obviously means that lower tier players didn't have proper understanding of how to both manipulate hogs strengths and weaknesses otherwise we wouldn't have seen such an uproar for Hog nerfs.

As for your comment on Dive meta, I agree. Hog nerfs didn't exactly start it and we all know that. But it was a change which made Dive stronger

Yeah the problem was that Hog did not have any weaknesses to manipulate. he was able to one shot all the flankers available in the game, 2 shot most of the tanks and elliminate Reaper whose job was to elliminate tanks. That is why he was nerfed. Now i don't know if you think that having a character that can kill everyone and everything without risking anything (especially when pocketed) is fair or not, but in my books it was not. So the nerf was well deserved. Did they over do it? Probably yes. That is why Geoff said he will get buffed. Also you can't say that everyone that asked for the nerfs is low tier either.
Like i said before, if pros had a problem with what the community was suggested they could have said something in their streams or posted something in the forums. The fact that this did not happen, proves that silently they agreed too that Hog was OP.
Well, for what it is worth, I think the game should be balanced for high level players.

However, I think it is also critical that matchmaking be reasonable and that top players don't create accounts just to harrass new players.

A couple of other observations:

1. It is a pretty big assumption to assume that these forums represent the community at large. I suspect very few players, percentage wise, even know these forums exist. My son is very active as are his friends and they have never been to the forums or even know they exist.

2. It is also an assumption that most, or any, of the top (pro) players frequent these forums. So the fact they said nothing about them doesn't indicate agreement with what is being said here.

[edit:] I will say that my son and his group are all well aware of Twitch and watch it all the time. They are looking for tips etc. Take from that very small, anecdotal sample what you want, but I suspect Twitch has more influence over the broad appeal and health of the game than these forums.
It's not one or the other but both, casual and high level play, that need to be considered when making changes to the game.

The idea of 'game balance' is not just about all classes being equally viable in one specific skill tier but in all levels of play.

'balance for pros' is an oxymoron because part of the actual concept of game balance is not catering to one group of players over others.

The proper way to phrase your opinion is that you want the devs to primarily value feedback from the highest level players and hope the effect trickles down to lower tiers.

Now compare pick- and winrates of hero after [change based on pro feedback] in all ranks and modes to test your thesis.
It's not one or the other but both, casual and high level play, that need to be considered when making changes to the game.

The idea of 'game balance' is not just about all classes being equally viable in one specific skill tier but in all levels of play.

'balance for pros' is an oxymoron because part of the actual concept of game balance is not catering to one group of players over others.

The proper way to phrase your opinion is that you want the devs to primarily value feedback from the highest level players and hope it trickles down to lower tiers.

Now compare pick- and winrates of hero after [change based on pro feedback] in all ranks and modes after it was implemented to test your thesis.


Hmmm... great thoughts, and they make sense but I am not certain I agree. Balance should be based on playing the characters in a way that gets everything out of the character. Pros tend to do that more than casual players.

For casual players do the characters feel out of balance because they are, or because we don't know how to play them fully?

But you've given me food for thought.
07/24/2017 04:22 PMPosted by Headonastick

For casual players do the characters feel out of balance because they are, or because we don't know how to play them fully?


Heh, perception of balance.

Ironically used about a week before implementing 2 of the most requested buffs by the community, McCree's FB stopping momentum and adjusting the sound of Reaper's VO for Shadow Step.

I perceive BS for the sake of damage control.
...

Never called them low tier noobs. I also never said all the pros who never said anything were noobs. Pipe down mate and stop exaggerating.

All I said was from my own experience on the forums, I noticed mostly high tier players not wanting the nerf whereas low tier players wanting it. This obviously means that lower tier players didn't have proper understanding of how to both manipulate hogs strengths and weaknesses otherwise we wouldn't have seen such an uproar for Hog nerfs.

As for your comment on Dive meta, I agree. Hog nerfs didn't exactly start it and we all know that. But it was a change which made Dive stronger

Yeah the problem was that Hog did not have any weaknesses to manipulate. he was able to one shot all the flankers available in the game, 2 shot most of the tanks and elliminate Reaper whose job was to elliminate tanks. That is why he was nerfed. Now i don't know if you think that having a character that can kill everyone and everything without risking anything (especially when pocketed) is fair or not, but in my books it was not. So the nerf was well deserved. Did they over do it? Probably yes. That is why Geoff said he will get buffed. Also you can't say that everyone that asked for the nerfs is low tier either.
Like i said before, if pros had a problem with what the community was suggested they could have said something in their streams or posted something in the forums. The fact that this did not happen, proves that silently they agreed too that Hog was OP.


I think I might have put my view of hog across wrong, but I actually did have a small problem with the power of pre nerf hog. When I wrote those comments, they weren't based on my opinion but the opinions of others and my observations and conclusions of why some people wanted hog nerfed and some did. It was just an example to show why balance should be based on higher tiers. Not just pros.

And speaking of pros, you keep mentioning them as if I have brought the opinions of pros up about Hog "(which I haven't) so I don't see why you keep brining it up as if I said something false about it.

And I'm fairly certain that the pros would be against the hog nerfs. You assume the majority of the silent pros who never voiced their opinion must be for Hog nerfs. You can't just assume that. And you have no evidence tosh know it up. So you're point is irrelevant.
07/24/2017 03:27 PMPosted by Psychokraken
99% of people asking for balance around pros think that suddenly their ex main will get buffed because he is currently underused in Competitive.


Considering my most played heroes are Ana, Tracer, and Lucio.

To be honest, I've never really been "out of the meta".

And not because I'm a "meta cuck". It's because I found those characters enjoyable.

And I want balance to be around the pros.

So I guess I'm the 1% in your petty argument.
07/24/2017 04:07 PMPosted by Psychokraken
Yeah the problem was that Hog did not have any weaknesses to manipulate.
Right... Magically after his damage nerf, he has all kinds of weaknesses to manipulate, right?

His biggest weakness anyone could exploit, was his hitbox. Roadhog has the biggest hitbox in the game. "Hurr Durr he has a 300 hp heal!", which also stuns Roadhog. When Roadhog heals, he is not invulnerable, he's never been.

There's many other weaknesses he had. However people like you, were too busy crying to actually find away to play around him.
07/24/2017 02:44 PMPosted by unampho
I know I'm a scrub/noob, but the question is whether or not people like me can enjoy the game when balanced for pros. (If OW is to an esport title, it needs pro-centered balance.)

I find that having game balance focused on pros makes the game more aspirational for those who aren't pros. I'd feel compelled to play more if I knew that the reason some things were difficult for me to counter was because I just wasn't good enough yet.

The real fact of the matter is that I want to see progress in my play. If I find that some things are OP as I get better (which would be a necessary consequence of balancing for casuals), I'd actually feel less compelled to improve and play in general.


I've seen so many posts in these forums accusing us of both sides of the coin; that we only balance around casuals and that we only balance around pros.

Both are tremendous oversimplifications of what our thought process is. We feel responsible for all aspects of the game. And when we talk about balance changes we spend a lot of time discussing the ramifications at all levels of play. We're not blind to either side of the game and we will continue to represent both as well. Some decisions will be more targeted towards one group or another -- but always with deep consideration for what that means to the other side.
You can do both. It's easier in the long run but harder in the short term, which is where a lot of game designers screw up.

A game should be "friendly" to new players, and that includes making sure that there's no characters with an easily exploitable and repeatable gameplay pattern that requires a great deal of effort to overcome - IE - Roadhog and Pharah.

At the same time, it should be an aspiration to see at least most of the cast played competitively.

The only way to achieve this is with character reworks. I don't mean number changes - that's just re-arranging chairs on the Titanic. I mean scrapping most of a kit and starting over.

Roadhog for instance - the concept of a tank/assassin with high survivability, burst, and range is a fundamentally flawed concept. There's no amount of number tweaking that can make that character feel good.
Highly Rated
07/24/2017 05:50 PMPosted by Jeff Kaplan
07/24/2017 02:44 PMPosted by unampho
I know I'm a scrub/noob, but the question is whether or not people like me can enjoy the game when balanced for pros. (If OW is to an esport title, it needs pro-centered balance.)

I find that having game balance focused on pros makes the game more aspirational for those who aren't pros. I'd feel compelled to play more if I knew that the reason some things were difficult for me to counter was because I just wasn't good enough yet.

The real fact of the matter is that I want to see progress in my play. If I find that some things are OP as I get better (which would be a necessary consequence of balancing for casuals), I'd actually feel less compelled to improve and play in general.


I've seen so many posts in these forums accusing us of both sides of the coin; that we only balance around casuals and that we only balance around pros.

Both are tremendous oversimplifications of what our thought process is. We feel responsible for all aspects of the game. And when we talk about balance changes we spend a lot of time discussing the ramifications at all levels of play. We're not blind to either side of the game and we will continue to represent both as well. Some decisions will be more targeted towards one group or another -- but always with deep consideration for what that means to the other side.


You MUST choose one side, otherwise this game will "die" (I mean it won't die but a lot of very dedicated players will stop playing it), many people are already sick of it

And please buff Roadhogs damage
07/24/2017 05:50 PMPosted by Jeff Kaplan
07/24/2017 02:44 PMPosted by unampho
I know I'm a scrub/noob, but the question is whether or not people like me can enjoy the game when balanced for pros. (If OW is to an esport title, it needs pro-centered balance.)

I find that having game balance focused on pros makes the game more aspirational for those who aren't pros. I'd feel compelled to play more if I knew that the reason some things were difficult for me to counter was because I just wasn't good enough yet.

The real fact of the matter is that I want to see progress in my play. If I find that some things are OP as I get better (which would be a necessary consequence of balancing for casuals), I'd actually feel less compelled to improve and play in general.


I've seen so many posts in these forums accusing us of both sides of the coin; that we only balance around casuals and that we only balance around pros.

Both are tremendous oversimplifications of what our thought process is. We feel responsible for all aspects of the game. And when we talk about balance changes we spend a lot of time discussing the ramifications at all levels of play. We're not blind to either side of the game and we will continue to represent both as well. Some decisions will be more targeted towards one group or another -- but always with deep consideration for what that means to the other side.


I think that's all anyone can ask for!
Highly Rated
07/24/2017 05:51 PMPosted by Zeta
You can do both. It's easier in the long run but harder in the short term, which is where a lot of game designers screw up.

A game should be "friendly" to new players, and that includes making sure that there's no characters with an easily exploitable and repeatable gameplay pattern that requires a great deal of effort to overcome - IE - Roadhog and Pharah.

At the same time, it should be an aspiration to see at least most of the cast played competitively.

The only way to achieve this is with character reworks. I don't mean number changes - that's just re-arranging chairs on the Titanic. I mean scrapping most of a kit and starting over.

Roadhog for instance - the concept of a tank/assassin with high survivability, burst, and range is a fundamentally flawed concept. There's no amount of number tweaking that can make that character feel good.

Catering for both casuals and pro plays are totally impossible to do with and it will make that game even stagnant. For example, current OW state showed that bad side effect on doing that.
Highly Rated
They still blind
Highly Rated
I can't blame them for considering the lower tiers as well as the higher tiers.

But ultimately I believe the higher tier matters more. All this news of pro players leaving the game is troubling.
07/24/2017 05:50 PMPosted by Jeff Kaplan
07/24/2017 02:44 PMPosted by unampho
I know I'm a scrub/noob, but the question is whether or not people like me can enjoy the game when balanced for pros. (If OW is to an esport title, it needs pro-centered balance.)

I find that having game balance focused on pros makes the game more aspirational for those who aren't pros. I'd feel compelled to play more if I knew that the reason some things were difficult for me to counter was because I just wasn't good enough yet.

The real fact of the matter is that I want to see progress in my play. If I find that some things are OP as I get better (which would be a necessary consequence of balancing for casuals), I'd actually feel less compelled to improve and play in general.


I've seen so many posts in these forums accusing us of both sides of the coin; that we only balance around casuals and that we only balance around pros.

Both are tremendous oversimplifications of what our thought process is. We feel responsible for all aspects of the game. And when we talk about balance changes we spend a lot of time discussing the ramifications at all levels of play. We're not blind to either side of the game and we will continue to represent both as well. Some decisions will be more targeted towards one group or another -- but always with deep consideration for what that means to the other side.


Do any of the Devs or Blizzard's QC atually play the console version or just PC and kick the balance can over to Microsoft and Sony?

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum