Vol wrote:She isn't viable in comp, outside of highly specific scenarios with the very best snipers. QP, anything's viable if the player's good enough. Depending on the hero, you can ensure you're not hit while crossing her firing lane, or you outright can't die to a charged headshot, and that's a huge power to take away from a sniper. And of the heroes who can't avoid her fire/tank it, they can snipe back at her fairly well! Which is why her archetype even works in this game.
That's what I'd be concerned about. I don't want to have to have sniper duels with bad Widow's every single match. So keeping her floor high, but ceiling higher than it is now, is what I want. Little guys don't need to be handling her until they learn the concepts in my graph.
Due to the nature of her class, you can't have it both ways. You make her viable for high level play, and it inevitably makes her a go-to pubstomp for average level play. This is inevitable for any high floor high-ceiling build. So, do you balance for
"comp" or
"QP"? Pros or Joes?
Buffs travel down. Take a look at your graph. If the Elite players were viable in comp, what would they then be in QP? They were already pubstompers. It'd be like having cheats enabled for them. If the Above Average players were now at the same level of viability as the Elites, you now just made Widow a go-to pubstomp class for a significant percentage of the skill base.
Your graph doesn't take into account that competitive play is not just the high level play you're used to. IIRC,
the average skill was 50, and the gameplay was wildly different across the ratings. Below 40 were those usually struggling to aim with Winston, 50s were usually like what I would call a "good game" in quick play, where it is close and both teams are eventually switching up to counter compositions, 60s were usually just premades, and 70s and above were the koreans and genji-based team builds thrive.
Saying that a player, of any skill, is useless in competitive (or QP) is failing to understand how competitive (or QP) matchmaking works. Competitive play encompasses skill from the lowest of the low to the professional level. You cannot say that a certain class is not viable in competitive but is in QP, because the skill you're describing with "QP" exists in competitive. Likewise, the skill you're attributing to "Competitive" exists in QP as well, albeit rarer.
If she's not viable for high level, team coordinated play, I might understand. But, encountering many a well coordinated team with a good widow at the medium+change skill level makes me think that Widow balance isn't a problem. Maybe I'm not playing in a high enough skill bracket, but then that just comes back to the issue of whether or not you balance for the professional experience or the average experience. Pros or Joes.
My two cents:
Fuck the pros.
I have a different issue with Overwatch right now and that is the general hypocrisy of the community. Let me give you an example of two games I had back to back (this was before Ana came out, for balance references, and was done in QP for reasons I'll get to). I had a game as Hanzo on defense. Did really well (thanks, Huntsman experience), multiple gold medals, PoTG, ect ect. Of course, people in chat bitched and moaned about Hanzo being "easymode" or broken and overpowered.
The next game was offense with a new team. I went as Hanzo again, because I wanted more experience with him in order to bring my consistency with him up. This time I did kinda poorly. Got my fair share of kills, but the enemy team was more coordinated. Worst of all, throughout the game, two people on my team bitched and moaned in about "THE FUCKING USELESS HANZO," even going so far to directly
blame me for the entire team's loss, and ridicule me in chat for missing an ult (I didn't miss. It moves slowly, loudly telegraphed, and is easy to dodge. The enemy just moved to the side). It was funny, because some people from the enemy team came to my defense, saying that I had gotten quite a few good shots on them.
Both sentiments are very vocal on the subreddit, too. Every other week there's another wildly popular "lol Hanzo players are useless" post, and in in the weeks in-between, there's an equally popular "Hanzo op, easymode" post. Nobody ever acknowledges the other ideology.
Here's the thing: If I'm not allowed to play a class unless I'm good, I'm never going to get good, so I'm never going to be able to play that class. The
only way to get better at a class is to play it, which means that you
have to take losses.
Unfortunately, since this is a very team-focused game, and losing in the game is probably the least-fun experience in gaming history other than Dark Souls Iron Man mode, your team is not going to really enjoy this. With that knowledge, there's enough incentive as it is to only ever play the classes you're good at and never branch out or try anything new without having the community constantly hating you.
I'm so fucking bored playing Junkrat, Mercy, Soldier 76, or Winston over and over again. The other classes in the game were put in there to be played, and I want to get good at them. But apparently, playing as a class I'm not good at makes me literally Hitler.
So what's the point I'm trying to get at? There
has to be a place where people can play the classes they want without gathering the ire of teammates.
The practice range isn't it. Unagressive target dummies do nothing other than facilitate testing of abilities.
Play v.s. AI isn't the place. Due to the AI limitations, only a small set of the characters can be played against, and the AI behavior is abysmal for training purposes given how unlike human players they are. You absolutely need experience against actual human players in order to actually get the hang of a character and to become able to pull your weight.
Custom games aren't it for the same reasons as playing against A.I. The only benefit of custom games is that you can change game modifiers. This is important for training your ability to get consistent headshots against strafing enemies by setting damage to headshots only and facing a full team of Hard Anas (though IIRC Hard Ana AI behavior was changed to make this no longer possible).
Competitive isn't the place. Competitive is victory focused, and where you play to win, with team composition being very important. It's not the place to be learning characters, even in the lower echelons of skill rating.
Therefore, Quick Play
has to be a place for people to play and learn characters. QP has to be the place where you can jump into a game as an unfamiliar character. This is exactly what I was doing with Hanzo, yet my team leveled more hatred towards me in one game than what the average politician gets in an entire year. For wanting to play and learn a fun character.
The argument could be made that there is a time and place for certain classes, and if you want to learn a class, you have to wait until a need for that class arises, but that's not a good piece of advice for anyone wanting to learn a class. It could be dozens of games before an opportunity to really shine as a specific class comes up, and for someone learning the ins and outs of a character, these opportunities are not obvious. Just like a good turret or sniper spot in TF2, they have to be learned with experience. Additionally, if you're the last pick for a class, there's a lot of pressure to try and find a hole in the team comp to fill rather than learn a class you're not very good at. There's been a good number of games where my class choices are effectively limited to a class I'm terrible at or doubling up with someone else (and then getting the inevitable "oi, I was already playing Soldier" complaints in chat).
There is no way to fix this issue. Team size is not large enough to have a sort of skill buffer, where having a few low skill players doesn't harm the overall experience.
This issues isn't in TF2: you're generally responsible for between 6.25% and 10% of the team's performance in that game. Team sizes are large enough for a reliable bell-curve in player skill to develop such that both teams have a few good players, a few average players, and a few bad players. You can switch to a class you're not very good at, or try out a different loadout, without making the entire team suffer.
In Overwatch, you're 16.7% of the whole team. You can't just not play well without bringing the whole team down. Plus, if you're doing badly, you're actively making the enemy team better by giving them ult. Roadhog is a clear example of this. He's got so much health and so much self-heal that a bad roadhog will just give the enemy team ult. So not only do you have the responsibility to pull your own weight, but you also have the responsibility to play well enough to
not make the enemy team even better.
PvE games don't suffer from this. Firefall (rip) had a similar ability/ultimate system in it where you had cool class(battleframe) based abilities, and a Hyper-Kinesis module or HKM that was a super powerful ability that charged slowly over time and faster when you were in combat. You didn't have to worry about giving the enemy a superability if you were grinding up a frame or practicing one you weren't very good at.
An anecdotal example from Firefall: I had just unlocked the
Nighthawk. This was a traditional sniper. It had a smoke grenade for invisibility, an ability that temporarily increase ROF, and a remote-detonation mine, and temporary High Explosive rounds for its HKM. The motherfucker's HKM was a hitscan artillery strike. Think Widowmaker but with each shot causing a small D.Va mech explosion at the end. Gods trembled. But I'm a terrible sniper, and it was very easy to get swarmed by enemies in FF even on the stock solo thumper (about 30% as difficult as the standard solo thumper). So, I hopped in a high-level group and group-thumped for resources with them for an hour. I learned how to play Nighthawk, I got my fair share of resources, and since enemy encounters could be scaled via thumper level, there was just enough difficulty for everyone to have a good time. Me learning the frame did not harm anyone's experience.
God I miss late-2013 Firefall.
Back to Overwatch: This is what I see as Overwatch's fundamental flaw. It cannot be fixed without the entire core of the game changing. But, the community response can change. Be more forgiving to players playing classes badly in QP. That's where that's supposed to be. Ask for coordination in competitive, but in QP, anything should go.
So I guess what I'm asking for is for Blizzard to remove all chat options from QP.
Or maybe I just miss Firefall's PvE, and Overwatch, for better or for worse, is the closest I can find to a ability and mobility based shooter these days that actually has players.