on Niche heroes and why they won't work in OW

I'm challenging myself to be more concise in this one, sorry if it ends up like it always does.

I've discussed this point two years ago but would like to revisit it based on some new realizations. Let me briefly recap what I discussed before and add in what I've recently discovered from my last post about OW and it's mechanics, I want to specifically target OW's concept of simplicity causing most of these issues.  The other point I want to solidify is what I want from a balanced game.  In my mind a balanced game is where the each member of the cast can use their unique strength to have an impact on any map, point or composition.  While they won't be the most optimal picks they should never be useless or eclipsed so significantly by everyone else that there's no point in ever playing them.

Why niche heroes don't work well in OW

The first issue is that a niche hero can't be too strong in their niche.  This is because if they have a 100% chance to win it'll feel broken and reduce player interaction.  Players will feel as if options are forcefully stripped away and they can't engage with the hero in any meaningful way.  Overall we want to promote interactions and allow for counter play.  This is why most specialists in OW don't have a 100% success rate in their niche can be dealt with in some way.  This allows players who believe they are skilled enough to challenge them.  It also allows for opportunities if an opening presents itself, if a hero is too dominate then players will never look for such timings.  Conceptually there is little reason to play a hero that wins 80% of the time in one aspect of the game when you can pick a hero and get good enough to win 70% of the time in all aspects.  The ironic part with this concept is that if a hero is map dependent and must be played because of how strong they are we will still run into the issue of only being able to play the strongest hero.  Sure, we get slightly more hero diversity but it stems from the same issue of being forced to play a specific way.  

The second issue is map design.  In OW you normally have three ways to approach a point.  One side is open, the other is closed and then the main route is a bit of a mix.  This means when you attack a point you can usually pick a way that avoids a specific heroes strength by-passing the problematic hero from decisions alone.  Combined with the first point now a heroes strength can be avoided on top of them having lower odds to win everywhere else.

The third issue is that niche heroes have stronger weaknesses that are more obvious and easier to take advantage of.  I know most heroes have strengths and weaknesses but it's to the extreme with specialists as to balance their extreme strength they have extreme weakness.  When you see a specialists you instantly know how you should play, who you should pick and what you can and cannot do. The simplicity that drives OW design comes back to haunt us because heroes are so simple that they're limited in what they can do.  Players can easily create a scenario where a niche hero has far less usefulness and can be dealt with.  This is where the core idea of swapping in OW comes from.  If a hero can't do something of course you'd swap right? Sometimes, unless it's skill that's holding the player back then it's in their best interest to play it to get better.

The fourth issue is that Overwatch is based on asymmetrical game modes.  Meaning that one team is offense and the other is defense, which further means that one team can change their heroes to deal with the others composition.  On most maps the offense can scout the enemy team and see if they have niche heroes.  If they do scout they can change all of their composition while the defense can't.  Since a niche composition has such a specific use (as heroes are simple) there's not much they can do to defend.

Let me just combined all the former points to see where niche heroes are at in OW.  They cannot be too strong but they also cant be useful everywhere like generalists.  They're stuck to their niche part of the map which can be avoided and if scouted ahead of time because of their greater weaknesses can be exploited by a larger hero pool.  Lastly, even if you did get lucky and picked a good composition against theirs the enemy team can easily swap heroes to avoid that problem.

This is where I had my realization while writing my last post.  When in other games do we see niche heroes play out?  It's normally in MOBAs, and when do we normally see niche picks?  It's during the last pick when a team cannot change their composition.  In OW this is never the case as you can change heroes at any point in time.  This means the primary example of where the community understands niche design is from is a completely different scenario.  We cannot compare the concept of niche heroes between games that do or don't allow the changing of heroes.  For niche heroes to work you cannot allow the enemy team to pick a new way to play the game.  This is where I believe bans won't help Overwatch as much as other games.  Niche heroes excel when the team is unable to change their composition to deal with a very specific strength or because of a very specific weakness in their own composition.  In Overwatch niche heroes have such a vast array of weakness that no group of bans will ever be enough to remove all of their counters.  As long as you can swap heroes there will always be ways to deal with them.

This is where I'm lost when it comes to balance.  

If a niche hero is too strong we run into our first issue. Too weak then they're not played at all.  Perfect balance would be that the niche hero is strong in an area but force them to execute correctly but even then it couldn't be so consistent that opponents don't have a chance. (think long range widow here)

This sounds good in theory but goes to hell when we encounter our next couple of points, map design and hero swapping.  If a hero's niche can be avoided then it will be, if it can be dealt with by swapping then either the offense or defense wins based on hero picks and not execution.  If they're still good when they get countered and avoided then we have the issue that the hero is a must pick.

We could target map design and make it so the point of each map puts players at an extreme disadvantage.  This would allow niche heroes to control their area of the map and then punish players on the point.  The problem here is that map design is labor intensive and I heavily doubt Blizzard would ever entertain the idea.

So do we fully move away from niche heroes?  Possibly, this is what has happened to Reaper , Mei , Bastion , Junkrat, Sym and Torb to a degree.  To move their design anymore could remove their identity but would grant us the hero diversity that we want.  At this point heroes would feel awfully similar so it's a bit of a hollow victory for the sake of 'diversity'.  The fact is that it doesn't matter how well balanced they are at the highest level there would still be skill ceilings and tier lists so there will always be a 'correct' choice that's out of the players control.

While bans could break this up a little bit we would either ban the niche hero for the map that's selected or ban what people feel is meta.  If niche heroes are still picked then the enemy can swap heroes and abuse their wider range of weakness.  The ban does nothing to help niche design in OW.  In any case we kick the can down the road as the original issue of being forced to play what's best happens anyways.  MOBAs see this issue every patch where a pick/ban meta forms and you'll see the same heroes picked over and over.  MOBAs do have the ability to have surprise with niche heroes as a last pick which offers up a great mechanic to introduce diversity but that isn't available to us in OW. 

We're left with a couple options.

1)Fully dive into niche design and make them so strong that they'll appear only on specific maps.  We'll be forced to play a specific composition on different maps but hey it'll lead to different heroes.

2)Fully move everyone away from niche design.  This will make some heroes feel a little more bland as we move them towards generalists but could be done properly, this is what we've seen from Blizzard historically.  The bad part is that we'll still reach a meta like now when skill ceilings are hit and there are clear winners/losers with balance.  The good news is that this is when we can do small balance changes to hopefully get things closer. 

3)Keep design as is, niche heroes are neither strong in general or in their niche.  Overall they will never be a good answer in any scenario but that's what the majority of the community wants.

4)Redesign all maps.  Make it so that the point is a no-mans land and that each niche design has the ability to dominate an area outside the point for their team to launch from.  We do this already but not as strong enough to support each architype.

5)Disallow the swapping of heroes.  Maybe its time to see why locking a hero is required in most other games.  It increases diversity, gives purpose to niche roles and allows for some surprise and deception.  While surprise and deception sound bad its actually great for games and makes for some of the most exciting times.

6)Instead of a traditional pick/ban system only allow players to pick a couple heroes that they're allow to swap between.  Think of this as a hybrid system between full swapping and not swapping at all.  It allows players to pick any hero but removes the immense range of options that are available when against a niche hero.  It really models how the highest level of players play as they are good at a select few heroes, not the entire cast.  It allows for some deception and last pick type scenarios where one team has to come up with something unique to deal with a unique pick.

I really noticed a concept when I first played Diablo 3.  Not only did I fall sleep when first playing D3 because of how poor the game was but I noticed that none of the skills choices had consequences.  At any time you could completely change your build and be like anyone else.  This made me realize that a choice without consequence isn't a choice at all.  This was reflected in D3 in their mobs, items and fights. It wasn't just in the hero builds but also in the game, it bled into everything!  Instead of players learning to adapt unique builds to a fight you just picked the right build for that fight which lead to a bland game.

Having the core of your design being non-committal removes the concept of niche design from your game.  Hero swapping isn't about making a choice, its about never needing to commit to one.  Just like in D3 (which is being changed in D4) there needs to be harsher consequences for decisions in Overwatch - specifically the hero you choose.