On Hero Pools
I have to apologize for taking so long to get this post out. I've been fighting with the idea of one massive post to talk about all my points, but I've decided to break it apart into two posts. The flow of this post is a little different so I'm sorry ahead of time. I'll state each point that hero pools attempts to solve and provide a little background on it. Then I'll state what I believe is the reasoning behind each point. At the end I'll talk about how it was executed and if its implementation worked. I'm writing it this way because in the end all the points are related and its easier to see their relation when quickly consumed instead of taking time and explaining one by one.
So what is blizzard attempting to accomplish with hero pools?
Firstly,
Hero pools are there to force the meta to change on a weekly basis. By banning out specific heroes Blizzard can immediately change how the game is played. Small or even large balance changes may suggest you should play differently but hero pools slap you and force you to change. While it seems excessive; its designed to be that way. It's so players can directly feel and see a difference as soon as they start playing. Jeff Kaplan said it best, its a stop-gap there to deal with an immediate issue. This meets the same need that selected hero bans would have.
Secondly,
It gives the developers some sense of direction when it comes to making changes. Just as an example, lets say the most played heroes are Widowmaker and McCree. With the system constantly banning these heroes we can see that they are the easiest and most likely to win with(as most players want to win and will play to win), which could mean that they need to be changed. This is how the ban system generally works with most other games. The teams will ban whatever hero has the largest impact on the game and normally in the next patch the developer will agree with them by making small balance changes. By working together the developers can stay in touch with the community and address their concerns/needs on a monthly basis. The big difference between selected bans and hero pools is that at times players will ban a hero based on a subjective reason. It's hard for gain data when bans are subjective.
Thirdly,
Hero pools save time by having a pre-determined pool. Game length has been targeted a lot in Overwatch's history. Conceptually I agree with this, players will generally ban the same heroes in most of their games so why not just target the heroes that everyone wants banned? I know ban meta's can form but for the majority of players will ban the same problematic heroes across the ladder.
Fourthly,
Hero pools set an expectation before launching Overwatch. Players should have an idea how a game is going to go before they start queuing. Unlike other games, bans in Overwatch greatly change the game, to the point that some players don't want to play if their hero is likely unavailable.
Lastly,
It removes room for extra toxicity. Just as we have conflicts on what heroes to play, we will have the same issues on what heroes to ban. Currently players leave top 500 games because a specific hero is picked, its more than likely that they'd also quit if a specific hero is not banned.
How sound are these points?
On the first point, the idea that hero pools force a new meta weekly,
I agree with the system, inherently wanting a new meta every week isn't a bad thing. From its premise, there are no real big issues with it. I do believe that a system needs to exist to allow players/developers to deal with unforeseen synergies. While other games give this choice to the player base, they normally ban the same heroes every game until a patch comes out. This means that most games would be the same meta until the next patch. Hero pools allow for Blizzard to deal with a new meta immediately and have players play a normal game while they patch the issue in a much larger time frame. For the entire ladder to feel a large shift in the meta the system has to make changes at a wider scale; the only way to accomplish that is with a decision from above. To that extent, the system is working as good as selective bans.
There are some things hero pools don't accomplish. If it was just dictating the meta then the hero pool would be an appropriate answer, but the dependency on blizzard changing bans once a week doesn't allow for players to react quick enough. For those that watch DOTA you'll know that new metas will pop up in the middle of big events. Most of the time its a brand new idea that has little to no answer. Devs are not all knowing and they cannot push patches mid-tournament. The players have a tool to immediately react to the meta and target new bans. Furthermore selected hero bans would also allow different skill levels to ban for their rank. Heroes that are a problem in GM are not an issue in bronze and the opposite is true. Still, I support hero pools because of points 2,3,4, and 5 as its something that selected bans do not deal with well.
On the second point, the idea that hero pools based on pick rate help direct changes,
The reasoning here is also sound. There needs to be some metric or data that the developers use to balance the game. Balancing shouldn't be solely based on data, but having a set of data that both the developers and players can see is vital to a healthy relationship. We also get data on what these heroes are strong/weak against. Overwatch was first designed like rock paper scissors, so do we see their counters played more or less, and what about heroes they're strong against? Do we start seeing easily counterable heroes being picked more? All of this helps everyone move the game in the correct direction. This is where selective bans could have an issue. The thoughts of the player and of the developer don't always line up. Its often that players ban heroes that are annoying or "unfun" but balance wise they're perfectly fine. It's hard to base balance off of the subjective whims of your average ladder player.
On the third point, in regards to game time and a lesser note, queue times.
I agree with game length being an issue because of one reason, queue times. Blizzard has talked about it in multiple interviews and updates. Just recently, the first point on 2cp maps were changed to give 3 minutes instead of four. They've lowered the time to pick a hero at the start of the game a couple times over the years. There is also the change that when both teams have more than two minutes, the time left will be reduced to two minutes and the time will be taken from both teams. Not to mention a very long time ago 2cp maps were changed from best of 5 to best of 3. Clearly this is important to blizzard and i think its so much because of queue times.
By adding more time to the games we get less players into new games and more players waiting in the higher saturated queues. If games took an hour we would see DPS queue times balloon immensely. By adding 3-5 minutes at the start of the game would immediately add 10-20% more time to all queues.
On the fourth point, about setting expectations
I'll go into greater detail in another post, but the Overwatch hero pool isn't very large. Banning heroes in Overwatch is closer to banning items in your favorite MOBA. You can ban specific heroes and remove entire metas from the game, specifically related to the tank role. Some players enjoy these metas and others don't. Neither player is right nor wrong. If players are in a mood to play something they have the right to know what they're getting themselves into beforehand. Tank players have been vocal about how the games feels and what heroes they like playing. To put it bluntly when Reinhardt is banned a lot of players do not like playing Orisa. It's not about meta viability, its simply about enjoyment.
The other side of the coin, there are players that excel at a specific hero. You don't want these players to feel targeted and if players can ban who they want, they will most likely target high profile names or popular players.
On the last point, about toxicity
I've seen people at all ranks leave games or grief because another player isn't doing something another player thinks is correct. From picking a hero to choosing a tactic. Its highly likely that we would see throwers and leavers when there is a disagreement on who to ban. As long as decisions can be made there will be conflict over them, so by removing that conflict there is one less thing to fight over.
You can see that I agree with a lot of Blizzards reasons for implementing hero pools but what has actually happened?
By far the biggest complaint about the implementation of hero pools has been the method of picking what heroes to ban. At first it was selected by Blizzard on a weekly basis. They hand picked what heroes to ban and it allowed them to gather data about how other heroes worked in Overwatch when the problematic heroes were removed. Such as when blizzard removed most of the hit scans to see how Phara and Ash would operate. We saw some immediate changes after that week of data, which is a good use for the hero pool system. I think this was a great way to stop theory crafting and see how players play in a serious environment when some tools are taken away.
Then that system, which was highly successful for balancing was scrapped.
Now the method is play rate of "high ranked competitive games" which has yet to be specifically defined. The general consensus is that its based on 4k and up ladder games, which i'm completely fine with. Its the best point of skill to balance for as balancing for professional players would be too skillful and balancing for low level players would leave heroes so strong when played correctly they wouldn't be balanced at any other level. Now heroes are banned in the OWL based on ladder play rate which doesn't always line up. That's fine because as heroes are balanced the ladder would eventually play the same compositions the OWL teams are playing and finally those heroes would be balanced but its dependent on one thing.
Blizzard has to actively balance
The ironic part is that now the community that was tired of seeing the same meta is now upset when the same heroes get banned every other week. Why? Because the best players will play the heroes that are the easiest to win with. Once banned they will pick the next step of heroes that are the easiest to win with. Once that week is up they go back to the first set of heroes. This system is flip-flopping back and forth. In a way the system is technically working, instead of 1 meta for 6 months we now get 2 metas every 6 months. Players who use the strong heroes feel like they are being targeted week after week but that's how the system is designed. The reason for this is the same as why point 2 isn't working.
Blizzard isn't balancing
I consider point 3, 4 and 5 to be lesser goals of the hero pool system but you'll see the same trend. Queue times, expectations and toxicity can all be traced back to balancing issues from the start of Overwatch. DPS queue times are long because players want to feel like they're making a difference in the game and DPS heroes are the most obvious example. Player's needing expectations is a throw back to the creation of role queue. As a whole no one knew what the game was going to look like because it was so poorly balanced. If your teammates picked multiple DPS and no tanks it felt like an instant loss. This all leads to toxicity. Toxicity has always been around because of a conflict of ideas, one player things hero X can work and wants to practice it. The team believes hero X cannot work but it still played. It doesn't matter which side you agree with, picking a side at all is still forcing someone to play a way they don't want to. Everything boils down to complaints that someone isn't doing something as efficiently as they can because of balance.
Blizzard has to stop creating new systems, sit down and properly balance the game
The entire premise of a static hero pool system is that while the same heroes get banned for weeks they would then be patched. This would lower the activity of those heroes and then a new set of heroes would be banned. This system can go on for some time before the game is considered balanced to the point that player preference will dictate the meta and the hero pool system can be removed. The idea of hero pools has been and always will be temporary as long as proper balancing is available. If large patching is done on a bi-weekly or monthly basis then that would be what I consider "aggressive balancing". Yet Blizzard has done none of that.
Jeff Kaplan said it himself, hero pools are a short term solution to issues to quickly address issues in the meta. It's not there for you to ban heroes you don't like the design of, its designed to deal with problems that the community cant figure out the answer to. It goes back to GOATs where Jeff Kaplan blamed the community for not finding out an answer in which case they had to create role queue. The truth is GOATs was just too strong, no amount of creativity can deal with a poorly balanced set of tools. Blizzard needed to balance the game properly back then and still does today. Even with role queue, hero pools and map pools, they're missing the entire crux of the issue. They have to actively balance the game. No system they create will ever have as much impact as a balanced game.
I can't come up with a reason why they have never follow up on the balancing part of hero pools. Its beyond me, all I can hope for is that they've come up with a fundamental change that will have to be pushed out in OW2. I use OW2 as an excuse so much when talking about the lack of action on Blizzards side, I just hope that I'm right. I fear for whats in Overwatch's future if its never properly looked at.