On Unified Pools (Hero pool week 11,12 and 13)
Few have been keeping track but I never got around to talking about the hero pools for the past 3 weeks. Luckily, unified hero pools hit 3 weeks ago so I figured its a good time to talk about it.
I'm conflicted about unified hero pools but probably not for the same reasons anyone else is. Originally I loved the idea of separate hero pools, simply because blizzard could pick a set of heroes to ban and then gather data in competitive mode on how to balance the game. It didn't matter how odd or weird the hero pools were, it wasn't effecting OWL so whats the problem? We saw the peak of this system work when all hit scans were banned and immediately got changes to Ashe and Phara because of the data generated. This was only possible because Blizzard saw what the heroes were having issues with in an environment where both heroes could co-exist and not get crushed by the stronger heroes.
Week after week they banned specific heroes to learn more about the game, I thought this system was working incredibly well. Not only did it shake up the meta but also provided meaningful data. The only downside to it was that it didn't line up with what the OWL was banning.
I wasn't too concerned about it not lining up at first, I actually thought it was a feature. Blizzard was free to screw with the ladder with little to no repercussion to the money maker which is OWL. Then OWL players talked with the devs, a big point was that professional players couldn't practice on the ladder. On top of not being able to grind games there was a lot of confusion on what patch to play on, with or without echo, with this weeks or last weeks hero pool. Then I remembered when OWL and the ladder were on different patches. A huge complaint from the community was that OWL wasn't playing the same game they were. Players want to see professionals play with the same set of tools they do and see what innovation is possible. Just like changing quick play over to 2/2/2 its important to have the community move in the same direction whenever possible.
That's why I'm on board with this, I think its really important to have professional and casual players playing the same game. Overwatch has always had a split community, specifically with casual and competitive players. Anything to get these two groups together is far more important than getting the best data possible. So now we get less meaningful but still usable data. Such as when the OWL bans hit Lucio and Winston. We still got to see how Reinhardt worked without a Lucio. I see this as a fair trade, but with a unified system, who should we base the bans off of?
The entire ladder, OWL only, Top 500, grand master games? We could pick any one or combination of them and still back it with evidence making it seem like the right decision. As we know Blizzard went with "high level competitive games" which hasn't been defined yet but everyone is assuming grandmaster level and higher games on the ladder.
Believe it or not I think this is the best decision Blizzard could have gone with. I've always said to balance for GM/Top500 and by basing all bans off of that skill level we should see changes to heroes that are over performing at that level (as the over performing heroes will be played more). The problem with balancing/banning for OWL is that you balance heroes for too high of a skill level, making them near unusable at lower levels and not leaving any room to push a hero further than designed. The opposite is true if you balance for low skill levels. You'd have to make heroes idiot proof but as they say, they can always build a better idiot. You cannot design a hero for someone to not use improperly. I can almost guarantee that the reason why Mei is hated at the OWL level is completely different then why its hated at the diamond level. This is why I see GM/Top500 as the best level to balance for. You give heroes some room to show mastery with, while still allowing the lower skilled players to get value from them. At the same time it shows lower level players whats possible with the hero at different skill levels and how to progress. This feedback of a player getting better at a hero is vital to retaining players in the long run.
The biggest complaint about bans at the GM level is that the heroes in GM do not reflect the heroes that are played in OWL, this is true, for now. If you balanced the current high picked heroes in GM then the ladder would fall back onto the same tactics that OWL uses and you'd have high pick rates that mirror OWL. The truth is McCree and Widowmaker do need nerfs and while that may not change OWL picks for the first couple of weeks when the ladder players stop playing them after the nerfs then they will pick up mei,torb and other heroes that are played in OWL. At that point balance changes would start to effect OWL picks. We just need a little more time and of course, balance changes from blizzard.
I've said it before and I'll keep repeating it. Hero pools are only a part of the solution, aggressive balancing must be done for it to show any worth. For Overwatch to be healthy it requires both the developers and the players to work together.
I'm conflicted about unified hero pools but probably not for the same reasons anyone else is. Originally I loved the idea of separate hero pools, simply because blizzard could pick a set of heroes to ban and then gather data in competitive mode on how to balance the game. It didn't matter how odd or weird the hero pools were, it wasn't effecting OWL so whats the problem? We saw the peak of this system work when all hit scans were banned and immediately got changes to Ashe and Phara because of the data generated. This was only possible because Blizzard saw what the heroes were having issues with in an environment where both heroes could co-exist and not get crushed by the stronger heroes.
Week after week they banned specific heroes to learn more about the game, I thought this system was working incredibly well. Not only did it shake up the meta but also provided meaningful data. The only downside to it was that it didn't line up with what the OWL was banning.
I wasn't too concerned about it not lining up at first, I actually thought it was a feature. Blizzard was free to screw with the ladder with little to no repercussion to the money maker which is OWL. Then OWL players talked with the devs, a big point was that professional players couldn't practice on the ladder. On top of not being able to grind games there was a lot of confusion on what patch to play on, with or without echo, with this weeks or last weeks hero pool. Then I remembered when OWL and the ladder were on different patches. A huge complaint from the community was that OWL wasn't playing the same game they were. Players want to see professionals play with the same set of tools they do and see what innovation is possible. Just like changing quick play over to 2/2/2 its important to have the community move in the same direction whenever possible.
That's why I'm on board with this, I think its really important to have professional and casual players playing the same game. Overwatch has always had a split community, specifically with casual and competitive players. Anything to get these two groups together is far more important than getting the best data possible. So now we get less meaningful but still usable data. Such as when the OWL bans hit Lucio and Winston. We still got to see how Reinhardt worked without a Lucio. I see this as a fair trade, but with a unified system, who should we base the bans off of?
The entire ladder, OWL only, Top 500, grand master games? We could pick any one or combination of them and still back it with evidence making it seem like the right decision. As we know Blizzard went with "high level competitive games" which hasn't been defined yet but everyone is assuming grandmaster level and higher games on the ladder.
Believe it or not I think this is the best decision Blizzard could have gone with. I've always said to balance for GM/Top500 and by basing all bans off of that skill level we should see changes to heroes that are over performing at that level (as the over performing heroes will be played more). The problem with balancing/banning for OWL is that you balance heroes for too high of a skill level, making them near unusable at lower levels and not leaving any room to push a hero further than designed. The opposite is true if you balance for low skill levels. You'd have to make heroes idiot proof but as they say, they can always build a better idiot. You cannot design a hero for someone to not use improperly. I can almost guarantee that the reason why Mei is hated at the OWL level is completely different then why its hated at the diamond level. This is why I see GM/Top500 as the best level to balance for. You give heroes some room to show mastery with, while still allowing the lower skilled players to get value from them. At the same time it shows lower level players whats possible with the hero at different skill levels and how to progress. This feedback of a player getting better at a hero is vital to retaining players in the long run.
The biggest complaint about bans at the GM level is that the heroes in GM do not reflect the heroes that are played in OWL, this is true, for now. If you balanced the current high picked heroes in GM then the ladder would fall back onto the same tactics that OWL uses and you'd have high pick rates that mirror OWL. The truth is McCree and Widowmaker do need nerfs and while that may not change OWL picks for the first couple of weeks when the ladder players stop playing them after the nerfs then they will pick up mei,torb and other heroes that are played in OWL. At that point balance changes would start to effect OWL picks. We just need a little more time and of course, balance changes from blizzard.
I've said it before and I'll keep repeating it. Hero pools are only a part of the solution, aggressive balancing must be done for it to show any worth. For Overwatch to be healthy it requires both the developers and the players to work together.