Why do companies not tune damage on a character vs. character basis?

[TITAN308]

I understand the initial balancing would be a lot more extra work, but in the long term this seems like a no brainer to me.

[Jademist]

I believe that they tuned the damage of Windowmaker and McCree in a recent patch, individually.

[TITAN308]

I believe that they tuned the damage of Windowmaker and McCree in a recent patch, individually.

No you misunderstand.

Not tune their overall damage, but literally have damage tables for character vs character.

So Winston vs. Genji might have a completely different damage table than a Winston vs. Hanzo.

This all but eliminates overbuffing or overnerfing.

[ati87]

No you misunderstand.

Not tune their overall damage, but literally have damage tables for character vs character.

So Winston vs. Genji might have a completely different damage table than a Winston vs. Hanzo.

This all but eliminates overbuffing or overnerfing.

So you do damage based on who your fighting.

Seems like a shitty way of playing if you change power every time you shoot somebody

[xerus]

Because it's a terrible idea, would cause player confusion and contribute to a feeling of sameness.

Also it's a terrible idea.

[Gib Lover]

Seems like a ton of extra work, burden of knowledge on the player, and not as efficient as just balancing the game properly.

[Deathquoi]

This seems like a completely shit idea.

[NightZero88]

It does occur in some games that use an armor system. Fallout/Skyrim/etc do something like this. In terms of shooters, CS has it with armor but yeah, I doubt it'd happen.

[crakerjack]

Yea I remember asking for something like this back in 2008 for WoW. This way it's easier to specifically tune heroes where it's necessary. But yes, it would be a whole lot more work.

[TITAN308]

Because it's a crap user experience. If I see two characters that have no augments (so base stats and such) and I naturally do less damage to one over the other... I'm walking away from the game.

Based on what? I see some people saying its a terrible idea without actually going into detail.

The only reason I can see it would be odd as first is because we as video game consumers are not use to balancing on this level.

Also, I'm not saying the damage table has to be different for every character, some could very well be duplicates. For example, no I don't see why Winston fighting Genji or Hanzo would be different. It was just an easy example for me to provide.

However a system of this nature could shine in say a McCree vs. Tracer and a McCree vs. Roadhog for example (if we use a more recent balance change)

[minteK917]

Another thread from someone that should stick to RPG and not try to play FPS. I figure it comes with the site lol.

[TITAN308]

Another thread from someone that should stick to RPG and not try to play FPS. I figure it comes with the site lol.

I know my post probably interrupted your chicks with dicks fetish, but you don't have to reply.

[Notshauna]

What you are suggesting is a big no no from a design standpoint, it adds a huge amount of burden of knowledge to a game. It's the reason why most RPGs don't even have systems in place like that, and when they do they make sure to signal to you as a player. Even in deep games things like this which aren't explained and are unintuitive are almost universally reviled.

[Sergar]

No you misunderstand.

Not tune their overall damage, but literally have damage tables for character vs character.

So Winston vs. Genji might have a completely different damage table than a Winston vs. Hanzo.

This all but eliminates overbuffing or overnerfing.

It's already effectively a thing. Different characters have different hit boxes and different health pools and will take different amounts of relative damage at a given range.

[A dot Ham]

Sounds like someone needs to go back to CoD.

[alemaite]

I think it's a great idea. But anything new and different that gets suggested by a normal person and no internet hero and the people on this forum start bashing and talking sh*t. I bet, if this was implemented from the start, people on here would be calling it "new", "innovative" and "what a genius way to balance the game by Blizzard!". Unless you are a moron, it would take you a few days at max to get used to the different match-ups, it's not like every single encounter needs to be tuned, maybe just a few. But go on with the circle jerk. Also this is coming from someone who played shooters since Counter-Strike 1.3.

[alemaite]

Cue the usual victim complex shit.

No, sometimes a bad idea is just a bad idea.

Besides, this already more or less happens in the game due to other factors. It just doesn't have to be coded as different damage numbers.

How am I a victim in this, I didn't even create the thread. And I don't get how it can be a terrible idea and "kind of already in the game and in a good way" at the same time.

[WintersLegion]

I've thought of something like this but no where near the extent your talking about that is going to far. The only reason I thought of it is the fact that it is weird that Widowmaker can kill some people with a headshot but not others because of health. I understand Reinhardt not dying to a headshot as he is wearing a suit of armor with a helmet but Zarya it doesn't make sense.

[TITAN308]

Sounds like someone needs to go back to CoD.

I have never played COD beyond the single player campaigns.

- - - Updated - - -

It's already effectively a thing. Different characters have different hit boxes and different health pools and will take different amounts of relative damage at a given range.

The problem with this still goes back to square one, if you change a characters health to account for a certain counter, you are effectively changing everyones interaction with the character. Which, can we all agree, leads to unintended results?

Using a character to character damage table they can fine tune with a surgical knife instead of a hammer.

The problem is, as the character selection grows, the problem becomes compounded anytime they make a change using a blanketed system.

On a third note (not directed at the person I just replied to) why are so many people here seemingly offended about this subject? You would think I beat their dog and slapped their mother for some reason. I mean I get not agreeing with an idea, but some of the replies you'd think this was Gen-OT. :P Do people not like discussion?

[Nilinor]

Here is the plain and simple way to explain why its bad, and will never be implemented.


To much "paperwork" when picking a champion.

"Ok, so I want to play a tank, but they have Hanzo and Tracer, that do 20% bonus damage to winston, but 15% less damage to reinhardt, but I can't pick reinhardt cause of their Symmetra who does 10% bonus damage at range and 30% bonus damage in melee. I guess I could go Zarya, but I do less damage to their tank and Hanzo/Tracer are too mobile to hit effectively... oh nvm, game is over took to long to pick a character."