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

[TITAN308]

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."

So whats the alternative, games stuck in a perpetual unbalanced state?

Has any game actually tried to do what I am talking about? I honestly have no idea.

[Nilinor]

So whats the alternative, games stuck in a perpetual unbalanced state?

Has any game actually tried to do what I am talking about? I honestly have no idea.

The thing is, the game has counters without having to add/subtract arbitrary damage to random characters due to.. thematic reasons?

Winston is good against symmetra due to his attacks auto targetting the 1hp sentries, Symmetra is great against reinhardt/Zarya due to her charge shots ignoring shields. Genji is great against bastion/76 due to reflect. The list goes on, but the main issue is, although there is a minor advantage due to it, its not so far and away that people are completely useless when going into that match up, as it should be.

Also, what "unbalanced" things are you talking about? The only thing remotely unbalanced is the hit box on Hanzo Arrows (not the damage or whatever) and even that is more of an annoyance then really being game changing.

-edit-

Also yes, but not in MMO/MOBA type games, Fire Emblem and some other JP rpgs do have that kind of system involved.

[TITAN308]

The thing is, the game has counters without having to add/subtract arbitrary damage to random characters due to.. thematic reasons?

Winston is good against symmetra due to his attacks auto targetting the 1hp sentries, Symmetra is great against reinhardt/Zarya due to her charge shots ignoring shields. Genji is great against bastion/76 due to reflect. The list goes on, but the main issue is, although there is a minor advantage due to it, its not so far and away that people are completely useless when going into that match up, as it should be.

Also, what "unbalanced" things are you talking about? The only thing remotely unbalanced is the hit box on Hanzo Arrows (not the damage or whatever) and even that is more of an annoyance then really being game changing.

-edit-

Also yes, but not in MMO/MOBA type games, Fire Emblem and some other JP rpgs do have that kind of system involved.

McCree seems like he would have been a perfect candidate for this system. (for the record my most played character before taking a break is Torb, McCree was like my 4th most played character)

From what I am reading they over-extended with his changes.

[TEHPALLYTANK]

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.

I feel like you don't understand what Armor does in Overwatch (Hint: it isn't just more health).

[A dot Ham]

I have never played COD beyond the single player campaigns.

- - - Updated - - -



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?

What you are asking for is something reflective of your typical FPS. Where it is designed to kind of be a 1:1 balance.

Overwatch is not that type of game. I understand you may think its cool, you may like the look, even the characters... but you have to understand what kind of game it is, and decide which is for you.

In a team-based-shooter your strength is in your team composition and not how you are individually able to perform.

What you are asking for would absolutely ruin the essence of the game and would turn it into Halo and instead of custom color/armor pieces. You just have a different skin and the shit that comes out of you looks different. Quite frankly the game would suck.

[TITAN308]

I feel like you don't understand what Armor does in Overwatch (Hint: it isn't just more health).

Armor is basically a oversimplified version of what I am talking about.

Yes I understand its purpose. Its why characters like Zen have mostly armor instead of HP.

[Nilinor]

McCree seems like he would have been a perfect candidate for this system. (for the record my most played character before taking a break is Torb, McCree was like my 4th most played character)

From what I am reading they over-extended with his changes.

In competitive, mcree is bottom 4 on winrate though, sitting at 41%. It could be just a perceived unbalance.

I do admit he was nerfed before competitive came out. He does what he needs to do, destroy squishies and dies to tanks. He needs more survivability if anything, the only place I would think to put it would be his roll, maybe lower the cd by 2 seconds.

[TITAN308]

What you are asking for is something reflective of your typical FPS. Where it is designed to kind of be a 1:1 balance.

Overwatch is not that type of game. I understand you may think its cool, you may like the look, even the characters... but you have to understand what kind of game it is, and decide which is for you.

In a team-based-shooter your strength is in your team composition and not how you are individually able to perform.

Not necessarily a 1:1 balance, but a balance that can be finely tuned on counters.

Again McCree was a good example where they could have surgically tuned his damage vs tank characters, vs flankers, vs everyone else. It just seems like as gamers we have gotten use to "everything looks like a nail so lets use a hammer" approach.

- - - Updated - - -

Zen has shields and no armor, actually.

Well yes, same concept though. All three react differently to damage right?

The funny part is that such specific character vs. character numeric changes would necessitate a removal of a lot of the factors that make the characters interact differently now and actually result in a "simpler" game in that regard.

So it's a lose-lose really. People have to do "paperwork" to know what characters beat what, AND the game ends up being less interesting from a gameplay standpoint.

And maybe in the end that is true. I'm just here for the discussion for the sake of discussion. I am not a game programmer.

[A dot Ham]

Not necessarily a 1:1 balance, but a balance that can be finely tuned on counters.

Again McCree was a good example where they could have surgically tuned his damage vs tank characters, vs flankers, vs everyone else. It just seems like as gamers we have gotten use to "everything looks like a nail so lets use a hammer" approach.

Right because the game is meant to be about counters and synergy.

You are asking for a tool/equal opportunity given any 1 vs 1 match for each player to be able to kill the other no matter their character choice. THIS ISN'T THAT TYPE OF GAME!

[jellmoo]

I actually think the complexity involved would be prohibitive. Imagine a burst of fire (from say Soldier 76) hitting three targets, with a different damage attribute per target. The system would have to calculate the three values, along with health, armor and shield checks, and then bring up appropriate values. In a large scale battle, these checks could be happening at a break neck pace. Then you might find fall off damage on two of the three targets. At the same time, you're dealing with splash damage from rockets hitting two targets. Now imagine that the Soldier 76 damage is *weak* against those three targets, while the rocket damage is *strong* against both. All of these values being calculated on the fly, coupled with latency could produce some very wacky results.

I think ultimately it would a layer of complexity to a game that prides itself on accessibility. Casual players would be punished based on team makeup, and you would likely end up with some of the balance issues you were hoping to avoid.

[TITAN308]

You are asking for a tool/equal opportunity given any 1 vs 1 match for each player to be able to kill the other no matter their character choice. THIS ISN'T THAT TYPE OF GAME!

No I am not asking for that at all. In no way should a Mercy be able to 1:1 a Roadhog. That would be retarded.

I'm not sure anything I posted gave this impression?

- - - Updated - - -

Why not?!? Damn it, man, make us some indie games!

If I had the money and knowledge I would love to see a game like Ultima Online re-done for today's market.

That was such an awesome game for 1997.

[ComputerNerd]

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.

Or perhaps their idea just doesn't work.
it has been described as a thing already, but not widely implemented.
Perhaps consider why that is.
It isn't some new or exotic idea that nobody came up with before.

So why isn't it implemented widely ?
Because it isn't as good an experience as it is made out to be.

[A dot Ham]

No I am not asking for that at all. In no way should a Mercy be able to 1:1 a Roadhog. That would be retarded.

I'm not sure anything I posted gave this impression?

Because in every example you are talking about (x) vs (y) and (x) vs (z) and (x) vs (w). It shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what the game is supposed to be. Its a team effort.

So its (wxyz) vs (abcd).

Its about synergy with the other players on your team and their characters and countering your enemy.

[Torgent]

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.

Glad you're not a game developer then lol. That's the shittiest method of balancing a game ever. Some character should be counters to others. That's how hero/class based games work. That doesn't mean we should say "Okay, so class B is killing A a little too much, let's make him do 10% less dmg to A but 5% more to G, who was killing B quickly."

This would also be a tremendous amount of extra work, not just a lot. Each ability would have to have X effects. X being the number of characters.

[Jester Joe]

Because why not just tune HP pools instead? It's a lot less weird than having players have to remember how much damage you do against different targets, and it's a lot easier to just remember how much health each character has.

[TITAN308]

Because why not just tune HP pools instead? It's a lot less weird than having players have to remember how much damage you do against different targets, and it's a lot easier to just remember how much health each character has.

So if you have specific character who does to much damage to tanks and you boost health, you've now had the unintended consequence of changing the interaction for all the characters instead of the one single problematic one.

Its the same concept as altering the one characters damage, just in reverse.

This is the system most games we play use and it seems most games we play are in a perpetual unbalanced state because again, we are using hammers for surgery instead of a surgical knife.

- - - Updated - - -

Some character should be counters to others. That's how hero/class based games work.

Again, I have not once stated anything that would change this. I'm not sure where people are drawing these conclusions.

Nothing I am discussing has anything to do with altering or changing counters. At all. None.

The best argument I've seen so far is the most simple one: it would make the game to complicated for the average gamer. THAT is an answer I can understand and accept.

[A dot Ham]

Sure, but what he's saying doesn't change that. That's not the problem with the suggestion.

The problem is that it would replace mechanics-based interactions with statistic-based ones. Instead of X being strong against Y because of how their mechanics work, you'd end up with X being strong against Y simply because they deal more damage, or take less damage, and that's just not as interesting. Mind you, it's actually perfectly viable as a design choice - and I'd wager we could find games that are indeed predicated on such interactions - but just not as fun.

It changes the game completely though. Instead of relying on the strength of your team... it takes it back to individual performance. The player then seeks out specific counters to kill, rather than relying on the synergy of the team. It makes it a 1v1 game. So then it is up to the individual to perform or the team is fucked. Rather than again... relying on the strength of your team as a whole. It completely changes the spirit and essence of the game.

[Jester Joe]

So if you have specific character who does to much damage to tanks and you boost health, you've now had the unintended consequence of changing the interaction for all the characters instead of the one single problematic one.

Its the same concept as altering the one characters damage, just in reverse.

Except that goes into the part of it being more simplistic for people to remember the HP pool rather than adding a ridiculously unneeded change. A player shouldn't have to remember that they do different damage amounts to different heroes, and chances are, if a character does too much damage to tanks, they might be just doing too much damage overall, OR they're balanced to do less damage already in a way to smaller characters (Ex- Reaper, his shots spread too far to do as much damage to smaller targets, unless he's literally in their face)

[TITAN308]

Instead of relying on the strength of your team... it takes it back to individual performance. The player then seeks out specific counters to kill, rather than relying on the synergy of the team.

Isn't this exactly what you are suppose to do in OW?

Like if I would run into a troublesome WM, I would switch to Winston.

It is a a team game, but to suggest that people are not swapping to hard counter 1:1 is a bit disingenuous.

(same goes for a Bastion giving a team hell and someone switching to Genji just to deal with him)

[McFuu]

Not necessarily a 1:1 balance, but a balance that can be finely tuned on counters.

Again McCree was a good example where they could have surgically tuned his damage vs tank characters, vs flankers, vs everyone else. It just seems like as gamers we have gotten use to "everything looks like a nail so lets use a hammer" approach.

- - - Updated - - -



Well yes, same concept though. All three react differently to damage right?



And maybe in the end that is true. I'm just here for the discussion for the sake of discussion. I am not a game programmer.

First and foremost OW is a FPS and needs to have FPS systems.

Out of all the changes they've made, the change to McCree was probably the most heavy handed mis-step they've taken.
The change was needed though, McCree could absolutely melt tanks and was a must have choice. When they made the change to his Fan skill the issue popped up that now the damage he does to other characters isn't high enough unless you have a near perfect fan. Which doesn't sound bad until you take into consideration that his stun grenade only lasts until the character is hit once. Genji, Reaper, and Tracer all have survivability skills and are very hard to kill anymore for a McCree on the flank. Running into another McCree has turned into a situation much like Roadhog, (he who hooks first, dies) is now he who flash bangs first dies.

So what's the fix for all of this problem. You can't reboost fans damage, he will go back to melting tanks. The only change I can see them making is to Flashbang. But here is the sticky issue. Out of McCree's tool kit, Flashbang sticks out as not belonging. It's a very short distance attack and I think McCree would be better suited at a longer range. McCree's range should be about the dash length of a Genji. I didn't mention 76 up above because he should never be close enough to a McCree that he would be able to be flashed. McCree shouldn't be close enough to a Genji that he could get dashed, and he shouldn't be close enough to a Reaper or Tracer that their weapons should do any meaningful damage.

I think the solution would be longer range stun grenade (with an arming distance), and an increase in fan accuracy, to help hit further away targets. This will allow him to reload and normal fire the last couple of shots if need be. It also erases the whole, he doesn't do enough damage to flankers problem because if they are that close, you've mis-played your role.