Icedmanta
There's a lot of discussion right now around the way that Mauga was buffed coming into the live game, specifically how he became more oppressive against his good matchups, and still gets shut down with relative ease by certain heroes in the cast. I personally find this balance philosophy dangerous, as it sidelines possible adaptation against bad matchups in favor of enabling the "hard counterswap" mindset. I don't think there should be no counters, having varying matchups is what makes a balanced game fun, but it feels a little extreme right now.
I'm really unsure what changes could alleviate this issue - what tools does the balance team use to evaluate matchups between heroes, and which knobs do you twist to change the way a game feels from each hero's perspective?
An important aspect of our hero design philosophy is that heroes should have clear strengths and weaknesses to create more varied and interesting gameplay. When we look to buff a hero for example, we want to keep this in mind and typically try to focus on a heroes intended strengths rather than clearing away their weaknesses.
We do want to avoid counters being too easy and effective without adequate counterplay options. There is a broad goal of making sure every hero choice is viable in some capacity and feels good to play, while hopefully not feeling too unfair to play against.
Some direct matchups are not reasonably close, like Winston vs Roadhog, but we don't strictly balance off of 1v1 matchups as Overwatch is a team game (Winston has a good chance to win by going after everyone that is not Roadhog for example).
Generally we've found that when the heroes are balanced closely enough, individual player performance and teamwork has significantly more impact on the outcome of a m...
Read more