OW Hero Difficulty Design

There hasn't been much discussion going around here and I thought might as well post some here since I'm interested in having discussions around here. So here we go ~

--

Not all heroes are made equally hard to play with; some are very mechanically inclined and would take countless hours to be able to exploit the hero's strengths to the fullest or to an acceptable level. Other heroes have simpler kits to be effective with. Mechanical skills can range from movement, aim, precise combos, etc. While some may argue that all heroes should be mechanically difficult to play, I think it's beneficial for the game to have a mix of heroes with different amount of mechanical skill requirement, and generally different difficulty levels in being effective to the same extent.

Having less demanding heroes isn't just to cater for the casual players, though it rightfully does make the game more enjoyable to those players. Easier heroes are also a boon to the professional scene. There already is a split between professional projectile and hitscan players. Very few can actually play both projectile and hitscan at an equal an acceptable level in the pro scene. Most teams also limit themselves to two DPS slots, some are double hitscan inclined, some go for one hitscan, one projectile. However, the ideal case is for both DPS players to be adept at both projectiles and hitscan. Most pro players are inflexible in hero picks to some degree; hardly any can truly flex among all the DPS heroes. With the limitation of players, they already directly influence the DPS meta in the pro scene. This already is a limiting factor to the number of strategies teams can employ and how well they can switch heroes. Teams can counter team by exploiting the weakness in flexibility of team composition. There's been times where projectile players found themselves switching to play hitscan, trying and failing to counter a Pharah, while their hitscan player was stuck on a utility pick like Mei with an ultimate an unable to switch off and better counter the Pharah. The reverse happens too.

Projectile / hitscan aside, given that players are already often limited by their own skill and preferences, it wouldn't be good if all heroes were made to be mechanically intensive. You'd end up with players not having a wide enough hero pool, causing further rigidity in their team compositions. Having easier to pick up heroes means there would be a wider pool of heroes for all players to be sufficiently effective with an increases chances of such heroes being picked to properly meet the situation rather than feeling forced into the heroes they're better at even if the situation is disadvantageous to stay on them. Overall, easier heroes increase diversity in the pro play; players are bound by time, often spent in scrims, practicing, and it would be too time intensive to pick up that many different heroes if they were all too demanding to play effectively. Ideally players should have a much wider comfortable hero pool than we see now but it would take more time for players to practice and get used to increasing the variety of picks. This would also widen the meta seen in pro levels.

Having easier heroes isn't a bad thing. Problem only arises when the less demanding heroes end up becoming less risky and yet mostly equally or even more effective to play with than the mechanically intensive heroes.

A pretty loose example where Seagull talks about NRG's composition in MLG Vegas (at 2:51).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-r5NrjHKYY&t=2m51s

--

Would like to hear thoughts and comments! :)

There has always been a fetishisation of mechanical skill in FPS because it is so immediate and visceral. Every other attribute that makes a great player has often just been lumped under the term "game sense". I think Overwatch really puts an emphasis on these game sense attributes more than any other FPS that has gone before.

So if you look at the hero pool in the narrow scope of mechanical skill you might feel that certain heroes are easier to play, but the fact that I could rank and make a case for my top 10 Lucio's (the most maligned hero) tells you that there is much more at play than "movement, aim, precise combos, etc.". Unfortunately for many people those non-mechanical aspects don't make for good viewing compared to frags.

It's been interesting to see how heroes that were assumed to be simplistic had hidden depths, like when Miro was schooling everyone at the World Cup with his Winston jump pack management and use of bubble to block healing. Or even the rise of Mei back in September.

I don't agree with making heroes easier to play to increase individual player's hero pools. The compromise between being a generalist or a specialist with the backdrop of regular balance changes is a big part of the team building process and what keeps competitive Overwatch dynamic. Watching an amazing Genji or McCree is awesome, but so is seeing a team change composition to totally shut them down :D

Heya a reply!

There has always been a fetishisation of mechanical skill in FPS because it is so immediate and visceral. Every other attribute that makes a great player has often just been lumped under the term "game sense". I think Overwatch really puts an emphasis on these game sense attributes more than any other FPS that has gone before.

Really agree with this. It has such a huge emphasis on team play and individual game sense/decision making but it also doesn't compromise on the fancy mechanical aspects entirely. However, flashy plays aren't that commonly seen though since they often entail higher risks but are definitely great to watch.

It's been interesting to see how heroes that were assumed to be simplistic had hidden depths, like when Miro was schooling everyone at the World Cup with his Winston jump pack management and use of bubble to block healing. Or even the rise of Mei back in September.

Also special mention to having deep map knowledge to be able to exploit a seemingly straightforward hero into something we've never seen before.

I don't agree with making heroes easier to play to increase individual player's hero pools. The compromise between being a generalist or a specialist with the backdrop of regular balance changes is a big part of the team building process and what keeps competitive Overwatch dynamic. Watching an amazing Genji or McCree is awesome, but so is seeing a team change composition to totally shut them down :D

Not entirely sure if I'm reading your first sentence right. From my perspective I see it being unfeasible to have every single hero being hard to play. Pardon me, I don't know if you mean 'we shouldn't dumb down heroes so that they become easier to play' or 'increasing hero pools isn't the objective of having easier heroes'. The first I agree with of course, and I don't think they have changed a hero that way before. The second one, probably a matter of feasibility and increasing hero pools being a side (positive) effect rather than an objective of its own. Also related was EnVyUs vs BK Stars today which basically showed the importance of flexibility in players, which also made the game exciting to watch. Anyway, back to something else you mentioned,

Unfortunately for many people those non-mechanical aspects don't make for good viewing compared to frags.

I think viewer experience is also an important part of hero design. If we have too many less mechanically intensive heroes flooding tournament matches (i.e. tank meta :c ), it could get really boring to watch and in turn hurt its own eSports scene. It would be in the game's interest if they try to maintain a good mix of viability between mechanical and less mechanical heroes, both for player and viewer experience too.

Admirable
the fact that I could rank and make a case for my top 10 Lucio's

please do this sometime