Playing the Hero vs Playing the Role
Something I've noticed in the stretch of conversations that pop up around 6v6 / 5v5 (Overwatch 1 vs. Overwatch 2) is the specific way folks (don't) talk about Tank.
Those players who enjoy(ed) it can get dismissed by large portions of the playerbase, because at some point it was decided that
No one wants to play the role
and you'd be forgiven for believing that? Because Queue times are almost always brought up. They were touted (developer's said as much) as the reason for why the game shifted to a 5v5 format for the sequel. Which...also kinda explains why the design and balance decisions feel a lot like throwing wet paper at a wall to see what sticks. Experimentation and all.
I'd argue though, that Tank, unlike the other Roles in the game, has not had very good decisions made at the design level. I would even go as far as to say, that, after the original cast, there has not been a well designed Tank released into either the original Overwatch 1 or Overwatch 2.
Which isn't to say the heroes released who happen to be Tanks are all bad? But there's a firm demarcation between-
A well designed Hero; engaging, fun, interactive and encouraging of any player willing to give them a try.
and
A well designed Tank: a Role/Job within the game with a certain responsibilities that caters to specific players with particular wants.
There's evidence of this demarcation found in other Roles. The Support Role, for instance, has seen a drastic uptick in "DPS"centric heroes throughout the last few years of Overwatch.
Illari, Kiriko, and, Baptiste all saw very swiftly delivered, widely useful, and borderline, automated mechanics introduced with their kits that performed their Support duties for them, while their Damage outputs and options became the core elements of engagement and interaction.
The devs have gone on to suggest this was done to entice more DPS players into the Role and Supports, for the last year, did enjoy a very promising and popular (read: broken) status.
The question of whether this is a good philosophy, let alone a fair one, is another discussion.
The argument I'd make is that these might be well designed Heroes? But the veracity of them being well designed Supports, is pretty loose and unstable.
Switching over to the Tank Role, the demarcation becomes even more stark; Tanks with heavy DPS influence (Mauga, Junkerqueen, Rammattra, Roadhog) tend to deliver a minimal Tank experience in favour of an oversimplified
Lots of Health + Sustain with unique Damage applications.
which, again, brings up the value of the design and how it heavily leans toward the Hero aspect while leaving the Role, largely unconsidered, if not outright minimized.
And this goes back further than the newer releases/re-works, into Overwatch 1. Of all the Tanks that have been released, after the original cast, how many can actually be considered well designed?
Sigma's kit remains a bloated 'omni-answer' with no weaknesses and little variability.
Orisa's kit went from a delay-bot with little agency, to a "Press 1-button every 5s" playstyle between the two games.
Doomfist's Tank expression oscillates between delivering every known type of CC available in such short intervals that few options exist for responding
to
Interrupting his interesting movement for a poorly disguised "window of opportunity" that sees him standstill and let the enemy waste time/resources on a ridiculous damage reduction %, that neither side can garner any satisfaction from.
Zarya's bubbles are now unlocked and, most often, executed purely on a selfish level, especially when combined with the singular Tank format that demands maximum survival when playing the front line. A minimal change of her design that has drastically increased the pendulum of her gameplay, swinging from extreme to extreme depending on the numbers.
Only Wrecking Ball, seems to provide a semblance of unique Tank Design that demands particular skillsets and learning, but even then, how much of that is the Uniqueness of the Hero and how much is that he is an effective Tank?
The argument that Tank is an unpopular role has been carried around from original to sequel for quite some time and is a very well-recognized refrain within the community.
Where it comes into deep question, is just how the design has gone from Winstons, Dvas, Reinhardts, and (old) Zaryas to a dumbed down philosophy on what makes a Tank and what sort of interest there is to be found with designs that are only really just...more health, more damage, and less thought?
And many of the older designs have become not just outdated, but difficult to execute against newer models who carry all their power in their stats and high-value, minimal execution mechanics.
Who wants to play a Role that hasn't had any creativity since the Devs thought about putting a Hamster in a Ball, into the game?
2 notes
·
View notes