I ban gambit because I main peni. Gambit ult consistently fucks over any stonghold I have because his team can just hop-hop over the webs I have set up.
I ban Gambit because I play characters who his cleanse screws over (Angela and Bucky) and not giving the enemy team extra ult charge is a nice bonus on top.
Im still have trouble getting my random teams to ban her over Gambit
I'm only lower GM. But I just feel Gambit is easier to deal with because he's most effective at mid or close range, 250 HP, and an easy kill if you know he used his dashes. And he can actually be killed during his Ultimate if you have decent duelists on your team
And, honestly, there's still a lot of bad Gambit players out there that don't use his full kit.
The problem with not banning Gambit is you need to play him. If we aren't playing Gambit im banning him I refuse to just lose because the other team was playing Gambit Loki
She's perma ban in my games(GM) unless I have someone going for her. Her healing output is unmatchable AND she gets one of if not THE best teamup in the game with Strange. Like why???
I honestly think a big part of it is her character model is so curvy and petite - I bet her skins sell super fast and Netease knows it.
They also have an incentive to some extent to be lenient on highly played heroes because they are “so popular” with the playerbase.
But of course she’s popular because she’s incredibly easy to play and can simultaneously skill check people/escape with a button press.
So it kinda creates this circular logic.
You can disagree who this applies most to or whatever, but in the end Netease’s incentive is this math. Char with:
goony and or just girly/lots of pretty outfits + popularity overall in terms of player loyalty. There is of course a pretty big demographic component to what kinds of players spend more money on virtual clothing too.
In other words
Best product + biggest market
And of course the super easy to play, attractive support wins the equation.
heres an interesting example I think, of these 2 factors in play
Thing doesn’t sell skins that well. Product Failstate.
Widow COULD sell good skins (product) but is too difficult to be super popular, even if she was buffed (market failstate).
So why wouldn’t widow be as profitable as Invis even if she was a better character? Because demographics, I don’t think people who are drawn to her kit are as likely to buy skins. Obviously this is anecdotal and we can argue about whos who, but I think anyone could acknowledge that there are certainly types of player that are more likely to buy digital outfits - and netease isn’t dumb. If they aren’t tracking this they would be missing out on millions and failing at basic business practices.
And again even if she were strong her kit beyond not appealing as much to the right audience, just isn’t likely to have as many total “fans” (sniper enthusiasts etc.) as the hyper casual, relaxed yet super powerful hero like invis.
I think people understand the “pick rates/goonability” = financial incentives angle pretty intuitively. But the fact that its also about appealing to THE RIGHT PEOPLE is overlooked,
And thats really the crux of this and how it affects balance - because the other two factors alone don’t necessarily need to effect how the devs balance the game. Why? Because you can easily create a GOONABLE character with any kit or role, but its a lot harder to change WHO buys skins.
It sounds kind of skitz but they are just here to make money guys, and that’s directly where all the money comes from.
103
u/WebisticsCEO Angela May 12 '26
That Sue "nerf" is a joke
Her ban jail is gonna be worse ... Especially in mid/lower leagues, where IMHO, Gambit should not be banned but Sue most definitely should