Problem with deadlock existing hero pool - lack of heroes with simple skillset + Hero idea (Healer hero)

[JisBeanGaming]

What I mean are heroes with straightforward mechanics and easy-to-understand skills.

If you've played Dota, I’m talking about heroes like Crystal Maiden, Lion, or Jakiro.

Casual, low-skill-ceiling heroes are essential for maintaining a casual player base. If every hero requires high mechanical skill or deep game knowledge just to play, the game will struggle to maintain long-term appeal.

Looking at the current HeroLabs pool, none of the heroes fit this simple, casual-friendly archetype. In the existing hero pool, Abrams is probably the closest to being a basic tank/frontliner, but even he has mechanics—like mastering melee—that some players might find challenging. What I’m suggesting is a hero designed to do its role and only its role, without any gimmicks.

For example, a healer hero: one that throws heal bombs, shoots healing abilities, and has a global healing ultimate. Dynamo can heal, but his kit leans more toward being an AoE ult-focused hero rather than a dedicated support throughout the game.

There is a reason that in my friend group, my friend keeps picking the same basic support hero in the 10 years ive played with him. I get that Valve loves giving every hero a gimmick, but sometimes simplicity is exactly what the game needs. I believe the game should have at least a small roster of simple, casual-friendly heroes to maintain longevity in its long term player base.

 

[SingularityMaw]

heroes with straightforward mechanics and easy-to-understand skills.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. From my point of view, most heroes are like this, no? You see/use the spell, you get it. Now, what you may be missing is a character with both a low skill-floor and ceiling, where time investment past the initial few games has functionally no returns. And then? I'll disagree if that is the case you're making, since Deadlock just has more room for it.

Abrams

This is as low skill-floor as you can get at the moment, but even he has his own mechanics to play for, and that is absolutely fine. A character that can grow with the game and player-base is just more likely to stay relevant. Wouldn't want your favorites to fall behind.

healer hero: one that throws heal bombs, shoots healing abilities, and has a global healing ultimate.

Sounds volatile, since that being their entire thing effectively makes it their "gimmick" as you'd put it, and then they're only as viable as it can make them.

 

[apidae xylocopa]

Casual, low-skill-ceiling heroes

You don't want low skill ceiling heroes, you want low skill floor heroes. It's an important distinction. Low skill floor heroes are those who can be viable with only a basic understanding of the game itself.

are essential for maintaining a casual player base. If every hero requires high mechanical skill or deep game knowledge just to play, the game will struggle to maintain long-term appeal.

This isn't inherently true. There is no hero that requires "high mechanical skill or deep knowledge just to play," but even those who do require skill to excel such as Viscous see play in the lowest ranks of the game. People will play what they want. This isn't to say having low skill floor heroes isn't good, though.

none of the heroes fit this simple, casual-friendly archetype.

Haze, Dynamo, Vindicta, Mo & Krill, and Seven are all casual-friendly and easy to play proficiently with only a basic understanding of the game.

but even he has mechanics—like mastering melee—that some players might find challenging.

Every character should have something they can practice to be good at. If you like a character, you'll want them to have depth. Anyone can play Vindicta but it's satisfying to learn basic techniques like super jumps when you love that character. High ceilings are healthy and fun.

What I’m suggesting is a hero designed to do its role and only its role, without any gimmicks.

This is very restrictive and not fun. This is, realistically, a bit of an insult to the intelligence of the player. We can trust people to be smart enough to pick up a character, learn the basics, follow a build order, and learn more than that if they want to.

Dynamo can heal, but his kit leans more toward being an AoE ult-focused hero rather than a dedicated support throughout the game.

That is being a support. Setting up your team for follow ups is supporting them, using your warp to save your team is supporting them, and using his heal with Healing Booster + something like Healing Beam is very heal oriented.

 

[gibnewitems]

Casual, low-skill-ceiling heroes are essential for maintaining a casual player base. If every hero requires high mechanical skill or deep game knowledge just to play, the game will struggle to maintain long-term appeal.

Maybe? I don't think every game needs this, but i guess it helps?

For example, a healer hero: one that throws heal bombs, shoots healing abilities, and has a global healing ultimate. Dynamo can heal, but his kit leans more toward being an AoE ult-focused hero rather than a dedicated support throughout the game.

So you want AoE heal spam in this game? That's a far cry from "casual, low-skill-ceiling heroes".

 

[Monk_Fruit]

Yeah i hope they make a healing character kinda like medic from tf2. If they do the medic mains will be really happy lol

 

[harmony]

I mean the goal is fundamentally to make a good game, right? Your proposition of strictly defined roles is, to me, antithetical to the game's mechanics. At least in my interpretation, the lack of roles and the flexibility of items gives the players full control over the macro game as well as the micro, a la StarCraft. You define your role through how you build, what your team builds, how you respond to what your opponents build, who you play and what items synergize, and the 'role' you create for yourself is not necessarily archetypal, nor is it fixed throughout the entire match. The macro game is its own ebb and flow, much like the micro game. Making heroes that are functionally strict and inflexible would ruin precisely what makes this game unique and intriguing. Doing that effectively removes engagement and decision making, like you said it would lessen the player's reliance on game knowledge and mechanical skill, which makes for a different kind of game, and in my opinion that's not the direction this game should take.

I think what would help a casual playerbase understand this game more is if the game were more clear about this mindset, and maybe had a more in depth tutorial centred around understanding your motivation for buying items, the general concept of counterbuying and synergizing with your team, though generally this comes with experience. It would seem many players go in expecting a more traditional hero shooter or MOBA where the macro is very fixed, with rigid roles and rigid ways of approaching objectives, so they tend not to engage with the macro at all, they just pick a build and follow it exactly, and they get a little lost past laning phase. To me that is less a failure of the game in mechanically accomodating casual players and moreso a barrier in communication. In my own experience of communicating this game to friends, communicating that the players are more or less in full control over the macro, that how you play objectives, what you buy and what your opponents buy changes with every match and throughout each match, helped them greatly.

It's notable that Hopoo is working on this game, as conceptually it reminds me of the fantastic Risk of Rain, where the individual characters are relatively straightforward, though distinct with their own identity, and the broader complexity comes from mechanical skill, the variety of items and how they interact with your character's abilities, and overall how you build your character. Deadlock has a similar structure, and playing against other players really emphasizes how your build, how the macro, and how the micro changes with each match. It's wonderful!

 

[JisBeanGaming]

It seems like everyone is taking my healing hero example too seriously. The healer is just an example to keep this discussion relevant to the hero idea forums—this isn’t meant to be purely a discussion thread.

What I’m saying is that none of the current heroes fall under a pure support category. They always seem to be a mix or blend of roles. Take Dynamo as an example: if I mess up Dynamo’s ultimate late game, I’m going to get flamed by my team. I’d rather play a hero that focuses solely on support without that kind of pressure. Dynamo, much like Enigma in Dota, carries the weight of the game on their ultimate, which can be overwhelming. What if I just want to play a pure support hero and chill?

To clarify my original point: "What I mean are heroes with straightforward mechanics and easy-to-understand skills."

I might’ve phrased it poorly earlier. What I mean is that the role these heroes serve should be straightforward. A pure support role doesn’t currently exist in Deadlock, and I believe that heroes designed specifically for one role are a great way to attract casual players.

I’m not saying dynamic, multi-role heroes shouldn’t exist, nor am I suggesting they’re bad for the game. What I’m saying is that heroes with skillsets dedicated purely to support should also exist in the hero pool. Without them, the game might struggle to appeal to a broader, more casual audience.

 

[haydn]

I think the ambiguity of roles is one of the things that gives deadlock heroes their depth. Depending on the item build it can steer a hero into more of a support, dps, tank, or power novelty. Making a hero with straight forward/definitive role abilities might severely reduce the pool of useful items.

 

[harmony]

A pure support role doesn’t currently exist in Deadlock, and I believe that heroes designed specifically for one role are a great way to attract casual players.

What I'm trying to communicate, and what I feel others are saying here as well, is that this idea of a 'role' at all is antithetical to the game's identity. What you're proposing sounds to me like putting frets on a violin. Strict roles wouldn't help Deadlock appeal to a casual crowd, it would change Deadlock into a different game. Sure that new game might be more casual friendly, but it also wouldn't be Deadlock.

I might’ve phrased it poorly earlier. What I mean is that the role these heroes serve should be straightforward. A pure support role doesn’t currently exist in Deadlock, and I believe that heroes designed specifically for one role are a great way to attract casual players.

The heroes themselves, if you strip away the macro, are fairly straightforward and easy to understand. Yes there are synergies to account for, but your example of Dynamo is an illustration that in a purely micro lens, there isn't much specialization among the heroes, they all have an equal and shared responsibility. But the complexity doesn't come strictly from heroes, it comes from their interaction with the macro. Making a strictly support hero would entail not allowing them to build into a non-support or have any flexibility in their build, which means limiting their engagement with the macro, ergo stopping them from buying certain items, and forcing them to play in a particular way that stays roughly the same across all matches. To me that's like playing 'less' of the game, the game would be making decisions for you. Making a strictly "chill" support entails very severely limiting their scope, and at that point we're playing a different game entirely. Part of the appeal of Deadlock is that having a strictly healer character, a strictly damage character, etc. that doesn't have any other function on your team would be a detriment. The exact thing you need to be doing at any given time ebbs and flows with the overall structure of the match. That indeed demands much from the player by way of mechanical ability, knowledge, and focus, so if you want to play a game where you get to just chill and support, I would say play a different game.

(edit: I would also like to add that e.g. lots of support exists in the game and it's all pretty non-traditional and unique in terms of identity and function, like Viscous cube, Kelvin ult can be used to box in opponents and to protect teammates, items like Rescue beam, Geist's life drain can be used to heal and damage, Vindicta's tether, Ivy ult to help a teammate escape, there are many ways to support, creative ways that aren't strictly support tools, and they are all fairly demanding in a sense, which is all amazing! To me, having all that and much more is miles more interesting than having a few support-only characters, it's very dynamic.)

Without them, the game might struggle to appeal to a broader, more casual audience.

Not every game has to appeal to the same audience. Quite a lot of people find the game as-is very meaningful. That isn't to say Deadlock doesn't appeal to more casual players, but my argument is that rather than change the identity of the game to generate appeal, merely communicate the existing appeal more clearly. Given Valve's enormous reach, I would imagine the game would very easily find a very large audience on release regardless.

 

[JisBeanGaming]

Not every game has to appeal to the same audience. Quite a lot of people find the game as-is very meaningful. That isn't to say Deadlock doesn't appeal to more casual players, but my argument is that rather than change the identity of the game to generate appeal, merely communicate the existing appeal more clearly. Given Valve's enormous reach, I would imagine the game would very easily find a very large audience on release regardless.

Why are you all assuming i want to change the core identity of the game?

My proposal is to add to the existing hero pool. It is to add a small subset of straightforward, support-focused heroes to complement the current roster. For example, introducing 10 simpler heroes in a pool of 50 wouldn't fundamentally change deadlock's identity but would make the game more accessible to newer players. Deadlock will still remains dynamic for veterans since they will pick the more mechanically skilled heroes while the beginners will AT LEAST have the option to pick heroes with simpler skillset, thus providing a clearer entry points for those less familiar with the core gameplay loop of the game itself. Because remember newer players not only have to learn the heroes, they have to learn all the mechanic of the game itself.

Heroes with flexible roles are excellent but can overwhelm newer players with analysis paralysis. Instead of figuring out through multiple games what my hero can excel at, the basic heroes are simply there for training wheel for the beginner players.

Simplified hero designs targeted at easing this cognitive load allow new players to participate meaningfully while they learn the game’s deeper mechanics. Catering to a specific, casual-oriented subset doesn’t preclude the game from continuing to serve its core audience—it simply broadens its appeal and ensures a stronger, more diverse player base.

(edit: I would also like to add that e.g. lots of support exists in the game and it's all pretty non-traditional and unique in terms of identity and function, like Viscous cube, Kelvin ult can be used to box in opponents and to protect teammates, items like Rescue beam, Geist's life drain can be used to heal and damage, Vindicta's tether, Ivy ult to help a teammate escape, there are many ways to support, creative ways that aren't strictly support tools, and they are all fairly demanding in a sense, which is all amazing! To me, having all that and much more is miles more interesting than having a few support-only characters, it's very dynamic.)

And that's exactly my point. Dota started out with a mix of heroes that can support, and can also carry. Non-traditional supports were non existent (this was later in the game where roles were more defined instead of just all randoming heroes and going to random lanes era). If the game is following the design philosophy of Dota and i dont know if it is. Its basically like designing the game by introducing Monkey King, Kez, Batrider, Snapfire and etc first. These heroes are greatly designed heroes, but where are the CM, the LION, the Jakiro, the Vengeful Spirit in the game?

 

[harmony]

Why are you all assuming i want to change the core identity of the game?

It is to add a small subset of straightforward, support-focused heroes to complement the current roster.

These straightforward heroes don't exist in a vacuum. The reason they would be more straightforward and focused compared to other heroes would be because they wouldn't interact with the macro, which changes how the game is played overall. This would be like adding some checkers pieces to chess, it's not a trivial change, even one piece radically changes the strategy. I'm also reminded of fighting games, where there is a subset of players that want characters that don't demand the skills required to play the game, without understanding how that impacts the game overall. As well, adding characters like this either means that they would be severely under-powered as they can't flow around the opponents and are easy to counter, or severely over-powered as they would have to compensate for their lack of control.

will still remains dynamic for veterans since they will pick the more mechanically skilled heroes while the beginners will AT LEAST have the option to pick heroes with simpler skillset, thus providing a clearer entry points for those less familiar with the core gameplay loop

I think what you want is a better tutorial. Speaking about the micro specifically, this is a shooter game with an in-depth movement system, it will always demand a level of mechanical skill, but the core of my point is the macro as that is what I believe is the main obstacle, the knowledge and game sense, not the micro. I understand that onboarding is a challenge and our less inclined friends might leave the game quickly after not being able to get an instant grip on it, but if the idea is that better players would move onto the core game, then it would be better to have a more robust tutorial instead. Adding characters that don't interact with the macro doesn't teach players to play the macro, it teaches them to ignore the macro, and that will create a general sentiment either that the macro isn't worth paying attention to, or that the game is frustrating because focusing solely on micro is a detriment. I'm not saying the game is 'hardcore' or that it's only for 'skillful players', I'm saying that this doesn't teach anyone how to play the game or give them an environment in which to improve. It hides mechanics and prevents them from learning. While yes, focusing only on what's in front of you is a lower cognitive load, a match is not a tutorial in the sense that the intention in a public lobby is to be the game, not a prelude to the game. I think the game could absolutely use a more involved tutorial, especially one where you are guided through the overall flow of a match as though you were playing with a knowledgeable friend, but tutorial heroes in actual matches aren't a good idea in my opinion.

As well, if you're so early in the game that you have no idea what's going on, ideally the matchmaker will be pairing you with others who also have no idea, and you'd all be learning together, which is usually pretty comfortable. Right now the playerbase is very small and very well established with the mechanics, it's hard to just jump in, especially without someone to hold your hand, naturally since it is very early in development. Unfortunately, making a robust tutorial right now would also be an unwise investment as much of the game hasn't even been nailed down yet, it would be out of date in a matter of months.

And that's exactly my point. Dota started out with a mix of heroes that can support, and can also carry.

My point in that statement about the variety of support was to illustrate how the lack of strict role definition allows everyone to interact and specialize as they see fit. I'm not on the team, I don't know what the developer's intentions are, but this is what I can see, I think what they've done is brilliant, and I would rather they help players learn how to take advantage of the myriad of tools in the game rather than teach them to ignore them.

 

[Monk_Fruit]

What I’m saying is that heroes with skillsets dedicated purely to support should also exist in the hero pool. Without them, the game might struggle to appeal to a broader, more casual audience.

For example, a healer hero: one that throws heal bombs, shoots healing abilities, and has a global healing ultimate. Dynamo can heal, but his kit leans more toward being an AoE ult-focused hero rather than a dedicated support throughout the game.

There are many problems with this restricting to "roles" such as a pure support/healer character in Deadlock,
1. it's a nightmare to balance and i feel like it will either be overpowered as hell & be used in every team comp OR completely dead & never picked at all
2. it makes people not buy the green healing items as you can just get someone else to heal you
3. the restriction of the role makes it limiting to the types of builds you can buy and i feel like that's the core of deadlock, which is the freedom to build whatever the hell you want and see if it works or not

If i wanted to play a purely "support" role or a pure "tank" role i would go play something like Marvel Rivals or Overwatch or an MMO. There shouldn't be a "im gonna sit back and let my team do almost all the work whilst i heal them" laid back type of character in Deadlock.
I agree with you that there should be simple heroes but those already exists within the game, there is a learning curve to every character but in terms of maintaining a casual audience i don't think there's gonna be a problem with it as long as Valve makes a good tutorial which allows players to really understand the strategies of specific heroes, mechanics and how to play in the different phases of the game (laning & post-laning). If league, cs2 or valorant can maintain a casual audience (and these are games with intricate mechanics) then i don't see why Deadlock can't, people just need to understand that Deadlock is played differently from anything they've played before. I feel like online guides, streams and videos will help newer players play as well.

 

[BossBaragon]

These straightforward heroes don't exist in a vacuum. The reason they would be more straightforward and focused compared to other heroes would be because they wouldn't interact with the macro, which changes how the game is played overall. This would be like adding some checkers pieces to chess, it's not a trivial change, even one piece radically changes the strategy. I'm also reminded of fighting games, where there is a subset of players that want characters that don't demand the skills required to play the game, without understanding how that impacts the game overall. As well, adding characters like this either means that they would be severely under-powered as they can't flow around the opponents and are easy to counter, or severely over-powered as they would have to compensate for their lack of control.

This is a real thing in game design. When a character's skill ceiling is too low and their design is too simple, it causes them to be volatile within their "power scaling", because they don't interact with all of the game's mechanics to prioritize "being simple". What this causes is them being better, because otherwise, why would you play one of the more complex characters when this one is just EASIER to play? There's no reason to play a character that's mechanically complex, assuming both the simple and the complex characters are designed to be "balanced". So the only thing they can do is nerf the simple one or add complexity to them.

Defining heroes with strict archetypes is not only boring, but can ruin this game's balance. This game clearly isn't like Overwatch. The role you take on in a game is based on your own playstyle and your own build. I've played Lady Gheist and defined myself as a healer, built like a healer, and played like one. No need for some dedicated healer role, I was doing just fine with her using a single healing skill and the items in the shop.

Deadlock is a unique game and it's visible almost every character have high skill ceiling to an extent. There's such mechanical depth to characters like Dynamo, who at first glance looks like a support, but can play in so many ways. Like others have mentioned, a better tutorial would help you understand the way "roles" work in this game and how they're user-defined.

 

[JisBeanGaming]

This is a real thing in game design. When a character's skill ceiling is too low and their design is too simple, it causes them to be volatile within their "power scaling", because they don't interact with all of the game's mechanics to prioritize "being simple". What this causes is them being better, because otherwise, why would you play one of the more complex characters when this one is just EASIER to play? There's no reason to play a character that's mechanically complex, assuming both the simple and the complex characters are designed to be "balanced". So the only thing they can do is nerf the simple one or add complexity to them.

This sentence does not make sense at all. A character given the most basic skillset can be pushed to its limit by focusing on the macro aspect of the game. Gank rotations, items prioritization, etc.

Lion/CM/hard supports in dota has a basic skillset, yet in the hands of a pro-player they can push the hero beyond its limit and still make incredibly insane macro plays.

You are also confusing mechanical complexity with skill convolutedness.

Just because a skill does A B, C and D does not mean it is more mechanically complex than a skill that just does A + B. Heck even a skill that just does A can be pushed beyond its limit.

 

[JisBeanGaming]

There are many problems with this restricting to "roles" such as a pure support/healer character in Deadlock,
1. it's a nightmare to balance and i feel like it will either be overpowered as hell & be used in every team comp OR completely dead & never picked at all
2. it makes people not buy the green healing items as you can just get someone else to heal you
3. the restriction of the role makes it limiting to the types of builds you can buy and i feel like that's the core of deadlock, which is the freedom to build whatever the hell you want and see if it works or not

Again you are focusing too much on the healer only aspect of the role. Like i said, i only recommended a hero based on a linear role because it would be less convoluted to understand how the hero would be played. The hero can be something like a hero does stun, a hero boost movement speed, a hero does stuff that actively improve his role as being a support.

The game already has heroes that are known as being strong dual lane partner in the game (Ivy, Dynamo, Kelvin) There is no such reason for you to be hating on a hero that can actively heal when there is already a plethora of heroes that does the same thing. And there is nothing wrong with having a single hero like Sage from Valorant that a casual player can first-pick so they can learn the ins and outs of a game before delving into the much deeper understanding of the game.

 

[JisBeanGaming]

These straightforward heroes don't exist in a vacuum. The reason they would be more straightforward and focused compared to other heroes would be because they wouldn't interact with the macro, which changes how the game is played overall. This would be like adding some checkers pieces to chess, it's not a trivial change, even one piece radically changes the strategy. I'm also reminded of fighting games, where there is a subset of players that want characters that don't demand the skills required to play the game, without understanding how that impacts the game overall. As well, adding characters like this either means that they would be severely under-powered as they can't flow around the opponents and are easy to counter, or severely over-powered as they would have to compensate for their lack of control.

I truly think you are overthinking this too much. That checker piece to chess analogy does not make sense at all.

I'll give you a real-life example: my friend wanted to play this game with me, so i showed him a couple of heroes that could potentially be a good support partner in lane. He tried Ivy, he didnt understand how the tether skill work. Too hard to understand. Tried to explain how it worked in game, very hard to explain it while playing the game at the same time. He ended up playing seven as a stun support in my lane. But you know what happens? Teammate flamed him for playing a support hero on a seven instead of farmer carry.

Now imagine if he had a pure support character, (again it doesnt have to be a healer) it can be a stunner, or whatever, supports me in lane then we can have a good time without being flamed for taking a potentially carry hero away from another player.

It is insane to think that introducing a support role in a game like deadlock would break the game. When it could potentially solve a problem, that exists. Saying pure support heroes are impossible is a completely insane argument to make when there is support roles in every moba game, even shooters. Just because deadlock doesn't have it yet, does not mean it will break the game, there are biweekly balance patch for a reason.

Now my friend on the other hand due to the lack of accessible heroes that could support me in lane, he eventually stopped playing. It's frustrating to think that the barrier to entry for playing a support character requires using heroes with high mechanical skill. This design choice is unnecessary and limit accessibility and discourages new players to even try the game in the first place.

 

[haydn]

What about dynamo or mcginnis with AOE healing? Making builds around those abilities? Or the active healing items?

There's a disagreement in this thread about how straight forward you want a hero to be. Many of the hero's abilities can be itemized toward a subclass. That depth of options gives the game it's unique playstyle. I think if a hero had 2 or more "healing" abilities it could be volatile depending how it's designed.

 

[BossBaragon]

This sentence does not make sense at all. A character given the most basic skillset can be pushed to its limit by focusing on the macro aspect of the game. Gank rotations, items prioritization, etc.

Lion/CM/hard supports in dota has a basic skillset, yet in the hands of a pro-player they can push the hero beyond its limit and still make incredibly insane macro plays.

You are also confusing mechanical complexity with skill convolutedness.

Just because a skill does A B, C and D does not mean it is more mechanically complex than a skill that just does A + B. Heck even a skill that just does A can be pushed beyond its limit.

I was moreso responding to the general game design aspect of the whole skill ceiling, not really specifically talking about your own point.

But to respond, that's because your own understanding of macro is limited. Macro is more than just "plays", it can also include flexibility and how you build your own character based on what's going on in the game. Making a pure healer for example removes that specific aspect of the macro and creates a volatile imbalance, because that hero can now ONLY build healer. This specifically removes the hero from the same macro "wavelength" of others.

As others have mentioned, not being on the same "wavelength" can cause a myriad of issues that all you can do is brute force to "fit" in properly. This isn't bad on its own, but the point is that this isn't what Deadlock is trying to be, and doing so would change the game drastically. It isn't trying to be a game where heroes have overly quirky niche, but rather, have a general identity and can build based on both player preference and based on how the match is doing.

You can make the thought experiment in your head. Imagine you have a game with three characters: one that deals damage, one that heals, and one that shields. They don't do anything else than that. Now let's try the opposite of what you're trying to do: introduce a character who is overly flexible based on build. Can you see the issues with it already? If they are flexible and just as good as any other role, then everyone will take them, because it's better to be flexible than be locked to a role, if you can do the role just as well. You might say "they're not as good to compensate for the flexibility", which then no one will take them, because they're weaker than the other heroes.

This is why some people talked about the hero in question being severely underpowered or overpowered. It's very difficult to reach a proper middleground when the core design identity of the characters you're making is different.

This isn't an exhaustive list, but off the top of my head, here's a few problem that can arise build-wise from overly inflexible characters;
- You can pre-counter that character. Once countered, this character has no other way of building around it. Meanwhile, something like Lady Gheist can counter your antihealing by building gun and focusing on a weapon gameplay instead.
- The character may be forced to build countering options that aren't effective for them. For example, a character who, for example, does no spirit damage or scaling, would lose out when building Knockdown.
- The character wouldn't interact well with the 4 Weapon/Vitality/Spirit system. As mentioned just above, every characters need to pick 4 of them. What is the pure healer going to use for weapon? Sure, there are some options. But for the most part, it will be very inflexible. This will mean their build, especially in those specific categories, will be very predictable, and potentially counterable.

Not only is the character more boring to build and theorycraft with, they're also more boring to engage with. They are predictable and can be pre-countered. And as mentioned from the tought experiment above, if they can't be pre-countered, why would you pick the rest of the cast when you can stick to just OW heroes? The macro aspect we're mentioning here is the flexibility.

You might say "but that healer could still do SOME damage and that weapon character can still do a LITTLE bit of spiri-" we already have that. As the message above mentioned, characters basically make their own archetype based on their builds. Haze, for example, is a character who focuses primarily on shooting, but still has ways of having a spirit build along with it. I'm a spirit Haze player, and this makes it so that (smart) people know they can't pre-build bullet armor and metal skin to deal with me, because they don't know what build I'm going for. And I COULD change it at any time within the game based on what I have. I could start off with some bullet and convert fully to spirit by end-game. This is the beauty of Deadlock, and why adding overly simple and inflexible heroes just wouldn't be a great thing.