So what is with the hero difficulty to hero strength ratio in this game?
For instance, why play Tracer when you could just play Reaper? Both need to be rather close, yet Reaper absolutely shreds much faster than Tracer, with a higher health pool and invuln, with an ult that can destroy a whole team, that has no real wind-up time to it.
Why play Widowmaker, when you could play Hanzo? Sure, one is a traditional Sniper, and the other is a Huntsman Sniper, but the point is that his arrows suffer no real falloff damage, and he's free to edge around corners and just spam arrows and do as much damage (Or nearly) as a Widow bodyshot, whilst his ult, while easy to dodge, can still absolutely clear a point purely because of hos large and destructive it is. So what's the point in gittin gud at being a Sniper, when you could just play Hanzo and fulfill the same role? Complete with wall bouncing arrows in case somebody takes cover.
Why play Zenyatta when you could just play Lucio? Better heals, can be rather offensive and disruptive, the ONLY thing Zenyatta has over him is his Orb, but even that means nothing except for in very very particular instances.
There are heroes who have it way easier than others, that yield same if not better results, but do not take as much effort as others, why is that? What's the point?
On that note, why the fuck are thee ultimates which 1-shot or in Pharah's case, absolutely tear everything up within a second, 90% of the time ending in a 1:1 or 1:2 or more trade, when something like Tracer's ult exists, which is meant to sort of do the same thing as Pharah's, Reaper's or McCree's but is much harder to pull off?
Again, where is the balance within the difficulty to reward ratio here?