Really? Was it that impactful towards the player base?
RQ is fine for comp. They should have left it alone in QP / created an Unranked mode in the Competitive Tab for those who wanted a more serious mode that didn’t involve SR.
But no, that would have been too easy. And look where we are now.
I’m talking about the RQ system itself, not the balance surrounding it, which was and still is unwelcoming for the composition the devs chose and led to the creation of Double Shield for example.
If I’m not mistaken, when DPS started getting played again in high ranks after RQ arrived, people found out again how oppressive Snipers could be, hence the shield META, to which the extremely powerful version of release Sigma also contributed.
Agreed. Pretty much the only valid complaint against RQ remaining after OQ was added again to the game years ago.
Disagreed completely with these personal opinions.
If you don’t like RQ’s restrictions, OQ is here for you, with all its ““Flex”” players with their mid - round switches that are supposed to be helpful but end up handicapping your entire team due to the lack of a Tank/Support hero… Just like pre - RQ.
This actually happened but I don’t think it was kept as a change.
If anything this is a problem with the utterly useless at the end of the day Flex Pass, not RQ. I refuse to accept that people would be throwing matches that affect their overall SR so they can get a lootbox or 25 coins (lol).
That was happening loooong before RQ and it isn’t a negative to be honest. It isn’t a random occurrence after all that Hybrid heroes such as Brigitte have received so much rightful criticism after all…
Just like most of the error margin which was involved in letting randoms on the internet, no matter their rank, coordinate at least up to a basic degree so they can form a coherent comp with their interests often colliding. And letting them change said comps with a single press of a button, potentially destroying them in the process.
Just a failed concept altogether, as RQ’s rightful implementation shows, along with the popularity stats available and how conflicted the devs are in whether they’ll even keep OQ in the first place for the sequel… Not RQ…
Yep that’s a reoccurring problem with all RQ game modes in all games. Not even close to the driving force for throwing/soft - throwing, but still there.
Umm what does that even mean? Does that have something to do with so many people’s OQ ranks being higher than their RQ skill ratings, or is what you’re saying connected to OQ Top 500 ending in Masters or Diamond in some regions, which is evidence of a completely different problem altogether?
Actually, it was leaving GOATS where tanks/heals were so strong that the only DPS who were remotely viable were ones who could one shot. Any kind of consistent damage was obviously completely useless, rendering 90% of the DPS roster garbage because of how overpowered Blizzard made tanks/healers.
Double shield being the best pick wasn’t even because of that.
I’m actually in agreement with some of the things you said, but really, LFG?
It retains all the queue time problems of RQ, magnifies them, involves a much more time consuming and tedious set - up process, while at the same time leading to even worse - balanced matches, as it is a grouping system at the end of the day and therefore it suffers from all the handicaps that have been documented throughout Overwatch’s history.
Like, unless all of the above problems are fixed and you give people the option to only play against other LFG groups of the same composition, then this would never be a proper replacement for current - day RQ…
Do prove a positive link between the two events, while also taking into consideration the downward trend that had started for Overwatch since 2018 with Brigitte’s release.
Ehh yeah it did. That badly - designed, low skill - high reward mess if an ULT had no place in Overwatch, nor did the terrible play styles it endorsed for Mercy.
Please tell me how you’re gonna do that, when all of the devs’ actions and interviews, alongside the stats we have available point to the exact opposite conclusion.
In your mind, sure, it may be. In Overwatch though, it has been an absolute failure, so much though that the devs got completely rid of it for months.
If the answer wasn’t already somewhat clear, you can ask them. They’re the ones who said they weren’t sure whether OQ would be returning in OW2 after all in an official interview…
It’s actually the exact opposite. It seems like the devs actually changed their original stance years ago and actually decided to stop exclusively listening to the 2% max of the player base, who were the only people enjoying problematic heroes like Sym 2.0, Mercy 1.0, etc. and actually began paying attention to the health of the game as a whole and the opinions of the bulk of the player base - hence all these rightful reworks.
Yall forget that when you say they listened to the community, you mean backroom deals on discord with pro’s and gms and never to the community at large.
3 Likes
I’m leaning toward the point where they decided to start putting resources into the sequel. At least, that was the claim, we didn’t get all that much content because they were working on the sequel…
3 Likes
Not at all.
They admitted it was better to give players choice.
Kaplan:
If this isn’t the case then sure, get rid of Role Queue. It is fairly redundant and doesn’t fix anything important or that couldn’t have been fixed by more simple means.
Fortunately it was suggested that it would indeed return.
They also conducted a poll in which they asked the Koreans. A detailed survey was also conducted through Battle.net. If the results of both align it would be very unlikely to be removed.
2 Likes
222 RQ is a subset of RQ, as i repeatedly stated. And yes, 222 can also be chosen when playing OQ. That’s irrelevant since we were comparing 5v5 RQ to 222 RQ (both being a subset of RQ). A set is a group of things. A subset is set that is part of a larger set. Your definition is wrong.
I actually missed the part where you mentioned OW2 beta, as i’ve yet to see any information on it, can you provide some?
No, 222 is not the template for LFG. LFG is a system that helps you find groups, and does not force you to pick any specific team comp and therefore does not fix anything aside from helping you find a group.
3 Likes
See, that’s why it is impossible to have a proper discussion with you (and some other people) about Role Q.
You personally feel that Role Q didn’t solve any issues and when someone else comes along and says “it solved a lot of issues I had and made the game better for me”, then you tell them that this is not the case for you, so they must be wrong.
It isn’t just about you. It is about making the game as good as possible for as many people as possible.
2/2/2 Role Q solved/improved a lot of issues many people were complaining about for a long time.
By now people got that you are not a part of that crowd and yes - that must suck pretty hard for you.
But being in denial about reality isn’t going to change anyone’s (especially the devs) mind.
5 Likes
Unfortunately, your statement was phrased as a statement, not an opinion. My statement is objectively true and mathematically provable (as i have repeatedly shown you). Why is that not true?
Could you please qualify the extremity of “many many many players who prefer role-less queue” with evidence, as i think we both know very well that such evidence does not exist?
While i do enjoy it when people intentionally misunderstand words such as “unsupported”, it is a little tedious. Unsupported means the devs are not investing time in it specifically and are just letting it sit there ignored. Various balance changes and other systems (such as tickets) have been focused around 222, while OQ has received nothing. Why is this not true?
Stating a problem is not a problem is a very lazy way to dismiss arguments you dont have the ability to respond to.
Copy/pasta:
I eagerly await your failure to address any of these questions, as you have done so so many times in the past 
4 Likes
I thought you meant “forced” RQ in another way. I actually agree that having RQ as the exclusive Competitive mode is not the healthiest decision for the game.
We’re not gonna repeat this discussion and act ignorant out of personal bias in front of all the improvements made by RQ.
If the devs can introduce a functional version of LFG, then sure, get rid of RQ. However, that isn’t gonna happen based on everything we know thus far. OQ may not make it though for the sequel, so we should put our energy in making sure that doesn’t happen instead.
Unless there has been any news in the meantime, their stance on the matter officially is that, and I (roughly) quote: “It is possible that Competitive Open Queue may not return in Overwatch 2”.
Do you perhaps have any more info on this survey? What questions did it contain in general?
You appear to be unaware but the abbreviation IMO means “in my opinion”. Thus the statement was phrased as an opinion, not a statement of fact.
Your statement that role queue “increased the average quality of games” is a statement of opinion yet it is phrased as if it is a fact.
Removal of many team compositions is a negative in my opinion as it removes variety and a change of pace and style from one game to the next.
It removes strategic depth and replaces it with spoonfed structure.
One could look at any of the many threads on the topic including this one where many participants have expressed that opinion.
Fortunately open queue is not ignored.
It has received priority queue support in the case of leavers.
It has also received cross-play support.
In order for it to exist it must be supported in multiple ways many of which you have brought up yourself previously in my threads that in the past you followed me around in regards to this topic. In fact this was part of your justification for opposing it.
A broken system needs fixes whereas a functional one does not. Unsurprising.
No, these are imaginary problems.
Which means they can be addressed by education.
-
In compositions in which tanks/healers are weak the player should not play them.
-
The player is expected to swap and/or adapt if the situation is too difficult. Fortunately he is given 32 heroes to choose from to aid in this endeavour.
-
Games where a player has to tackle the responsibility of their role alone can still occur as the fact that a player is on a role is no guarantee that he will perform the stated duties
-
The feeling of being forced can be tackled by emphasising that the player is not forced, that other compositions can work perfectly fine and if this is not the case the game should be designed in this way with the most popular role heavily featured in any composition.
-
Throwing is a reportable offence. A ban solves this.
-
You may also get something worse in RQ where you have two players who only know how to play Reinhardt in the tank role. They might know how to play several of the damage characters but they are prevented from being able to play them. Hence you are left with a similar if not worse dilemma.
But you’re going to pretend that “Allowing players to choose their preferred mode” is a design failure.
This is not a “quote”. That is not how a quote works.
At this time I seek more information.
I am not aware of the questions that were asked in the detailed survey.
I imagine it was to do with impressions of OW2.
1 Like
what? Did they roll out a super patch that fixed all the bugs from Rein, Brig and DF all the sudden?
overwatch has had its prime time on bugs. if you think there have been some since day one, obviously they weren’t bug but just things that only bother you.
whoever says “remove” instead of “rework” … I find that rather naive, as the story of OW focuses on the presence of certain heroes.
asking for a removal on a game that is also based on a story is basically useless feedback.
I believe MegaDodo can answer his/her posts and doesnt need your protection.
Nope. The original statement was that RQ is “redundant” and “doesn’t fix anything important” which are completely ridiculous statements and the ones I replied to.
Exactly why I said “roughly”.
Cool. I’m also very interested about what information it contains.
No denial on my part…
The opinion(s) I stated are not ones I hold alone…many others have stated their agreement over the course of time and many threads
Again…222 imo added many severe problems to the game without solving any existing problems. Worst change ever.
4 Likes
I don’t see any of Hulxs statements as “protection” of any kind, but I thought he answered your statements well…and that aside, he (or any forum member) is free to do so.
These threads are quite simply not two person chats
Any game developer would know that
1 Like