He’s clearly a crybaby who thinks anyone who disagrees is attacking him, typical biden voter
Are the targets guaranteed hits?
Are the 5 spry youngsters and the 4 elderly gents with canes?
Parents the 5 and their kids the 4?
About half a family as the 5 and half on the other as the 4?
What about 5 old ladies and 4 kids?
Are the people 5 corpses and the 4 still alive?
Are the 5 anime degenerates and the 4 geniuses who just solved world hunger?
Are the 5 the literal embodiment of evil and 4 god warriors?
Are the 5 sociopaths trying to kill the 4 normies?
Perhaps 5 sociopathic murderers are up against 4 sociopathic murderers…
I reject the folly of this scenario and return to enlightenment!
Joking aside, I get what the trolley problem is saying…but it ironically doesnt solve any problems. It’s just arguing that less **** is arguably better than more **** if everything is else is ignored. The options are so unrealistically stripped down that it’s ridiculous. Like why the hell is screaming for people to move not the way not an option? Are we assuming they’re all blind, mute, and crippled now? Even if those were literally the only options, can we even guarantee that the repercussions would actually be less? Does how one got into the scenario in the first place matter? Like if my family is the 5 and they’re the cause of the deadly scenario, is it really better to take out the 4?
So many scenarios and questions (many of which are realistic and/or ascertainable) are ignored by the trolley scenario just to make the argument.
Yes, prioritization is a real thing, but the trolley problem, to me, is simplified to the point of not being useful. It feels like it’s mostly used as a trap to get people’s minds off of solvable problems.
“Well of these two options which are obviously the only solutions that exist, we’ll go with the ‘lesser of two evils’”
‘Lesser of two evils’ means jack**** when there’s more that two options available 
Man, your schtick is tiring.
We get it, technically 0/0/6, 0/0/5, 0/1/5, 0/1/4, 0/2/4, 0/2/3, etc, etc, etc works, the game will still function and be playable. Like either version before or after, there are fans for or against. Pre RQ had all sorts of negatives. Post RQ has all sorts of negatives. Changes were warranted - you didn’t like those changes and your opinion were that they weren’t “neccessary/needed/required” which is great, but status quo wasn’t working.
3 Likes
If anything, bringing classic back showed in raw stats that almost nobody plays that mode. It’s just not popular. Players want to join a match with a functional composition. You now have the freedom to play classic all day and you can ignore role queue. There is no need to demand one of the modes getting removed.
1 Like
He’s going to ask you for the data. I believe, however, he’s already been shown data in previous discussions and dismissed it.
The post I’m quoting is in reference to someone pulling up Role queue numbers:
Perhaps the numbers after years of neglect are a bit different (and I’ve already stated issues with the data in the quote), but saying no one plays anything outside of RQ quickplay/ranked is likely very off.
Having to queue twice is a problem (one to find a group, and then one for a game).
Lack of saving your preferences.
If you wanted it to be a replacement for RQ, then it has to be as easy and as fast as RQ to use.
Otherwise people won’t go for it.
If it had these things, you may have avoided getting RQ in the first place.
1 Like
So I assume the remaining playtime is all of arcade and classic is just one part of that. Also custom games where a lot of players spend a good amount of time on aim maps. Yeah then it comes to the number of players play classic.
And everyone can play their prefered mode, we have that freedom now. Just coming here and saying remove the mode someone personally dislikes makes no sense.
Yes. With the exception of North American PC and Switch console all regions and consoles had at least 20% of play time in either QPC or ranked Open Queue.
For NA it was 14.5% of playtime.
Switch was a 16.7%
[China was almost 30%…that’s 60% the size of RQ playtime]
Again, this was a single days’ worth of data, but it came from Papa Jeff.
2 Likes
while I disagree with nearly everything said here, it misses the point entirely…the point was that plans can and do change, and these were examples
An improved LFG wouldnt actually solve any of the problems that 222 tried to address, it’d just put some of the same people in groups.
And they showed in the selection screen that were lack of “healer”, “tank” if everyone choosed dps…
In a perfect world open queue is the way, but this is not perfect and everyone is selfish 
Weird take. If anything 5v5 should make open queue more viable.
1 Like
When you decrease team size, the singular choice of role matters more. A player makes up a higher percentage of the team. There would be more freedom to play whatever you want in a 12v12 situation like tf2, because you are one of many that has less impact on the composition.
If you look at WoW arenas, they gave up on balancing 2v2. It never was and never will be possible to balance the few compositions that work, while something like a 10v10 battle ground has a general structure, but a lot more freedom of choice what players can play in a competitive setting.
Nah.
Those things are not the issue and you know it. Those things are just interface stuff.
The issues are the ones they are and they are player issues.
I can guarantee you 100% that even if they did that, people still won’t use it because of the actual real reasons I listed: Player mentality issues.
You cant “force” common sense and team player mentality just because you have a tool to group up.
these were informational, not requirements
and I dont understand how one can complain that “everyone chose dps” because this’d mean the complainer chose dps as well
there is nothing whatsoever selfish about choosing the character one wishes to play from those available in a game where just exactly that is guaranteed to every player
the selfish player is the one that demands that other players make selections as the one player dictates. selfish in the extreme.
1 Like
actually, lfg even without any improvements resolved the so-called “problem” that those wanting a certain team comp around them demanded
any player who wanted any given team comp could set up a team framework in lfg and simply wait for players to fill those spots
if 222 was what one wanted, one need only set up a 222 framework. the fabricated “problem” was then “solved”
No.
You can have your time to shine without people stealing your role
The existence of LFG doesnt change anything for people who dont use it, so nothing is truly solved. The many other issues that 222 solved or reduced would still exist.
Also, your “problem” can also be dealt with by having friends who agree to that team comp.
That, imo, is 100% user error.
I mean if I have a game winning ult fully charged, don’t use it, and lose the game does it make sense to blame the ult or say the ult is bad?
I 99.99% agree, but I would also make the “user error” argument here. I tried LFG when I first started playing and people were obnoxious AF. Felt like looking for a group in an mmo. Lots of ego and rank/playtime shaming. The experience completely turned me off.
And while I admit, again, that is user error because they made people joining a team pure misery and I also admit that story is anecdotal, but there definitely could have been some improvement to make the experience better.