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.
Nope. Classic QP and Classic Comp is still an option. You’re upset because no one wants to play it. 
I, personally, stay away from both because I still have PTSD from GOATs.
To me, not wanting to go through the effort of finding a group with LFG is a personal preference.
Personally, I dont like grouping with strangers, they can get needy plus finding a group takes time.
Users do make errors - the way to fix problems properly is to remove the opportunity to make errors in the first place.
It definitely could be better
But removing the choice isnt always the best option.
Especially when people have different opinions on what a good choice is.
For example, based on some limited playtime info Jeff gave us years back, the time spent playing in QPC and Ranked Open Queue (after its reintroduction) compared to the time spent in Role Queue modes was around:
- 20% in North America on PC ( i.e. 12 minutes on non-RQ for every hour in RQ)
- 35% in EU on PC ( i.e. 20 minutes on non-RQ for every hour in RQ)
- 66% in China on PC ( i.e. 40 minutes on non-RQ for every hour in RQ)
- 78% in KR on PC ( i.e. 45 minutes on non-RQ for every hour in RQ)
Those numbers are higher if you include arcade modes which never had role queue introduced.
To me, that seems like too sizable a chunk of time spent in non-RQ modes to reasonably say removing the option is a good idea.
As Megadodo said, there is a reason we got open queue modes back.
I strongly believe the plan should have been to make LFG a better tool or to make Comp Queue instead of Role Queue.
If you choose 222, then you choose a role and wait
If you choose 111flex, then you choose a role or flex, and wait
If you choose Open, then you just wait
Give players the option “fill” to a mode adjacent to their preferred one to combat queue times and call it a day.
again, LFG did “solve” a so-called “problem” - it allowed a player who wanted a 222 team to form a strictly 222 team
if one chose not to use it, that was then a per player issue, not a game issue. In the game, the so-called “problem” was “solved”
the old adage about leading a horse to water applies here
1 Like
not at all
Plenty of players - including me - vastly prefer role-less queue mode
as such, I almost always get a match quickly, meaning there are plenty of players in the queue
1 Like
If a problem still exists for any amount of people for any reason, it is not solved, it still exists.
Given the problem can be “solved” (using your meaning of the word) without LFG, LFG was also not required to solve it.
Indeed, horses and water is an applicable adage - the existence of nearby water does not “solve” the horse’s thirst.
1 Like
The adage is symbolic of people who have a solution/knowledge/etc, but dont use it…
Not using a readily available solution, doesnt make it less of a solution
Its more of an option than a solution, i’d say. Options are good, but people are dumb and dont use them - i include myself in that dumb category, since i dont like using LFG it may as well not exist.
not at all
the “solution” to the “problem” exists
if a player chooses to not make use of said “solution” that is a personal issue, not a problem in the game
not at all
LFG provides a “solution” to the so-called “problem” for all players
other “solutions” do not apply universally, and ergo arent actually “solutions”
it actually does
if the horse chooses not to drink, the problem in that case is no longer a problem of thirst, it is a problem specific to that horse that isnt thirst
it is actually a “solution” to the so-called “problem” of getting a team composition one wishes for
if one chooses not to make use of the solution, it remains a solution