I’d say it would help queue times, but it’s going to hurt balance and the time taken to balance.
They’re either going to ignore one of them, or they’re going to take forever to make any effective balance because of considering role stacking.
See. I thought it was perfectly suited in arcade because it creates more of a structure that creates an incentive to win because of lootbox rewards.
People want to win because it’s an easier/faster way to grind the weekly arcade reward, and because it’s a rank they’re playing with.
Dearly hoping this stays around.
Overwatch games are unstable systems, what with snowballing, synergies, etc. The system can be tamed, i.e. a team can keep things stable, but they have to want to, and they have to know how.
The incentive landscape tend to push teams in one of three directions—a tanky deathball, dive, or a ranged bullet-hell creator. This is similar to how in SC2 Zerg can hit a point where they’ve made so many roaches it’s too expensive to transition out and the best thing they can do is make more roaches. You don’t have to go all the way towards one of these, you can use cover to make much more diverse comps viable, but the naive team will just magically gravitate towards one of these over time.
2-2-2 Role queue feels more stable and sane because it is more stable and sane, but only in the sense that you didn’t have to worry about bombers in the Punic Wars—that is, it’s a stability borne of poverty rather than wealth.
I really, really hope they keep supporting open queue. That freedom is what got me excited about Overwatch in the first place. That freedom is also what has made OW so…“problematic.” It’s a sharp tool, and requires discipline, and there are all sorts of local maxima players can get stuck in that have to be avoided.
On my team, we start new players off with a hard rule: you don’t need more tanks, and you don’t need more healers. You need to use cover, movement, and you need to take a real hard look at the gun you’re using, because “DPS” is a laughably simplistic categorization to apply to a broad range of sniper rifles, shotguns, grenade launchers, air strikes, rifles, freezethrowers, etc. “What’d you do in the Army?” “Oh, I was DPS.” Nobody says that.
The effect is that we have players who start looking at the map and thinking positionally, for the first time in their Overwatch careers. We played with a guy last night who was blown away when our Winston-McCree-Widow-Soldier-Mercy comp calmly stayed off the point in Nepal Village, shot everyone inside until they were dead, then walked on.
Please keep open queue. I don’t want to play MedievalWatch.
it is. The whole game and hero’s abilities have specifically been balanced for a 2-2-2 composition
Please quote the part of the post where i already explained to you why your reply is wrong.
The problem that comes with it is the “It’s Arcade, bro!” mindset in a mode with SR and a rank.
I don’t care what menu it’s listed under, it’s still competitive.
1 Like
It should be on the front page or in the Comp menu. It needs the visibility and the gravitas that goes with a comp mode so people see it and take it seriously.
3 Likes
No-one comments on one of the reasons for 2-2-2. People can have up to, and in some cases even over, 1000 SR difference in roles. So if a 3k dps plays as 2.5k healer they will be underperforming compaired to teammates. And if teammates are 2.5k and they swap to their 3k dps it will basically be smurfing.
This was one of sources for toxicity before when for example support mains wanted to try something else and got told to get back to support cause were to bad at dps/tank. With RQ everyone gets SR per role, so queueing for dps will be with other dps of their dps SR etc.
Doesn’t really solve it. My Widow is 1k SR below my Doomfist. My aim is really really bad.
1 Like
We still get problems like that, anyway, even in 222. You’ll end up with stuff like Plat Tanks in a Master game or vice versa, because there isn’t enough of them to go around. There isn’t enough people playing those roles, per rank, to keep everyone in their neat little area.
Also, just because you have a DPS SR of, say 3K, That doesn’t necessarily mean you can play every damage hero to that level. I doubt most people’s doomfist is as good as their widowmaker or tracer is as good as their bastion or whatever.
1 Like
Nah, Blizzard recognized that the matchmaker only works if everyone can and is willing to play the heroes they’re good at, that got them to that rank.
They realized if they added role queue they could reduce the amount of games that were lost due to an oversight in matchmaking, such as having 4 Mercy mains on your team. They’ve said they didn’t want to give your most played heroes weight in the matchmaking presuming the hero you wanted to play.
The matchmaker thinks it matched a 49.89/50.11% game… basically thinks it’s amazing at it’s job, but doesn’t care that 4 people mainly play the same hero, or that the player who ranks up on Rein just tanked 10 games back to back and promised himself a DPS game. Blizzard care about stuff like this fortunately. That it also means there’s less players who’re begrudgingly playing a role they don’t want to every game was a definite plus, but dismantling GOATs was something that rose to prevalence and the community deemed an issue months after Blizzard had supposedly began work on RQ.
Blizzard has no idea what they are doing.
How are you going to balance for both of these modes? They messed up going all in 2/2/2. Now they have to find a way out by having both 2/2/2 and open queue. What a mess
while I do understand and accept that you personally think I am wrong, I dont see anything in your post that indicates I was wrong
1 Like
The data in game released by devs should role queue to more populated than open queue too. The polling was done on two different sites and reached the same conclusion, role queue was more popular.
The split wasn’t a huge one. It’s not an overwhelming majority. But nevertheless it is the majority.
the only such data I am aware of is for one single day, and early on, ie before most players even knew role-less competiive existed
in any case, its not an apples to apples comparison given that the two options arent presented side by side on the same menu, and havent both been available for a significant period of time
I know of many (perhaps even most) of such polls, but I remain unaware of any valid sources of data that address this question
2 Likes
The same was true of role queue QP vs open qp.
There exists no evidence to support the claim that open queue is liked by the majority and multiple pieces of evidence including offical data to suggest role queue is.
You keep claiming those polls are invalid but fail to address how they are not. They come from official sites, and have enough respondents to make them valid. And even in the face of official data backing their conclusions, you claim it is invalid.
1 Like
this too is not an apples to apples comparison
when they are displayed on the same menu as equal side by side options, and have both been available to players for a significant period of time, then and only then will data like what Jeff provided amount to an apples to apples comparison
I have made no such claim
I am unaware of valid data that addresses the question, which means I dont know which preference is in the majority
I’ve already addressed the single day data provided by Jeff above
Having multiple sources of invalid data is no better than having one. …Invalid is invalid, whether once or thousands of times over
1 Like
If people are aware of the mode, then you can easily draw conclusions. QP classic has a large enough population that you can compare the two. There is no loss of awareness.
You cannot call something invalid just because you don’t like it
Depends on the region.
In Korea, non-RQ/limit modes were more popular on that day than RQ QP.
Haven’t people just been complaining about open queue? Calling it the land of 5 dps mains in one game, people running GOATS, and it just being not fun? And wasn’t this EXACT reason why 2-2-2 was established… or am I just feeling Deja vu from nothing here.
1 Like