Delete this post

But softQ will given the lack of tanks / supports, if you even look like you will go near that role, it will put you in a team expecting you to take that role.

Take a set of players like…

12 DPS only players.
2 support players.
2 tank players
4 flex players.

Are the flex players going to be put into games with 2 DPS who won’t switch every time? yes.

Why? because the game KNOWs they are more likely to tank / support.

Does that mean they will spend even less time being able to DPS? yes…

You won’t need to fill in SoftQ if it works. It takes the best of both worlds so far as I can see.

I don’t think you understand this thread. SoftQ will group up based on most played hero.

But, since you have more DPS only players, than support only player, and tank only players, you will as a flex be put in teams to fill out the support / tank roles.

And that sucks.

I WELL understand this thread, and where it leads. I have 600 hours on support, and have moved to DPS myself.

Do I want the matchmaker putting me in games where I have to run support? like hell I do. But it will have pidgoned holed me as a support player.

So it will be run support or have a solo support? and that is fair in any way?

1 Like

I don’t think you do. It would pair with 4 dps/tanks/support mains. Also, one tricks aren’t that common compared to others.


There a LOT of DPS only players.

Show me how that group I put in would work out? show me the matches if you were the match maker

by putting me in games where it expects I’ll support, so there will only be one other support in them, if any.

Jeff Kaplan personally explained why this would be a bad idea, a while ago:

Just because you have the most hours in a certain role, doesn’t mean you always want to play that role.


Right here. This system is real bad for this EXACT reason.

Lock the roles. Once it happens, everyone will understand how much better it is. Don’t be afraid of change.


I think your confusing one thing for another or I am. Are you talking about 1 tricks?

Then just make it so it matches flexers with flexers as well… Or it shouldn’t be a problem for that person to play any of their most played roles if they play all of them a lot.

How about…

  • 2AnyHero-2Tank-2Heal optional RoleQueue, matchmakered against 6AnyHero Queue, with the option to unlock roles for the RoleQueue with 4 votes.
  • AccountMerging instead of RoleBasedSR.
  • 2HealerMaximum for OWL/Contenders with no other limitations.

No DPS queue time problems.
Doesn’t remove every other composition.
Nearly full variety of compositions at the pro tier.

The example that OP gives is

But, the example which is FAR more likely is…

An example of a soft role queue is 12 high master players queueing. 3 of these players have their most hours on healer, 3 of these players have their most hours on tank, 2 are flexes, and 8 of these players have their most hours on DPS.

now… if the system is trying for a 2-2-2 game, where will the flexes end up in?

If you said tank / support slots, you are right…

What happens if a support players switches mains to move to DPS?

They will ALWAYS end up in games where there is 0-1 other supports. Because the matchmaker is making a bad assumption that they will support.

The system then makes it so ONLY the most selfish players get to DPS. Because anyone else who even looks at tank / support role will be forced into it game after game after game.

It is a bad bad design.


Too many holes. Just have strict rules and play the game. It will be fun.

1 Like

Could you list any problems? Since I’m not aware of any.

Aside from maybe the need to put a 2AnchorTank limit onto the hero select screen, sometime in the future.

Strict rules that regulate creativity and counter play=more fun?

1 Like

picking a 3rd or 4th dps is NOT creativity in action.

If we saw REAL creativity, we wouldn’t be so pro roleQ.

But what we see is 3rd and 4th DPS picks.

The 1-hero limit made the game more fun. It regulated creativity and counter-play, yet the game was made much more fun because of it.

Game design is much more complicated than “just let the player do whatever they want”, especially in multiplayer.

1 Like

It can be, but that’s kinda why I put in that voting system.

If your team isn’t coordinating, then saying they are using cReAtIvTy, is an excuse.

and primarily it IS an excuse.

I’d have a lot more time for these attempts to fix how the matchmaker deals with things, if they start from what is happening in reality.

If it doesn’t solve what roleQ sets out to solve, and doesn’t solve other real problems we have today - then roleQ is strictly better.

1 Like

But yeah, if 4 of your teammates can’t agree on unlocking roles, then they lack the coordination to pull off 3-to-4 DPS comps.

It can be, I also never said anything about 3-4dps. There are comps that have more than 2 tanks and or supports. There are even comps that utilize 3 dps very effectively.

People want RoleQ because of GOATs and blaming their loses on their team comp. I think poor MM is a thing as well but idk.

Nor is it “Submit to my arbitrary standards of what a perfect team should be”. Game design is more freedom to the player than regulation.