Ok, but do you have a response to the point there?
Well, yeah, I did. The wording might’ve thrown you off, but it still happened.
You expect people to want to play every role since you do,
I don’t “expect” them to nor presume that they “want” to, but I’d still encourage it because I think it makes the game more enjoyable and makes the experience larger for them. If they don’t want to, fair enough, but they shouldn’t expect other people to be forced to accommodate their specific play-style, which is basically what’s happened here.
but they don’t generally want to. This is the case from quickplayers to low-rank comp to the OWL pros.
I doubt you can prove that statistically, and before you say “A majority of people I’ve met don’t want to”, I majority of people I’VE met do, and do so regularly, so we both know how useful that card is to draw.
Your response doesn’t address the issue that people specialize
It’s not an issue, but sure, people do it, and said people were able to do so when role lock wasn’t a thing. You act as if these people had absolutely no agency and had no choice but to change roles when it was demanded of them, which is ridiculous. I understand that peer pressure is difficult to deal with, but if you find yourself in a situation where another player is being abusive, simply leave the game…
and it doesn’t address the point that Role Queue solved an issue you didn’t look at or even consider.
It didn’t solve it. People are still gonna be yelled at for choosing particular roles and characters, so technically speaking the issue is still apparent. But, even if the issue was solved, the WAY it was solved will and already is causing countless other issues. I have no grievances with people playing a specialised role, or counter-measures being taken to prevent peer-pressure, but I think the implementation of a role-lock was just a totally ridiculous and over-the-top way to deal with that particular issue.
I’m not really concerned that you personally don’t have an issue with wanting to play a specific role,
Then don’t comment on it.
It isn’t even a question of determining the ratio for each camp within the playerbase, that is irrelivant.
I don’t really know what you’re saying here, so I’m gonna have to ask for clarity?
I’m telling you that your claim of “Addressing every argument” is falling short if you can’t account for these people and how Role Queue solves an issue that exists without it.
I’m addressing it here, mate. The issue is solved by role-queue, yes, but they could have been more efficiently solved by players simply removing themselves from scenarios where the issue was present. How come you haven’t accounted for the people who don’t care enough to be irritated by DPS stacking, or the ones who actually enjoy it?
And this is about where you start saying that we can’t judge popularity (despite a lot of judging by people in this thread that role queue isn’t popular).
I should clarify that I point out role lock’s general lack of support in recent days on the forums, not because I think those people are in the OVERALL majority, but because they hold the majority on the forums, which are one of Blizzard’s main mechanisms for altering the game.
Again, I should have clarified that, but when people cite the praise of the forum’s 2-2-2 lock, they usually cite it because they don’t understand that a majority of the players simply don’t use the forums.
If you want to claim agnosticism, okay.
What… does Religion have to do with this?.. Were you trying to say “neutrality”? If not, your comparison of the role lock and… well, God, is rather telling…
I listed two different methods of making educated guesses, one being a positive response on various social media spaces and the other being the population’s use of quickplay over quickplay classic.
Those are not solid metrics one can cite as data. Social media is totally subjective and, like I’ve said, a majority of players won’t be following the game’s updates and getting involved with the politics behind them because they simply have other things to do, and Overwatch is just a way to pass the time. Gaming is a hobby, not a sport.
As for the fact more people are playing regular quick play? Yes, that’s true, but it doesn’t explain what they actually think of the role lock, which is what we care about here. They could be playing regular quick play because they feel they have to get used to it and simply have to suck it up, which is a surprisingly common attitude among most casual gamers.
Yes, we have what you like to call “data”, but it’s not solid, irrefutable data because it’s simply too vague and doesn’t take enough possibilities into account.
I said earlier that I understand you will try to nitpick, but asked if you would provide anything indicating that role-queue isn’t popular beyond a vocal minority of forum users.
The same thing you’re claiming here could be thrown back at you. As far as I’ve seen, most people on the forums hate the 2-2-2 lock and those that defend it fail to do so. From what I’ve witnessed, they’re NOT in the minority, so how can you prove that they are?
Something where one side can be shown to be larger than another. I don’t even think you have that on the forums
I’ve been monitoring the discussions posted in the last few days, and most of them have been against the idea of the role lock. But, again, we can go back and forth on this until the sun comes up and neither of us will get anywhere, so drop it.
though you are right that individual posts aren’t a metric, meaning you didn’t answer really.
I did, you just didn’t like the answer.
You don’t really get to take the easy way out and avoid expressing your methodology on numbers
I can do what I please and you cannot stop me, and I’ve not explained it because it doesn’t matter when there’s little data beyond observation. You’re the one who took issue with it and brought it up, so you should be the one to bite that bullet first.
when you say things like “one cannot think it’s a good idea, regardless of how many people like the idea’s surface-level implementations.” This is obviously wrong. It isn’t a subjective opinion statement, it is just factually incorrect.
That is not “obviously wrong”. There are plenty of examples in day-to-day life of people being seduced by ideas and not analysing their fundamental implications. Hell, there are plenty of examples throughout HISTORY ITSELF of that. The biggest example of that I can think of is the rise of communism, which is fundamentally a horrible, disturbing idea and the damage that it’s done is absolutely undeniable.
The idea that people are convinced that the 2-2-2 lock is a good idea because, on the surface, it sounds great and helpful, when really it’s just a terrible, divisive concept on it’s foundation-level? No. That idea is not “subjective”. It’s fundamental suggestions are terrible.
First of all, this isn’t a discussion about the “laws of logic and reasoning.”
No, it isn’t, you’re right about that. Thing is, said laws apply to literally everything. The concept and guidelines of logic and reasoning are universal whether you like it or not.
I don’t think you can even define a nebulous statement like that.
Logic is simply reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity, and I refer to said idea as a set of laws because… well, they are. Principles of validity apply to literally everything because that’s what logic is. It’s a fundamental building block of intellect, and it always has been.
It is a statement made to sound like it will have backing with some academic source material, but we both know it is simply rhetoric on your part.
No it isn’t. There is plenty of academic sources that I could cite on this subject, but I can’t actually have links in my replies for some reason, so simply Google “what is logic” and you’ll find plenty. Educate yourself.
As for the second sentence: I would actually.
Then you are an idiot.
Or rather, I’d argue that the definition isn’t a negative in the eyes of most people and implementation is often everything. I debate concepts like that a lot and how often those concepts are adhered to by people who want to use them or appropriate the rhetoric.
The definition isn’t a negative, no, but there’s a difference between the definition of an object and the implications that the definition gives. For example, people obviously don’t view the definition of the word “axe” as a negative, because it’s solely descriptive, but the actual implications of “a tool used for chopping wood, typically of iron with a steel edge and wooden handle” become a little more concerning once you apply them within the context of a murder weapon. The idea isn’t a good one solely because the way it’s defined sounds nice…
It turns out there is a lot of nuance to topics like this though and you end up with a lot of conversations on perceptions and “feels.” I’m a very analytical person and wouldn’t throw concepts and philosophies out based on poor implementation or public perception.
The fact this is being said about communism really makes your point moot. It has historically been the death of 100,000,000 people, worldwide, throughout history, and has failed in every single country it’s been tried in. It’s a horrible idea and the reason it’s lived this long is because it’s deliberately seductive and manipulative. It has killed more people in China alone that national socialism has killed throughout all of time. Think about that…
Anyway, the only way this topic is worthy of comparison to a discussion on economic philosophies is that any system can hold value to some respect or be implemented poorly.
Yes, but there are objectively terrible law-systems, and any skilled diplomat can make them sound great. Shariah law for example. It’s an absolutely disgusting way to govern a country, but a lot of middle-eastern countries utelise it regardless. The 2-2-2 lock is the same. Not as extreme or abhorrent as Shariah law, obviously, or communism for that matter, but it’s still harmful to the sphere it’s being implemented into. It sounds, looks and feels like a great idea on the surface level, but you barely see Rats unless you’re in a sewer.
There isn’t some black or white, good and bad quality to NoRoleQueue vs RoleQueue.
Yes there is. There is an objective right and wrong and it’s universal. Like I said, when you analyse the role lock’s implications from the base-level up they contradict what makes the game unique and enjoyable.
That is why the often loaded claims like “it harms the game” isn’t being taken seriously. It could or it won’t, depending on how it is put into place.
When a system is as flawed as the 2-2-2 lock is, the way it’s implemented doesn’t matter whatsoever…
You don’t touch on topics like that though because you don’t exist within that gray-space of considering the system and looking for problems and then solutions. You just list your subjective problems with the new ruleset and don’t care about solutions aside from “undo it.”
I did, before the lock was implemented. In fact, I made a very lengthy post about why it was a terrible idea. I can’t link it unfortunately, so go on my profile if you truly wish to read it, but the reason I don’t look for your so-called “solutions” is because I see the implementation of the system ITSELF as a huge problem, and the only solution is to un-do it. If you want specific solutions to smaller-scale problems, bring some up and I’ll be happy to discuss them with you.
Actually, I was saying that in regards to the things I didn’t respond to.
Which amounts to most of my post…
The parts I responded to before that was me being charitable and responding specifically to segments I found less subjective, things I felt you COULD build a point upon if you did the legwork.
I did build several points upon basically everything I said, but you chose to harp on the overall approach as opposed to what I was actually saying in it, which is why your argument seems really pointless, to be honest. You make a lot of claims about how narrow-minded I’m being and how I’m approaching the situation with such immense bias, when I’ve already explained that I analysed the very concept role lock fundamentally and found little to praise about it.
But, of course, admitting that I did that unbiasedly, or even considering it, would destroy your entire argument because it’s built on preconceptions and assumptions about how arrogant you think I am…
But that’s… just like… your opinion man.
The fact that removing no limits was a removal and the addition of role lock was an addition while both contradict what makes the game unique? Jesus Christ and his twelve disciples, you’re just gonna go around in circles until you grasp what I’m saying, aren’t you?
Pulling out this section addressed to someone else because it ties so directly to what we were talking about… and it highlights how you just don’t get the issue.
Ah, yes, the classic “You disagree with me so clearly you just misunderstand the argument.”
Ignoring your blatant cherry-picking, I understand why playing against a DPS stack, or playing within a DPS stack, might cause people very real irritation, so I apologise if I came across as dismissive. I just don’t experience the same frustration because I see ways around it.
Telling someone who gets a team lacking support to “just not play support” doesn’t address the issue of the game being played at that moment.
Yes it does. I don’t see DPS stacking as that much of an issue because, if it’s so furiously frustrating for you, just leave the game. I also understand that, annoying as it may be, if people wanna play that way, nobody has any right to tell them otherwise. I can sympathise with the idea that might be difficult in competitive, so sure, dissuade DPS stacks in competitive, I suppose. But the general, unspoken rules for quick play and competitive play are irrefutably different.
Saying “either other players will change role or you can get a better stab at it the next game” is a bad response too. It is telling someone that they can play what they want… if others decide they won’t get to play what THEY want and forgo that freedom for the good of the group… or everyone can just lose the match instead.
I think I understand you here. You are approaching this from a very moral perspective, but talking about something that’s so specific to a certain situation that it comes across as honestly over-sentimental.
I get that people shouldn’t be forced to abdicate their preferred role solely because they got an odd team composition, but compromising on that front and trying new roles is the way forward, or just removing themselves from said situation entirely. The stuff about winning at the end, however? Again, in competitive I get that, so I agree, but in quick play there’s still no excuse.
The way back? Is making an extreme change to the game that heavily alters it’s foundations. Sure, it’s annoying, but how on Earth is forcing teams to play a certain way any better? In a way, it’s the same concept, but far worse.
There is still an issue there that isn’t being addressed: how to fix those situations.
LEAVE. THE. MATCH. People who don’t mind those situations will populate the scenarios where DPS stacks actually occur, and the people who do mind it won’t because they will have left. It is very, very simple and the fact that Blizzard has had to step in and mandate a team composition to protect players’ pride is absolutely ridiculous to me.
You are great at finding issues that effect you personally when it comes to role queue,
In a situation where most people are talking about personal experience? Yeah, it’s surely shocking and unbelievable that I brought up my own personal experience, isn’t it?..
but you don’t really care about issues like this that brought it about.
I do, hence the reason I’m addressing them. I simply think that something as extreme as a mandated play-style is a seriously stupid way to resolve them. It’s like taking a shotgun to a Hornet’s nest.
Your post just makes it obvious that you are unwilling to address a cause of the thing you are complaining about.
Role lock was implemented for far more reasons than DPS stacking and perhaps some of the arguments for the 2-2-2 lock have merit, but the idea of the implementation itself is completely ridiculous, and the fundamental reasons that people admire the idea of a role lock, I’m sorry, but they’re just flat out silly.
I will admit to struggling when it comes to be inductive, and understanding why they’ve come to the conclusions they have, which is thanks to a little thing called aspergers syndrome, but regardless of how they came to the conclusion, it’s still a stupid conclusion.
What I find striking though is how often the LACK of a role queue was “forcing a team composition” upon people who flexed when they didn’t want to do so. Your system is a type of force as well, unless you want to argue that a loss isn’t a method of force.
Being peer-pressured into a certain role could be considered force, yes. Being forced into said role without a choice for the entirety of the game can’t just be “considered” force, it’s OBJECTIVELY force, by the very definition of the word, and the choice to switch roles is what’s being “lost” here. The lack of self-awareness in what you’ve said here is the only thing that’s striking.
These conversations often come down to people in your position saying that we should have freedom of choice. The ironic thing is that I consider Role-Queue to be the system that provides the freedom that we lacked before Role-Queue.
The fact you used the term “freedom of choice” here really hits the nail on the head regarding your lack of self-awareness. The choice, in this case, was the ability to switch between roles depending on how the game plays out from a tactical perspective. That was undoubtedly lost. When it comes to these scenarios you recall of being forced into a certain role, maybe you should learn to be assertive and stand your ground instead of asking Blizzard to baby you…
Now people are free to choose the role they want rather than getting into a game that will make them compromise their fun/desires in order to not loose the match.
Oh, dear God, the irony of your speech is staggering… did you seriously not read through this and say “Wait, the exact same thing I’m describing is what he, himself, is complaining about.” We LITERALLY don’t disagree here! We both think that being forced into a certain role, either by mechanics or pressure, is a bad thing! It’s just that we differ in how we want said issues to be fixed. I think players should just remove themselves from said scenario and you think said scenario should be removed altogether.
My issue here is that the removal of said scenario also comes with the removal of the freedom that allowed for it, which also allowed for several other things that weren’t arguably as irritating or harmful. I don’t think such an extreme measure needed to be taken when a player can easily leave the game, and I can’t get behind the idea of forcing a team composition.