Sorry if you want to make ridiculous statements, you get ridiculous responses. Get over yourself, you are no one.
Such a constructive entry into the thread.
2 Likes
DPS heavy comps donāt ruin games, players who pick heroes they canāt play properly ruin games. 4 DPS is a valid comp below GM as long as all the players are really good with their heroes
4 Likes
Did I seem like I wanted to be someone, just a random replying ridiculously to some other ridiculous random people.
Yeah, but the bad thing about 4 DPS comps is that the healer and tank are practically forced to go hammond and mercy.
Optional role q exists already - itās called LFG and it failed miserably.
2 Likes
Next time you want to speak in public, donāt, you are what is toxic in this community, probably in other aspects too.
It failed because it had temperamental leaders, had too many options, and was hidden off to the side of the user interface.
It shouldnāt be failing if thereās so many people apparently tired of 4 dps comps. Yet here we are
It fails because by design, the excessive options lead to fracturing the playerbase grouping speeds, and the leaders slow down the queuing with checking profiles, and then you are matched up as if you were a six stack and not a bunch of randoms.
Take all those negatives out, and put it on autopilot with prime real-estate on the user interface.
1 Like
This whole movement sprouted from the interview with Jayne and Surefour and others, 2-2-2, hero banā¦it wasnāt some low elo player asking for it then.
It isnāt my job to find stuff for you on the internet.
I think a big problem is that it was opt-in. Features like LFG need to be opt-out by default.
The options are just that - options. Blaming the LFG function for bad leaders isnāt acceptable as a reason. And how many 6 stacks do you meet that arent random?
To be honest I prefer a fixed 2-2-2 to any diluted version of it that anyone has proposed so far. Every attempt to āsoftenā it that I have seen is flawed, and loses at least some of the benefit of 2-2-2, often without good reason.
2 Likes
Thing is I liked when it was originally put in League of Legends
Got any specific flaws in mind with this implementation?
ā
[Role Select] Finalizing this concept
ā
[Account Merging] Better than RoleBasedSR
Way I see it, it accomplishes everything 2-2-2 does, without horrible DPS queue times, and without eliminating every other composition.
And if you got a damage focused Tank/Healer, you can deal with it.
Assuming that is almost as toxic imo.
Noone is toxic in every circumstances, itās basic logic. People that you dislike in your daily life are probably the most enjoyable people when surrounded by people they love.
Iām not toxic in game. Just when Iām talking with idiots.
Type āUltimate attribution errorā on Google so maybe youāll have learnt something today.
One of the key benefits of 2-2-2 is that it will provide a platform for the developers to balance the game without concerning themselves with the effects of skill stacking.
Additionally, limiting number of characters in a role will allow the creation of more shield tanks, more AOE healers etc.
You lose those benefits the second you allow 3 characters in the same role.
3 Likes
So just put a 2 Healer Limit on OWL games, and a 2 AnchorTank Limit on future games.
Otherwise triple stacking isnāt a problem.
And heck, this is better than 2-2-2 because it doesnāt require rebalancing the entire game
1 Like
Screw that. I love their Lego sets. We need more of them.
1 Like
Catering to streamers was a major part of what made the game go downhill in the first place. Cutting that out may do WONDERS for the general populationās enjoyment of the game.