I don’t see any basis to believe the one is more popular than the other
I’d be guessing if I were to proclaim one as more popular than the other, in the absence of data supporting one or the other as more popular
That was what my original reply was 
Correct. That is exactly what I was doing. Guessing. Hence why I said it “seems more likely”
1 Like
The original statement I replied to stated – as if it were a fact – that 222 “is by far the more popular mode.”
The mess of way heroes were designed in this game make it impossible to allow it to be unlocked. People would still run 3 or 4 tank comps in pro play if it wasn’t role locked.
Yes, and as I said, all I was doing was adding my own opinion to the conversation.
1 Like
I don’t know of any poorly designed characters in this game
Not at all
there are thousands upon thousands upon thousands of players playing in role-less queue matches as I type this and as you read this
if 222 were necessary for the game to be played, this wouldn’t be possible
I do see OWL as being the one single tier of gameplay that needs 222, and honestly, this is only to prevent a ticket sales issue. Interest in OWL began declining when match after match was GOATS vs GOATS.
In the actual non-pro game, 222 is not needed now and was never needed
Huh, there you go. Of course there’s always the possibility of things having changed since then but I doubt it.
this data has been brought up many times as alleged proof of the popularity of 222…but it does not support the claim of popularity at all
1] that data is from a year ago
2] that data is usage data, not preference/popularity. Usage data is not the same as popularity/preference data. apples to oranges.
3] that data was taken for a single day, not over a significant length of time
4] that data was taken on a day when
a. role-less queue had only just been reintroduced to the game the day before
…and…
b. the role-less queue mode game in question was buried in the arcade menu, a sub menu many players never even go into
c. the role-less queue mode game in question was a game designated as “temporary”, which meant some players had no interest in it
as such, this data does not support the claim that 222 is more popular than role-less queue
see above
Things did change and not for the better for Open Queue, unfortunately. As an avid OQ user, I wish they did. That said, one foes not have to be a prominent data scientist to analyze the available information on usage of both queue modes and to come to the conclusion that Role Queue is by leaps and bounds ahead of its counterpart.
2 Likes
I hope to someday have access to the information referred to above
As it is, I know of no such data; and ergo, I know of no way to arrive at the conclusion referred to above
I still play, but 2-2-2 in my mind was the ultimate failure point for Blizzard’s original design of this game. The fact that they had to force heroes into 3 roles, then force only 2 per game is so far from the initial vision of the game.
I personally wish they’d have done more than one iteration on LFG and letting people construct teams before the match began before completely killing creativity in the game.
4 Likes
By default I am against splitting the playerbase into lots of different queues for the sake of ‘more choice’ but honestly I see it as fine here, as it seems in my experience Overwatch has plenty of playerbase to support 2 different competitive queues.
Open queue times feel reasonable, tank and support queue times feel reasonable, it really is only the DPS queues that are the issue… But we’re now in a situation where both gamemodes (I’d personally consider 2/2/2 vs. open queue to essentially be “different gamemodes”) are given equal prominence in the menu. So, provided the game maintains the playerbase to make this system viable, I really don’t see any reason why we can’t just have both and let players play their preferred. And if you feel open queue is unplayable due to queue times or something… well, that just demonstrates how most players would rather play 2/2/2 lmao, which isn’t a great argument for not including it in the sequel.
3 Likes
Role que isn’t going to go away
role que shouldn’t go away
the biggest argument against role que is either limits team comp capabilities and long dps que times
let’s start with the second:
Blizzard: You Brought This On Yourself When You Put Over 50% Of The Roster In One Role
so just ask for more intresting tanks, supports
and start making tank fun again
give us options
give us variety
stop giving the top tank super heavy nerfs and the bottom tanks meaningless buffs or power creep buffs like you did with rein
the first
is true
but there is open que that from my experience is fine
also its worth it to guarantee Tanks and supports in every game.
so overall role que helps more than it hurts
Maybe… take into account about 95% of OW streamers only play RQ Comp…
2 Likes
Well you’d at least need a maximum limit of Tank players.
Like 2 Tanks maximum per team.
And probably 2 Healers maximum per team
But theoretically up to 6 DPS per team
And just let skill tiers and the desire to win sort out the rest.
when/if Blizzard decides enough is enough and that it is time for 222 to go away, it will go away regardless of how many forum members claim that it can never happen
I dont see this as data to support the claim that was made
Keep it. Fine
But take it out of arcade and make it a choice in QP. Similar to Comp.
Less steps and searching for it.
The irony of role lock is that it was instituted to address the problem that people weren’t picking what they needed to pick because of Blizzard’s own poor balancing decisions, and now to address the problem of poor queue times Blizzard is forced to address their own balancing decisions. And then, if they actually manage to succeed at making tanks as desirable as DPS and neutralizing the queue differential, the question has to be asked: Why then will we still have role lock?