Is Role Queue still necessary?

I love the 2-2-2. It makes matches more consistent.

2 Likes

Pretty sure we have already had this discussion before.

Are you comparing PTR to live? I doubt that the people who bothered to go to the PTR played open queue more than 2-2-2 unless the point you are trying to make is that OQ being in arcade is somehow similar to 2-2-2 being on PTR, which I hope you aren’t for the sake of a decent discussion. I hope you’d be able to tell that clicking a different card in the game isn’t the same as having to download an entirely different version of the game (which is only available to PC players). I don’t remember what else was on the PTR at the time.

If it was just an alternative, they could have put it in the arcade. However that is clearly not what the DEVs wanted, they wanted it to be the new official mode, which is why it’s where it is.

You could enforce those roles, I wouldn’t mind it as an arcade mode as it would actually be their best in game way of helping players understand the game. Would I want it to be the main role? No, just like how things can be too open, things can also be too restrictive.

It makes balancing easier for the devs since some tanks/support cannot be played solo and buffing them would make them broken with another one in the team.

There is a significant amount less variety in 222– a natural result of forcing two heroes to be played from each of the two vastly less populated role rosters, and only 1/3 from the damage role which contains 2/3 of the games heroes.

The skill being tested is to form the best possible composition and win. One is also tested on being able to adapt to make the best choice at any given time utilising their mastery of any of the total hero roster if necessary or relying on more specialised skill if this is more optimal for them.

As such, I would see it as a better test of overall skill than RQ.

Groups?

Correct, although there is no telling what the future holds.

Whilst you make a good point here I was not suggesting that it is the same, merely that the same principle applies. Obviously PTR is less visible than the main competitive card, and so is arcade.

I wasn’t even aware of open Q returning to the game until dodo messaged me informing me that it was in fact in the arcade. I would never have thought to check as I never usually visit to the arcade. I am a competitive player and prefer the main mode so it is not usually to my interests.

What’s more, the data to my knowledge was only from the very first day. I only updated my game the next day once I heard of the return of open queue. I was fortunate that Dodo messaged me but I can imagine that many people were not aware of it despite preferring open queue.

I believe it would give them a very limited and misconstrued understanding of the game.

Absolutely, that is something that I can agree with you on. Where we draw the line on what is too restrictive is where our opinions differ. I consider 222 to be too restrictive.

1 Like

Obviously? Less variety doe not equal no variety. Do you want to go back to how the game originally was where you could have up to 6 of the same hero on both teams, that’s more variety right?

While OQ has more team comp options, it doesn’t mean that you can play whatever team comp with any random group of people, simply because people put limitations on themselves. If you get a group of 3 supports, 1 tank and 2 damage and none of them are willing to play another role then that is the setup you are limited to, you can try different things within that lineup but much like 2-2-2, you would be restricted to just that 3 supports, 1 tank and 2 damage.

So the thing being tested is ultimately something you have no guarantee to be able to control unless you play in a premade? Also how can this not be the case in RQ as well? The only difference is that there is a lower amount of possible comps.

So in theory, there’s some expectation that a player can play every hero at a high level or be good enough with just 1 to make up for not being flexible.

Being limited to a role does not limit you to one hero. Adapting and making the best choice still applies in 2-2-2. I’d argue that there’s more skill in picking the right hero for the choice among a group of less obvious picks to make a difference compared to picking the obvious counter/hero. Which at this point isn’t even a skill, but knowledge that is acquired through others.

Tangent
The concept of countering is something that is misunderstood by at least 90% of the playerbase, trying to oversimplify an incredibly complex game. To many picking x to counter y is as simple as rock beats scissor, the thing they don’t realize is that switching to counter willy nilly breaks apart their own team comp, synergy and win conditions because in their mind countering the only win condition.

A problem created by the DEVs by not incentivizing it in any meaningful way from the very beginning and over time adding more restrictions to groups like SR ranges and group sizes.
This is why LFG has failed in my opinion because it came in too late and the massive flaw that the group leader can limit everyone to 2-2-2 while playing against a team that is free to pick any OQ comp.

Sure, but while everything is possible, not everything is probable.

I just can’t accept this, saying that the same principle applies when one is a feature in game while the other is on a separate client is like comparing apples to shoes, because in this instance comparing apples to anything edible would nonsense.

I’m fairly certain that this was announced in the DEV update video that introduced 2-2-2 and likely in the patch notes as well.

I’d have to find the post by Jeff again but I’m fairly certain that the data he provided was not from the first day of it being live.

I’d disagree, this actually teaches them about the different roles which also existed during OQ. The problem with the playerbase is that most people have not understood the basics despite years of playtime.

That’s fine, I don’t see any functioning and realistic option between the two which is why I think 2-2-2 is the best version of the game we have had.

The point being which one values more - consistency or variety.

I actually do yes. I’ve been asking for it for a while. Have the option there.

Randoms, sure.

Correct, yes. It’s a team game. Of course one shouldn’t expect to control randoms.

RQ: Far less possible comps = lower ceiling for skill expression by utilization of said comps.

RQ = Lower skillcap.

Yes, or play a sufficient amount of heroes. It’s not a dichotomy of play every hero/just one.

Correct, although in my case, my hero pool is: Doomfist, Wrecking Ball, Reinhardt. Those are the heroes that I excel the most with. I’d be at least 1000 SR below my Doomfist SR with any other Damage hero, even with significant time spent practicing. I am limited to Doomfist in RQ if I select the Damage role.

To a lesser degree. The choice is largely made for you by the game.

I’ve heard this, similar to Jeff’s “creativity” idea. I don’t agree with it.

It’s very much a skill. Oftentimes common “knowledge” is incorrect.

Agree.

Agree, devs should’ve fixed those things.

This isn’t a flaw, this is a choice the leader and members of the group make. There is no need to limit anyone to anything.

RQ seemed improbable before, so did re-adding OQ.

New arcade modes are less visible.

New PTR mode is less visible.

How great a percentage of the playerbase do you think watches Dev update videos, or reads patch notes?

Open Queue’s first season in the Arcade wasn’t announced in any video. The second season was.

Looks like you were right:

I misread one day as day one.

Still, it had only been out for 3 days at the time Jeff posted. 14th April → 17th April.

It teaches them incorrectly that it is “proper” to have such pairings of roles.

The best version of the game is the one that provides choice, as it does now.

1 Like

the statement I identified as attempted console shaming was and is attempted console shaming

playing both does not mean that it is impossible for one to attempt console shaming.

it does not absolve one from making such statements

I’ve already addressed what was a request and is now phrased as a demand

I will not be addressing this subtopic further in this thread

1 Like

If the only food you have is rotten, it is still inedible

if the only car you own has no engine, it remains undriveable

if the only water you have is poisoned, it remains undrinkable

bad or nonapplicable data doesnt become good or applicable data merely because it is the only data one has.

As one example of many, open queue competitive now exists in the main selection menu whereas it was in the arcade on the day that data was taken

I see that as a very significant change, personally

In any case, a single day worth or data on an ongoing event is not generally considered significant, nor a reasonable measure of the events’ overall activity

since it was the first day it was even available, many werent even aware it existed

if one is unaware of the very existence of a game, how would one even make the choice to go to said game?

not at all

many players dont go in the arcade at all.

if it isnt on the main game selection screen, it isnt under consideration

Both versions are in the game so this discussion is pointless. Play whatever version you prefer, there is no need to remove one or the other.

the discussion topic is “is role queue still necessary” which is a legitimate topic for discussion

on a discussion forum

where folks discuss things

There are a lot of good reasons 222 should be removed from the game, starting with the many severe problems 222 has added to the game and the amount of time/effort/money expended to try to bandaid all those problems

but that’d be a discussion best held in a thread all its own

Sure you are free to discuss whatever you want but asking if role que is necessary sort of implies that they want it gone and that is completely unnecessary.

This is a matter of perspective, you see RQ as having introduced issues while others see it as having fixed issues, just as some believe open que is problematic. But I repeat, in the end the dicussion is pointless because both modes are in the game right now, wanting to have one removed is just downright despicable.

given that argument, it should be pointed out that NONE of the discussion on these forums is necessary, including but not limited to your own responses here

the necessity of discussion isn’t really in question tho, because if it was no one would ever post. Rather, what we see is thousands upon thousands of forum members posting, because “necessity” isnt in question

some of us watch football games not because they are necessary, but because we enjoy watching football games

some of us parachute from a plane, not because it is necessary, but because it is enjoyable. at least, as long as the parachute works.

some of us play a videogame called Overwatch, not because it is necessary, but because it is enjoyable

some of us participate on these forums not because it is necessary, but because we enjoy doing so

so “necessity” isnt - and never has been, nor ever will be - a factor on these forums, on any topic

the many severe problems as well as the time and cost to bandaid them are not a matter of perspective – additional cost is bad for Blizzards bottom line and ergo the survival of the game, and added dev time to bandaid issues means fewer enhancements are added to the game, or are added more slowly, which is not good for the players

all these bandaids we are seeing like fast pass clearly and absolutely show that Blizzard is well aware of at least some of the many severe problems that 222 has inflicted upon the game

you dont see any such bandaids being applied to role-less queue

Nothing despicable about it whatsoever

see further above for response to “pointless”

Everything you just said is wrong. This particular issue is unnecessary because everyone already got what they wanted, those who want to play RQ can do so and those who want to play OQ can do so. As I said, wanting to remove one of them is despicable, it would be trying to ruin someone elses enjoyment for no reason at all. For example, I believe OQ to be a horrendous way to play the game, but some people like it and I have nothing against that, I’m not going to actively ask for Blizzard to remove that mode because there is no need, and I’m not a despicable person, let everyone play whatever they want to play.

It is a matter of perspective. I for example believe that everything you just said is false and or wrong.

Wrong. They wouldn’t have made these decisions if they couldn’t make them possible, otherwise they would’ve never implemented OQ since is the least popular choice by far, but since they CAN, they did so, in order to give the few people who enjoy it a chance to play it.

RQ is the better way to play the game which is widely accepted by now, so in any case, you should be campaigning to remove OQ to free up resources.

You are mistaking “bandaids” with refinement, they are improving upon the system.

Because it fundamentally doesn’t work, which has already been established, there is no need to continue to work on a system that already failed.

If you want to take away people’s enjoyment for no valid reason then yes, it is despicable.

not at all

The point I responded to was one where the necessity of the thread was questioned, when the necessity of any thread is never at issue

Not at all

while those of us who enjoy the absence of restrictions, variety, faster queue times, and overall absence of the many severe problems 222 has brought to the game, the role-less queue game modes remain unequal (in the case of both competitive and qp) or even non existent (in the case of qp, as there is no qp on the main game selection screen

so no, the role-less queue side has not “got what they wanted”

except - that cost and time expenditure is real, regardless of belief. Development of software, as well as changes to existing software) takes time and money. The earth is for example still (roughly) a sphere regardless of whether one chooses to believe otherwise

see previous response

yes, they showed they can make such changes. and they did.

…but…

if they hadn’t made the initial bad decision of adding 222 to the game for all of us, tho it was only necessary for OWL, they wouldnt have had to make the decision to spend money and time (time that could otherwise have gone towards making enhancements to the game like adding more characters) on bandaiding (example: fast passes) some of the severe problems 222 inflicted upon the game

tho this is stated as a fact, it is an opinion…an opinion many forum members, myself included, disagree with

I know of no valid data to support this claim.

I know of absolutely no reason why I would do such a thing when I vastly prefer the role-less queue mode

It’s not considered “refinement” when one makes a change to an application purely to attempt to fix or ameliorate a problem added by a previous change

if that were the case, there would be fixes being installed.

There havent been any fixes installed specifically for role-less queue

Further, thousands upon thousands of players are playing role-less mode matches all over the world as I type this and as you read it. this wouldnt be the case if it were true that “it fundamentally doesn’t work”

all those players playing without issue - it appears to me it works just fine

I know of no valid data to support this claim

not at all

the opposite, actually

a software developer who releases flawed software has an obligation to fix/patch said software

the absence of such patches/fixes for open queue indicate it is not failed

1 Like

Still missing the point, there is no need to remove RQ, therefore discussing if it’s still necessary is pointless.

This is just blatant lies. The OQ modes are there for anyone to play them and they are just as they were before.

You fail to consider the fact that Blizzard chose to add the OQ mode because they can, therefore it is not a cost that they cannot afford. In any case as I mentioned before, if any mode would have to go it would be OQ as it is the least popular by far.

It was the best decision they’ve made since the game released. It’s what saved this game.

No, it is a fact. You can be in denial all you want, it will still be a fact.

Because you argue against unnecessary “cost” to development, and since OQ is the one mode dragging those costs then it is the one that needs to be removed.

There is no problem to speak of.

You can’t fix what didn’t work in the first place. It would be a waste of time and resources to try and make work something that can’t work. This is the reason they implemented RQ because that is a system that actually works for the game.

I’ll quote you just for fun: “I know of no valid data to support this claim”

THe only obligation the developers have is to have a system that works, if one doesn’t work then it is replaced for one that does, hence RQ.

not at all

the statement I replied indicated that this topic shouldnt be discussed because it was unnecessary, and yet thats true for every single post in these forums…ie we dont post because it is necessary, we choose to do so without it being necessary in every single case

I dont know how much money and time Blizzard is sinking into bandaiding 222, but depending on the cost, it could possibly be very worthwhile - perhaps even necessary - to remove 222. We know with certainty they are pouring resources (ergo dollars) into it to try to overcome some of the many severe problems 222 added to the game. At some point the decision might be “enough is enough”

but Blizzard could certainly decide at some point that there is a need to remove 222

as stated before, and I won’t belabor this further, all discussion on these forums can be considered to be pointless given the mindset described

and yet…we discuss

on a discussion forum

meant for discussion

etc etc

not at all

the modes are unequal, especially in qp

not at all

one example of many: before 222, role-less queue qp was on the main game selection menu. It is now in the arcade menu. This is an obvious difference, ie not “just as they were before”. One can claim if they like that this is not a big difference, but it remains a difference when the claim in the statement quoted above is that the modes are “just as they were before”.

they’re simply not.

I know of no valid data to support the claim regarding the popularity of role-less queue modes

IMO, adding 222 was THE very worst change ever made to the game, and it is killing the game slowly but surely.

Not at all

there is no denial on my part

the statement I noted as an opinion stated as if it were a fact is as I said an opinion

further – for me and for others who have stated this on many queuing threads throughout these forums, role-less queue is a far better game mode than 222

except – role-less queue isnt creating any additional costs

222 on the other hand is drawing resources away form game enhancements due to all the necessary bandaiding work

actually, yes, it is a problem when a dev team has to delay plans to work on product enhancement to deal with bugs and problems that a previous change has caused for the software.

this is true of any software product, not just OW

it has always worked, and is working right now, as demonstrated by the thousands upon thousands of player playing role-less queue mode matches without issue as I type this and as you read this

thats not the case at all with role-less queue as it now stands.

the devs arent having to put work into it to fix is because it isn’t broken

unlike 222, with all its queuing and other problems

except it doesnt, as acknowledged by all the time and effort Blizzard has put into trying to fix it and/or replace it

222 doesn’t work well

Blizzard is putting time/effort/money into fixing and/or replacing it

They are to their credit trying to meet their obligation to their customers

1 Like

No it isn’t. There is no need to remove any mode, therefore this topic is unnecessary. I repeat, trying to remove any mode whatsoever would be despicable.

Since they are not band aiding anything then your argument becomes invalid.

You want to take away someone’s enjoyment of the game for no reason, that is your argument. And the worst part is that it is completely unnecessary, so yes, it is in fact pointless.

False, it is the exact same thing.

That is irrelevant, the mode is the exact same.

I know of it and it is factual.

You are free to believe that, but there is no need to remove it when OQ is right there for you to play.

Yes it is, because it is an extra mode that is unnecessary for the game as RQ is the main mode now.

They are not delaying anything, that is just speculation on your part.

It never worked which is why they implemented RQ.

Because it never worked in the first place.

They aren’t fixing anything, they are refining the system, making it better, which is something that can’t be done with OQ as it never really worked.

I see no use in continuing what might seem to some like a conversation

I have presented obvious truths, like classic qp being in a different game selection menu than 222 qp, and the response is that the truth presented is a lie, when it clearly isnt

as such, I won’t be responding further

1 Like

You presented only falsehoods.

are you kidding? No one plays open queue because it is significantly worse than role queue. The release of Open Q actually proved role queue is 100x better due to simple demand

1 Like