Guys, you are responding to a guy who believes his opinions are facts and who simply refutes any other comment that is not what he thinks or simply ignores what he cannot refute. In other words, you are talking to a wall.
Fun fact is that he plays Overwatch on console. That’s why he thinks the game was once balanced because on console there is no such thing as Meta. Also, on console, matchmaking times for role queues may triple because we all know that the player base is smaller.
And for sure he will respond with his classic argument as if someone is belittling console gaming (no one does that but himself). He’s also going to say (as a fact) that the console game is exactly the same as the PC game (lmao). Just ignore his answers just as he ignores what he can’t argue as if he doesn’t exist because you can’t have a debate with that kind of person. ^^ (I don’t even read his replies lol)
Move on and let him believe in what he thinks are facts. Nobody cares actually.
People have pointed out and explained all of the problems yet they still have no fixes to the problems that Open-Queue gives us and keep on talking like they don’t exist.
Therefore Role-Queue is still very much necessary if these issues are going to be left ignored.
It’s an echo chamber of closed minded individuals projecting their poor opinions onto others on how things should work and apparently get “offended” when someone disagrees with them when pointing out all the flaws. It’s a defense mechanism.
1] for a single day, not any significant interval of time
and
2] was taken on a day when role-less queue had only just that day or a day before been re-added to the game, before most players were even aware it existed
and
3] the role-less queue mode in question was buried one level under the main game selection screen, where many players never even saw the option was available
and
4] was a measure only of usage and not preference. usage is not the same as preference
as such, this data was an applies to orange comparison that does not support the claim that was made
a claim was made with a statement that indicated what was being stated was a fact rather than an opinion
as such, yes, I’d like to see the data supporting the claim that was made
To me, and for many others who have spoken to this in many other 222 threads across these forums, the game was well balanced prior to 222 infesting the game.
I personally would even go so far as to say that it was the best balanced version of the game we’ve seen to date
not at all
It was before, and it certainly can be again
I still have not seen anything I would deem to be a problem that 222 in turn resolved.
That said, 222 added many severe problems to the game; problems that the devs are expending a great deal of time/effort/money to try to bandaid, albeit unsuccessfully
I am glad that the devs realized that many many many players want and prefer role-less queue mode, and as a resut added some role-less queue modes bacl into the game.
That said, it would be greatly preferable for the 222 modes to be side by side with their so-called “equivalents” with identical models. This currently isnt the case at all, particularly with qp, which doesnt even exist on the main game selection screen
I’m not shaming console, i’m stating a provable and real difference between using a console controller and a mouse. Console versions have more autoaim than PC and separate balance patches. Simple facts that prove you havent even experienced what we’re discussing here unless you play on PC.
Also, this cant be shaming because I PLAY BOTH.
Now answer my questions:
OQ was basically unbalancable for the reasons i stated. You have not addressed the reasons i stated, so i’m going to assume you agree with them?
Regardless of the flaws, it is the only data we have. I see no reason as to why it would have changed significantly.
If people truely wanted OQ more they would have clicked the additional 3-4 clicks.
When the prefered option is still available then the usage shouldn’t have had a massive drop. “Burried” is exaggerating.
Your argument consists of your own opinion and “many other” which is all you have until more data is revealed. Not sure if you can be picky with that.
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.
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.
because on console there is no such thing as Meta. Also, on console, matchmaking times for role queues may triple because we all know that the player base is smaller.