You play your character, the other 5 play theirs
You’re not “paying” anything
Each of the other 5 have the right to play the character as they wish, not as anyone else wishes
You control you
Only you
On a 6 players team game, that’s not how it works.
You’re asking Overwatch to become a real mess and unplayable as a team or competitive game at all. Specially when we have our own OWL (that could simply vanish, OW doesn’t have quality yet to have a league).
You’re telling me Overwatch is a team-game but you need to play for yourself, care only about yourself and ignore what other people do? Where did we miss the “team” part?
on a team of any number of players thats exactly how it works
you control you
only you
1 Like
Never mind. You really have no idea what a team is.
And I’m not gonna be the one explaining you that.
That actually have a name: Egoism and Individualism. Which both can be considered the opposite of a team.
oh look, two things no one says 2-2-2 is going to fix being used as an argument against 2-2-2.
might as well say 2-2-2 wont work because the sky is blue.
Here’s another flawed argument from the 2/2/2 crowd, then:
“Oh but at least we’ll have a tank and a healer!”
- The DPS may still run off in different directions
- You won’t necessarily get a main/barrier tank
- Healers may not necessarily heal
What people want, and the only way 2/2/2 would work is role queue, but again, that would completely destroy DPS queue times. Then DPS would be queuing as healer and not healing.
This doesn’t change people’s behavior. All it does is place an arbitrary restriction to create some “ideal” when people will end up doing the same thing anyway.
1 Like
I ask that the personal attacks cease
Each member of a team decides what their individual contributions will be over the course of the play of said match, certainly including their character selection
The fact that the other 5 decide what their contributions will be rather than the one deciding does not mean the other 5 are not contributing to the team. It means their contributions will not be the ones that the 1 player wishes they were
I decide my contributions
You decide yours
We both contribute as we deem fit, without necessarily agreeing that the other’s choice(s) were the optimal ones
1 Like
so, all problems we have now in spades. people wont have 4 dps anymore, infinitely better balance is possible. anything else 2-2-2 accomplishes is just gravy.
Just because something was true in the past doesn’t mean it workers as well going forward -
True enough
It is also true that a change that some folks want is not necessarily a good change, sometimes it is best to not make a change
It’s clearly not the case that every player plays only a single role. In fact, the people who complain most about insta-locks are often stating that they are being forced to flex onto roles that they don’t want to play. Even if it were true that “90% of the players have 90% of their time on one hero”… which sounds like a drastic exaggeration to me, but if it were true, effectively throwing 10% of your games by playing a role that you rarely play is going to have a significant impact on your SR.
Of course players that actually never flex and players that are true one-tricks will not see any change in the accuracy of their SR, but for all the players that do play multiple roles - even if only 10% of the time - their SR will be more accurate.
Regardless of how good a job they are doing or how much effort they are putting out, the difficulty of the balance problem is simplified if you know the ratio of the team composition ahead of time. It certainly won’t make the team better at their jobs or solve every balance problem, but it seems likely that the same team, given an easier problem, will be able to do a better job than they did with the harder problem.
I’m not aware of any such statement from anyone at Blizzard. I do know that Jeff stated in this interview that locked roles (not necessarily 2-2-2, but any fixed, known team ratio) would make it easier to balance. He gives Brigitte as an example of a hero balanced for 3/3 and impossible to balance for 2/2/2 in the existing game because of what she does in 3-support compositions.
(time-linked to that answer)
If you want much more structure to the roles in your team then impose that limitation on yourself with LFG.
Because it’s not a “feature” it’s fundamentally changing the game for everyone when you let an actual feature to avoid 5DPS teams go unused because of problem with LFG that are entirely caused by LFG being unused.
Best part of LFG is it doesn’t offer only one solution to 5DPS teams, it can set all sorts of role limits that are far less restrictive than 222.
Now you’re going to list a load of solvable problems with LFG then you know what the answer to that will be, don’t you? That’s arguments for improving LFG, not forcing your particular LFG role restrictions on everyone in the entire game!
2 Likes
What would improve lfg?
more people actually using it rather than forcing others into LFG 2.0
2 Likes
Why don’t people use it?
It might seem like I’m just stringing questions out, but I’m not. You’re right that LFG was a potential answer to some of the problems that lead people to support role lock. If role lock does go in, it’s important to know why LFG failed so that role lock doesn’t fail the same way.
Personally, I never gave it a chance because I expect it to have the same results as the “stay as team” button, only we skip past the awesome match beforehand that made everyone want to play together and go straight to the one where we lose and the team breaks up.
1 Like
Last time I asked what’s the “problem” with LFG they kept moving the goalposts from the problem not being things like how they are at a disadvantage for not having the supposedly ideal 222 ratio of roles to the contradictory stance that they’re at a disadvantage with 222 that any team they’re up against should have the same 222 restriction.
It’s so blatantly self-contradictory.
Two mutually opposing arguments are used to argue for Forcing 222 on everyone and every criticism of one argument says “see the other contradictory argument” and back and forth and back and forth.
EDIT: TheCheese edited their comment hugely changing the content of their posts after I had already replied.
EDIT2: Not saying TheCheese was baiting, just saying why I didn’t respond to most of what they said.
3 Likes
cant switch to pull the slack of my bad teammate,
sometimes switchin off tank into support or DPS is enough to save the match
also, now you have those 5 dps one tricks playing tank on support, which they dont want to, so they leave, or just play bad 
2 Likes
In theory (hah!) you shouldn’t need to, since you’re both playing at the appropriate SR for the role you’re on.
Those DPS onetricks won’t be able to do that because their lower tank/support SR will cause them to drop into lower tier games.
It does however bring up the possibility of players griefing by deliberately queueing for a role outside their favourite, only to throw the game.
Come on now, you make it sound like I was baiting or something.
Yeah, I will go back to clarify.