Open Queue vs Role Queue

Competitive Discussion
61

Open has faster queues, fewer constraints, more options, higher skillcap.
Those are objective facts. “quality” is a subjective and moot point. And we lack evidence to discuss popularity with any detail.

So OPEN can do everything RQ can do, and largeN more. If people don’t like something (too many dps) let them be the change they want to be. If they don’t care enough to LFG, swap, or round-out the comp - who are you to lock them down forever always? RQ protects terribles that expect ttk padding and mistake-buffering from a scripted format.

RQ wins no combinatorial arguments. The mode was a layoff-worthy design move. Match quality (and meta) is always a gamble. Handcuffing your options after really long queues and 2/3 roles bribed should never be a gamble.

Depending on others - even forcing them via lockdown (and expecting less toxicity) - to round our the comp for you, or depending on a rounded comp for your progression - is just irrational. Depending on altruism from strangers in a video game loses to the robustness of self-serving, self-carry agency. Open frees you of these things.

2 Likes
62

From my own experience it’s easier to climb in OP than RQ. Also when you reach some decent rank in OP people will actually play 2/2/2.
But there’s always possibility of playing 5DPS/1Support or 3Tanks/3Supports.

63

RQ provides more structure, you no lorger are forced to play roles you don’t want to, problematic comps are much more limited, etc., etc.

If you believe the disadvantages outweigh the advantages, that’s a totally respectable subjective opinion.

The skill cap argument isn’t objective, nor the queue times point.

So stop misinterpreting subjective views as facts, pal.

Ironic to say the least.

False, but anyways.

They’re already the only ones picking Tanks and Supports. What else do you want them to do?

In the traditional sense, no. RQ wins other arguments.

Completely disagreed.

Much less on RQ though.

And it isn’t.

Overly depending on others is the flawed basis on which this game was built from the ground up. Don’t blame RQ for the game’s fundamental issues.

Also, even if that wasn’t true, everyone who queues in RQ chhoses to do so themselves. No forcing involved. If they don’t like RQ, OQ is here for them and that’s the end of this argument.

You seem to be talking about a different game, not Overwatch. Makes sense based on your stance.

64

Yeah the OQ/RQ gap is bigger than before, at least for me.

65

A forced-lockdown structure that denies real-time flex potential and cross-role agency ceiling. Fewer options, fewer actions, fewer interactions, fewer metas - means lower skillcap.

Objectively btw, from raw definition.

It’s a basic combinatorial fact. The set of things you could do in 222 is a (very small) subset within the set of things OPEN lets you do. The OPEN state-space coverage, tree complexity, etc…dominates LOCKDOWN. “Everything you can do, I can do better…and then some”.

That’s an objective measure.

It’s a handcuffed and spoonfed constraint system, which increases the demand weighted queue times and requires bribes to incentivize participation and load-balance.

Quality is personal, subjective, and varying. It’s also a gamble. You can’t call ‘quality’ arguments objective. Their subjectivity doesn’t hold up. Yet they’re the only type of argument the pro-222 camp offers. 222 does not guarantee quality, and non-222 doesn’t imply trash.

Meanwhile:

The objective (global) loss function for 222 is deviation from a population-based equilibrium. We know 222 is a bad template, because there is a constantly large supply/demand mismatch. It requires contrived hero patches, bribes load-balance, and wonky queue-control to try and offset it’s desirability mismatch.

The equilibrium that the population desires is far from 222. Full stop.

If the population believes 2/3 of the roles are trash - who are you to correct them? The queues go up, bribes are paid out, and someone without math thinks it’s “objectively better”.

OPEN does not make any assumptions about quality. It is therefore robust to those subjective interpretations, experiences, and variations. It is quality agnostic, and it wins the global loss function. It wins, because it does not imprison the natural equilibrium response.

I think we’re done with the lesson for today.

2 Likes
66

They actually are, listen to any OWL player, they’ll say the same thing.

67

Maybe you should update your statement. They actualy are saying it about support.

68

This has nothing to do with the quote you included, but anyways…

Once again, this has nothing to do with the lines you quoted.

If you personally believe RQ’s disadvantages outweigh its advantages, that’s totally fine and respectable.

OQ is here for you and RQ won’t bother you ever again.

And I never did.

It more than does, just like many of the pro - OQ subjective arguments, since they all happen to have at the very least a logical backing.

Completely false. If the skill cap argument in favor of OQ is objective, so is the fact that RQ gives players the ability to queue for whatever role they want beforehand instead of potentially being forced into one due to other teammates selfishness, the naturally more balanced nature of 222 VS 222 matches (and all mirror role compositions in general), etc., etc.

False. Changes aren’t automatically bad because they go against the norm.

I know this is extremely difficult to comprehend, but maybe what the change tries to regulate/fix is the norm?

That’s actually objectively incorrect. “The majority” of compositions pre RQ according to the devs themselves were of a 222 composition.

You are the only one who’s forcibly bringing objectivity here, not me, so stop putting words into my mouth.

Of course. It leaves everything up to luck and that’s exactly why it failed so miserably and was erased off the game for years.

And becomes subject to other subjective perspectives, such as how much someone enjoys and how often they come across people pseudo Flexing, filling into roles they don’t want to play in a selfless matter for their selfish teammates and playing with, or against unbalanced, nonsensical compositions, etc., etc.

I’m sorry to burst your bubble, but OQ ain’t no flawless system. Not. Even. Close actually.

Agreed completely. Dismissed.

69

Completely false. OPEN still has a higher skillcap, because of the in-game flex potential. The skillcap argument is objective, and OPEN wins it. By a longshot. There is absolutely nothing RQ can do that OQ can’t. And OQ can do far more things.

False. There is no objective “forcing”. That is a quality/entitlement argument, it is subjective, and doesn’t matter because the global loss function is worsened with LOCKDOWN.

The norm in this case is decided by an objective, global loss function. In this case, a deviation from the equilibrium as-desired by the population. Since there is a supply/demand mismatch that has to be compensated for (injected with bribes and other incentives) - it is clear that 222 forces an arbitrary trajectory that deviates from the desired equilibrium/norm. It’s a worse template, because it augments the concensus-driven mismatch instead of reducing it.

You can argue about subjective quality (that’s all 222 supporters have), but it’s moot. OPEN doesn’t care, and the global loss function is worse for those equilibrium reasons.

2 Likes
70

Whatever you say. You don’t want to change your mind, I don’t want to change mine, so be it.

You’ll either switch, or you’ll most probably lose.

That’s technically forcing.

Therefore it works as intended by correcting the huge imbalance that clearly existed based on what you’re saying.

Completely incorrect, as already stated.

And hence it completely fails as a system for an online multiplayer game filled with strangers. Simple.

71

It’s not my mind to change, it’s the math of it.

Open wins all the skillcap arguments, the freedom arguments, the supply/demand arguments. RQ wins what? Some kind of arbitrary notion of “quality” arguments? Ones that aren’t consistent with what most players desire (as evidenced by queues/bribes and lack of load-balancing)?

Sorry but no.

2 Likes
72

The definition of the word “skill cap” according to the Urban Dictionary is “The maximum level of performance that can be achieved using a specific toolset”.

Give me the irrefutable ““math”” (not your subjective stance like you’ve been doing until now) of players being able to achieve higher results with OQ than with RQ and I’ll concede when it comes to thus specific point.

You conveniently ignored all the advantages I mentioned. Fitting.

The majority of the player base are DPS, but they all cry when the Healer aren’t enough or when there’s no one to Tank and push.

It was high time someone showed all these people what they’re asking for is nothing more than a scientifically impossible pipe dream. Queue times are evidence of exactly that.

73

And OPEN has a larger toolset. If you want to restrict yourself in open, and come down to the lockdown levels of 222, by all means go for it. You’ll still have the same tools, but access to other ones. Whether you choose or prune is up to you - but the skillcap will be higher for it.

Please give me a non-subjective quality argument. Still waiting btw.

With bribes to load-balance and balance patches to incentivize terrible roles. Evidence the 222 model is out-of-touch and forcing a supply/demand mismatch with what the overall population desires.

2 Likes
74

So you can’t answer the question.

Fair enough.

I have already done so.

I’m gonna repeat this for the 5th time:

On top of 222 being the most - played comp pre - RQ according to the devs themselves, etc., etc.

1 Like
75

I don’t want matches to be balanced, I can understand Blizzards interest in that, but I am interested in learning the game and getting better at it and testing my skill.

I like the flexibility of OQ, the queue times in role queue are just nonsensical usually too.

2 Likes
76

I dont know of any dev statements that support this statement

77

RQ is what OWL and Contenders play which means every high level player is on RQ. Content creators will be attracted to RQ because the best players are there, and following them is the whole community. There’s no pro circuit for OQ, so it only makes sense that it isn’t taken as seriously and became a QP 2.0

78

Tanks are very impactful and thats why I hate the Flex queue aka Tank. YOu get these DPS or Support players who don’t even play tank but play it to get a priority pass and if they are bad you lose the game. Whatever team has the better tank just wins.

79

I dont agree with it. It can be said about all roles. Tank roles is not so powerfull anymore. I think support have slightly more power to decide outcome.

1 Like
80

in my games at least they don’t and i’m a support main. We heal all day and make plays but if our tanks can’t make space we just get steam rolled.