What you’ve said in another post is irrelevant, I don’t follow your posts. Post it in this thread if you want people to consider it… 
Uhhh…ok? Should this be the title/op of this thread? I feel you’re moving the goal posts…
Thats not the point of this post. But i addressed it since YOU brought something up about queues which is direct correlation to role lock.
My issue is the backfill but YOU brought something else up
Apparently it is, and you should adjust your OP to reflect that…
Yeah, to which I responded:
If we had enough players, there’d be no backfill.
It’s like asking why people are thirsty when they live in a dry desert… 
If you could just uncheck it, the majority of the playerbase would opt out and you wouldn’t get backfill anymore. Then if one player leaves the game, it’s basically over and everyone else will leave as well.
1 Like
It’s not an issue of not having enough players, it’s an issue of people leaving games when they even think that they might lose. If there was a penalty in arcade/qp for leaving games, the amount of backfills would significantly drop.
Ok lets ask… How is queue times to do with my backfill quandary?
And no you havent you have replied with something about queues.
And lastly you have replied something about queues.
So mate i believe you are missing the point
That’s the sad part. If they ever implement an option to opt-out of backfill, I would hope they would pair it with a harsher penalty for leaving early, especially in QP/Arcade. A drop in endorsement level does absolutely nothing when punishing rage-quitters.
1 Like
laughs
If there was tons of players queuing for games, you’d never backfill…
Yes…I have…your ability to comprehend them is not my problem…
Yes, it is.
Backfill is directly linked to playerbase.
If there were millions of people queuing for the game, you’d never experience backfill…
No there wouldnt be… there will still be backfill because people would still leave… its funny you dont understand this.
There will still be people leaving games… there would still be people filling those games. Players numbers are irrelevant
That’s not necessarily true. So many people rage quit / leave for their own reasons that you’d be bound to backfill at one point. If there was a penalty (outside of comp) for leaving the game, however, that would significantly decrease the amount of backfills.
But it’s not. If people didn’t leave their games at any sign of loss, there would be no backfill. You backfill into a game when someone leaves. No quitters, no backfill. Ez.
When people say they don’t understand stats without saying it…
A player leaves a game and there’s 1000 players in line: 0.1% chance of filling it.
A player leaves a game and there’s 1000000 players in line: 0.0001% chance of filling it.
Yeah people will leave games but if you think the odds are the same…
If you’ve learned mathematics in high school (and understood them), you’d know they are…
You gotta take into account overwatch’s dead hours, and the various amount of game mode choices as well. There is always a chance to backfill, and completely ridding yourself of that " 0.0001% " chance by being able to opt out would be nice. You’re completely skating over the fact that 60% of QP/Arcade games tend to have a rage quitter/leaver. Take into account that modes like CTF, No Limits, and Total Mayhem are less popular even if more people play, and there’s where you’d backfill. OP and myself just want to be able to completely opt out of that.
Regardless of the %. You dont what % there is of backfill neither do i. I just want the option to not backfill.
And you stated that if there were millions of back that you would never experience it. So i have to take what you are saying in the literally and then in this post you are saying that there is chance. So what is it? a chance or never?
True. EVERYONE hates waiting 2+ minutes on Quickplay just to join to a defeat screen. Not fun.
I mention this and other QoL updates at:
You originally said:
laughs
Yes, it is…
If you Q for QP and there’s 1000 ppl Q vs 1000000 ppl Q your chance of backfilling is substantially less…
Defend the untenable…it’s hilarious to me…
What you’re doing is moving the goal posts. You made a claim, I easily denied it (more players = less backfill) and now you’re trying to say “I don’t want backfill”
Nice strawman, I’d move the goal posts too if I was proven wrong…
Literally no one is wrong here though.
You say more players = less backfill.
I say harsher leaving penalties = less leavers = less backfill.
Neither is wrong, yet one is more obtainable.
Yes, they are…and it’s you… 
Considering the dwindling playerbase, it is objectively better (not opinion, fact) to get more players than demand existing players fill the gaps.
You: force 1000 players to play maps whatever they are (0.1% fillrate=1/1000)
Me: let 1000000 players do whatever they want (0.0001% fillrate1/1000000)
You: hoping 1000 players fill the gaps
Me: knowing 1000000 players fill the gaps better
One is wrong…and it’s you…based on statistics…
That is very much an opinion. We both know that Overwatch is going to continue to die. The route you are pushing is unobtainable, buddy. We literally have to demand the current players to fill the gaps because there will not be a significant spike in players to drop the backfill amount.
Yes !!! Force them to grow up and play a map that they might not like instead of being selfish and quitting because it’s HLC or Paris… Force them to grow a pair and take the L instead of leaving early because they are losing. Most games already have something like this implemented, yet Overwatch does not.
Statistics aside, your method is quite literally unobtainable.
My method, however, is already implemented in hundreds of games, and has a proven success rate. Games like Town of Salem, which I have hundreds of hours in, has a leaving penalty where you can’t play for [x] amount of time if you leave a game early, and if you leave enough times in a short period, you can face a temp or even perm ban. It works.