I cant cringe harder when people dont even know the basics of “Burden of proof” here, because my statements here are 90% DEBUNKING people that claim “vast majority” with absolute ZERO actual stats/facts to back it up.
So if you find my logical train of thought flawed, congratulations buddy, you also destroyed your own point … because you have to reach REALLY HARD (like flying to a different galaxy HARD) to take 1 random statement after a PTR patch and claim that means the “vast majority of the community supports 222”.
And people that left the game because of RQ is not going to post here … you cant just bring excuses to the table because it suits you, mostly because everyone can see that and refute it.
So if you think you can refute my statements, you are actually destroying your own stance, because it has even LESS of a leg to stand on
No, it is not. Now you have to deal with healers divign 1v6 caue they’re DPS main’s smurf and just wanted a fast queue or two snipers trying to poke two shields. Nothing is “more balanced”.
Its actually the best kind of argument because it does not draw on example. It can’t be debunked. Its just math. We did the math. There are far more combinations when you’re in an unjailed regime. I don’t have to list compositions. Go look up some basic combinatorics. 222 is a proper subset, there are fewer compositions, you have less to work with, you can’t be as creative.
The rest I’m not responding to because you apparently reject basic logic.
So your first point is that they took a long while to decide on a change with massive gameplay implication? I don’t really think that’s a bad call, do you?
Which would be a change that would decrease the number of tank players further and would also be hard to implement because Blizzard often has different ideas about how a tank will be used than what actually ends up happening. From their initial statements they thought of Hammond as an off-tank and Sigma as a main tank and what actually ended up happening is the exact opposite.
Is an issue everyone was aware would happen with role queue, just stating the issue without giving any suggestions how to fix it doesn’t count as “giving suggestions on what they could have done differently.” It’s like saying “curing cancer would be a good idea.” Yeah, duh.
Both good options with massive downsides. Let’s look at the first one though, because that one’s much more severe. The way the game works right now, you’re placed with teammates who are about as good on their roles as you are on yours. But just because you’re a master DPS player, it doesn’t mean you’re any good on main support, or that you play the role at all. So what’s to prevent a master DPS player from queuing up for gold support role with a gold friend (potentially by intentionally deranking that role since they don’t play it), then switching roles to carry the game on DPS? There wouldn’t even be any downside to them. And which role do you give this player SR for? If it’s support, then you’re giving them SR for a role they played for 20 seconds instead of the one they actually played on, and if it’s DPS then you’re giving them SR rewards for smurfing in a low ranked game.
Jut one example, there’s a thousand reasons why switching roles is very hard to implement well, but this would turn into a short novel if I get deeper into it here.
Be honest with me, do you really think this would work? I can guarantee it’d just cause every DPS player who’s tired of sitting in queue to choose support or tank instead and then switch immediately to DPS as soon as they enter the game. We’d be in the exact situation we were before role queue but with a pointless extra mechanic that would do literally nothing.
What does that do? Check out how MMR resets worked out in games that had them, it’s been incredibly awful in literally every example. It threw matchmaking into complete chaos for months on end and at the end everyone ends up at the rank they started with anyways.
Not really true. Ordinarily, if you had 0 wins in your placements, you’d be placed about 200SR below your previous placement, but with the new system there were some players that placed multiple entire ranks below. I have a GM friend who placed in low diamond on one of their off-roles. And the first 5 or 10 games after placing also had bigger SR swings than usual, so a “garbage dps player with GM support account” would reach around their correct rank within a few games after placements. Not really a big deal.
You can have a discussion about anything, that doesn’t mean what you’re discussing is worth implementing. Do you think they didn’t consider everything we talked about here and come to the conclusion it’s not a good idea?
The way I see it all of your suggestions have some merit, but also very drastic downsides which make them not worth implementing. You’re of course free to disagree, but you have to recognize that none of them are a black-and-white situation where the game would be objectively better if you implemented them, and that Blizzard probably also thinks the downsides would outweigh the potential benefits.
You’re correct, there are no recent developers statements on this matter, but according to the next most trustworthy source of metrics, community - created polls, results still regularly touch the astounding results of 3:1 in favor of 2/2/2 role - lock…
And no random and anecdotal at best statements thrown around I the Forums and signaling 2/2/2 role - lock’s supposed ““failure”” can change that.
And what exactly are you trying to say here? I never said that random community - made polls and especially here in the Forums are even remotely a trustworthy source of metrics concerning any matter.
But, it really says a lot when in these Forums, where the anti - 2/2/2 crowd has most probably been presenting the majority (and a very vocal one as well), almost every single poll made has shown that most people actually really enjoy 2/2/2 role - lock, with as I said, sometimes astonishing differences of 3:1 in favor of the new system.
You simply cannot deny that.
I’m not going to argue with you, because what you’re saying is really logical.
But, another completely logical thought is what I’ve already said, which is that official statements from the developers themselves, the people who actually have all the data available from the game they themselves created will always be more trustworthy than both community - made polls and especially the random and anecdotal at best statements thrown around in the Forums and signaling 2/2/2 role - lock’s supposed ““failure”” that all of the latest system haters have been hiding behind for months…
Yes, the flex players, while arguably a very small amount of this game’s player base, are certainly the price to pay for the implementation of 2/2/2 role - lock.
But that ““massive swath of players”” you’re talking about, well, I extremely doubt that you have any proof of this claim being true.
That I have to agree with, but I’m sure there’s much more happening behind the scenes than what we know of…
I totally disagree, but really this most of this subject overall is a matter of anecdotal opinions which can neither be proven not disproven…
And again, I simply have to repeat this undeniable fact:
And this comes from a person that had been using the LFG system and deal with it’s BS for more than a year…
I mean I can understand if you talk about competitive and role queue affecting you . But for just quick play you can play classic as well as role queue quick play . Both options are there and I don’t think developers will remove classic from arcade .
No. That’s not even remotely close to what i’m talking about. My issue comes with the fact that people were discussing it for 3 years, only for blizzard to spend around a year or so talking about their plan on implementing role que and how they want to deal with the issues or role que, only for them to implement the most basic version possible. If your whole goal was to release this ridiculous LFR version, you didn’t need such a long time.
As for the rest, I’m honestly not in the mood to read all that and respond one at a time.
So here’s a short answer which i think will be a conclusion of all those points.
The disappointment comes from the fact that blizzard took such a massively long time to implement this system, and they “CLAIMED” They’re working on it to make it a good system. Of course no one expects perfection with the first try. But they just implemented LFR as a mode and called it role que.
They had no plans for high tier players. No plans for leavers. Nothing for in game swap, nothing to create an incentive for healers and tanks, other than a ridiculous 25 credit which no one cares about whatsoever, and that’s it.
which makes me and a lot of other players wonder, what exactly they were doing in the past year, or basically 2~3 years when the community started bringing role que into discussion and were giving countless comments and suggestions about it.
Lets see… why would the meta shift towards tripple DPS/Bunker after over a year of GOATS? Could it be that a lot of balance changes had happened to get rid of it? Which were mostly targeted towards making Healers and Tanks weaker and DPS stronger? Which in Addition to 2/2/2 leaves only 2 tanks viable and makes DPS by far the most influencial role in most tiers of play… making people wantint to play it rather than the others even more and by doing so increase Queue times.
So… you want to proof your point then if you have those releases? Or are you just trying to play around the fact that your proof doesn’t exist?
You’re trying to act smart but not a single thing you’re saying holds any sort of value at this point.
But obviously you don’t read any aactual arguments and just try the “Can’t see it it doesn’t exist” method… if you can’t actually provide any proof or even logical argumentation for your point, you should just sit down.
I dont get to choose reality mate but seems you are keen on trying to.
GOATS was effectively killed by bunker. You can rage all you want but your statement was flawed. If you fail to see how, re-read again.
Again, try to keep up.
OOF thats a hard backpedal. Blaming the queue times on the meta.ç
But then again, since you can’t prove I am wrong and I cant check the minds of millions of players and see why people chose to leave or not play as much (because thats how it is), we can leave it as a “tie”.
When theres a lot of noise every day at X hour, and suddenly theres silence one day … something happened mate. Its not a hard logic to follow and by ANY means its not “a play around”.
Again you can be in denial all you want but I can guarantee you, 100%, without ANY doubts of being wrong, that if a company makes a BRUTALLY BIG CHANGE like the forced 222 and their playerbase not only didnt decrease BUT increased, we would see it everywhere, even in our morning cereals.
Nu hu uh. Like I said, “no buts”. You already took the L on that one, remember? You are the one making claims that supporters are the vast majority , the burden of proof is ON YOU mate. Dont ask me to prove that you have no proof.
You are the one running around. Like I said: Come back when you have something of substance to prove any of your claims of “majority” and “people coming back”.
The polls had very little participation and were primarily done by forum goers, a minority.
See, I’m waiting for the hard evidence. And that will be the next two upcoming financial reports.
Why the next two?
Because the next one will only show a partial quarter from RoleQ’s release given its timing. The one after that will show a full quarter of RoleQ, which is the one I’m waiting for in early 2020 to really show how many players left once the dust on RoleQ settled. Or even, how many stayed and how many returnees it gained. Either way.
But until those two financial reports come out and show revenue and MAUs, none of you are doing anything more than strawman arguments to support your given stance on RoleQ.
Very true, but once again you’re missing my point…
100% agreed.
Lmao funny that’s coming from a 2/2/2 role - lock hater…
I’m just providing the undeniable facts here and the only metrics we know of so far, which simply abolish all misinformation spread around about 2/2/2 role - lock’s support failure, at least for the moment.
If I was using just strawmen and anecdotal arguments, as the grand majority of 2/2/2 role - lock haters I’ve seen, then I would only have said that “I like the system and everyone I know likes it so therefore I hereby declare this is also the opinion of the majority of this game’s player base”.
And of course as you’ve seen I’m not doing that.
That being said I certainly understand your doubts though, but that’s only due to the fact that you’re waiting for the financial reports, which will certainly spit all the facts concerning this subject, something which unfortunately, as I said, is less favored by the grand majority of 2/2/2 role - lock haters I’ve seen that the same old anecdotal at best claims they’ve been hiding behind for the past months.
We’d be in the exact situation we were before role queue but with a pointless extra mechanic that would do literally nothing.