Which is the point I’m making. What makes you think 2-2-2 will be any different from what we have now? You’re not going to suddenly win games with that composition. You’ll have tanks who can’t tank, and healers who DPS.
2 Likes
Then why not ask for improvements on an optional feature, instead of talking 2-2-2, without considering all the problems it will bring to the game.
If the optional tool is there, there’s no reason for a mandatory one to be implemented, it’s just that simple. And if you think the optional one has problems, well, point them out and ask for improvements, or better yet, suggest possible improvements.
Most if not all of what you’re saying relates to player behavior and not the game itself, so there is no real solution and not even your precious role queue would fix it.
3 Likes
What makes me think that? Simple. Going from a chance of having Supports and tanks to a guarantee of having Supports and tanks instantly makes a massive difference. If these people can’t rank or support? Still better than not having them at all. What are the odds that you will run into people that can’t do it? Not very high unless you expect them to be god tier at it
In a perfect world, sure, but I will bet on the existence of my Ben & Jerry’s ice-cream that it’s not going to fix anything.
1 Like
Here is my question? What would you suggest to fix everything? LFG clearly isn’t the fix we are looking for. A better LFG can help but still isn’t a real fix like 2-2-2 won’t be a real fix.
There is no magic fix. 2-2-2, no 2-2-2 doesn’t change how players play. You can’t expect them to either. All that Blizzard can do is give everyone the option of using set rules and have others opt out of it. It should never be enforced.
2 Likes
LFG is the fix because it gives you full control over the teammates in your group. The price for being picky about your teammates is longer wait times, because you’re limiting the amount of people that you are willing to play with. Not willing to pay the price is your problem, not LFG.
There are two basic ideas at work here:
-
The games generally feels much better to play when it is more structured. Of course sometimes chaos is fun for a bit of a laugh, but on average most people seem to find structured games to be more enjoyable.
-
People can’t be trusted to impose structure on their own, especially if it involves interactions with other people. It doesn’t matter how many tools you give them to do it. It doesn’t matter if they would end up preferring the structured games.
The only solution is for Blizzard to impose structure on the game (at least in the main modes. Arcade and game browser are obviously different). There is some price to pay for this, just as there was when 1 hero limits were imposed, but it will end up being much better for the game as a whole.
Disagreed on this point. The main reason we don’t have structure is because the current system discourages players from teaming up.
Its faster to climb solo then to Climb stacked.
this game is losing players daily
we dont need more stacking options considering that matchmaking sucks at balancing groups and that it would make Q longer than the default
I don’t buy this, it doesn’t comport with my experience of how people behave.
In my experience people can be pretty lazy, especially when they’re gaming. If one system requires several different button presses, a significant wait time, and a set up conversation, while another option requires just pressing one button then they’ll choose the easier option almost every time.
In addition, people are hesitant to initiate or to enter into potentially awkward social situations. They generally don’t want to be told what to do by their peers, and are hesitant to have some measure of control over strangers. They don’t want to enter situations where people they don’t know have expectations of them, and they don’t want to have expectations of other people.
It’s true that the way the SR system deters some people from using LFG, but I doubt that it’s the main reason why the feature is used less and less over time. I don’t think people need rational excuses to choose the easier path, or the less social path. They do it naturally.
LFG is just not enough for what we need - we NEED a social structure, some way to find a group of people to play with consistently that we trust are at least trying and not throwing the match for kicks. But we don’t have that.
Agreed. However, what I see in this is not a laziness that deters people from creating groups as much as its a laziness toward the fact that climbing is inherently more difficult as a team due to longer queue times, harder games, and etc.
I don’t think it has much to do with the initial effort of forming a group as much as it has to do with the overall difficultys of climbing once that team is formed. Translating it down into “If my games are going to be harder, rewards lesser, and less time efficient then why bother making a group?”
If we changed it to offer more reward for groups in comparison to solo we would see a marked improvement in the match experience.
There is a reason arcade elimination games are taken more seriously. Its due to the carat of guaranteed rewards for wins.
I can speak only to my own experience here. I like the feature. So do my friends. But over time we’ve used it less and less, and it’s not because the games are harder (I didn’t find them to be harder). It’s mainly because of the little bit of extra effort required and the extra friction due to the forced social situations it puts us in. This meshes with how other people I’ve observed behave in other spheres of life as well.
1 Like
I respect your experience and I don’t think you are wrong. I just think you and I are different people who are deterred or encouraged by different things.
So perhaps the middle ground is that some people don’t use LFG is due tothe team building itself and others don’t use it it due to the lack of incentive to team?
Meaning neither of our requirements are being met?
1 Like
Another problem is that you lose endorsement levels when you stick with a group (you get penalized for not getting new endorsements). I dropped from endorsement 4 to 3 because of using LFG for QP and staying with teams that work well together. Blizzard’s social systems aren’t meshing together well and they need to make some adjustments.
1 Like
I definitely agree with that. I think that both of the problems can be fixed by Blizzard. I’m also pretty confident that they’re working on both.
1 Like
If people aren’t using LFG, then they can’t possibly care about 2-2-2 that much.
1 Like
That is my point, 2-2-2 won’t change anything gameplay wise, it will only inhibit players’ ability to counter, imo.