Blizzard has made several moves that indicate they would like to get 222 out of the game
There is no valid data about the playerbase preferences that I am aware of
2 Likes
I don’t know of any apples to apples data Blizzard has published on usage, and none whatsoever on player preference
Can you provide a link to the alleged Blizzard data?
3 Likes
that after brig, doom, ball, years of having to solo tank and anti tank balance caused most of the tanks to leave or be on their way out before 2-2-2.
this cause terrible que times which in turn caused dps to leave.
all the numbers i quoted means is that the player base has shrunk. much smaller and there wont be enough people to even have players in gm.
The polls, the best we have show 60% support, and Blizz own tables on player selections for games backs it up.
It was posted on the forum not too long ago, about month IIRC. It was a table by region which then was broken down showing what modes most players selected. OQ as I recall was a definitively lower selection compared to RQ. Nothing “alleged” about it.
1 Like
I havent seen any such data, so from my point of view, it is correct to term it as “alleged”
I read and participate in almost every queuing-related thread on these forums, so it is odd that I missed the issuance of such data.
Perhaps you or another reader will provide an actual link to the alleged data to provide support for the otherwise unsupported statement in question
2 Likes
All of the player polls I have seen have been invalid, and ergo the data from said polls is invalid as well
See previous post in regard to alleged Blizzard data
2 Likes
I have no need to lie, I recall the table being presented.
as a point of clarification, I have not accused anyone of lying in this thread
understood
I on the other hand do not recall the table being presented, and I read almost every queuing-related thread on this forum
Given that I have not seen the alleged table, I think it is reasonable to ask the readers of this thread - yourself included - to provide a link to it so that it can be discussed on equal terms and the earlier (seemingly) unsupported statement be supported
2 Likes
Happy now with the table? No need to lie or misrepresent. Results are actually far more one sided than I remembered…
1 Like
Untrue. The largest poll ever conducted (44 thousand votes) and the only official public Blizzard poll ever conducted on the topic actually had around that number for Open Queue.
Single day data from when it had just been introduced only a day or two earlier with no promise of permanence and buried in the arcade with no announcement of its arrival. This is also usage rather than preference data.
1 Like
Not untrue, I was there in both cases. Look, y’all can cry about OQ all you want, RQ has more support or Blizz would already have ditched it flat out. Time to just stop dancing around the question.
But go on the usual suspects here doubt reality as it is. Be my guest. Flat-Earthers are convinced too.
If Blizz did a poll and actually believed the results really lined up with use, they would have change back in OW 2. They didn’t.
2 Likes
We don’t know what they will do for overwatch 2. They have stated their current plan but it is always open to change.
They have stated they plan to move away from 222.
I am disappointed that the table does not match the description that was provided
for example, the following was said of the table
this table was from well over a year ago, much older than was described
it also is data for just a single day - a very small sample set
it is also apples to oranges data - the role-less queue options were not positioned next to their so-called 222 “equivalents”, and role-less queue competitive had only just been introduced a day or so prior as a temporary mode in the arcade. Many players didnt even know about it yet. Comparing 222 competitive on the main game selection window with a temporary mode buried one menu level deeper that many players didnt even know about yet is very, very apples to oranges
I will clarify once again - I have not made any statements in this thread accusing anyone of lying.
see earlier part of this reply in regards to description of data that was provided to us
given the apples to oranges comparison, with all the advantages skewed to 222, this isnt surprising to me
I am not aware of any “crying” in this thread
I don’t understand why this word was used, as the only use I can think of would be to attack/decry/deride those who prefer role-less queue mode, and derision has no place in a serious discussion
Blizzard has made several moves that are indicative that they’d like to move away from all the severe problems of 222, most recently with the announcement of the removal of 222 in favor of 122. I cant say I blame them, given all the dev time/effort/money that has been diverted to bandaiding 222 when those resources could have otherwise been used for enhancements
all of the above seems like additional attempts at derision rather than actual discussion
I ask that the attempts at derision be removed from further conversation on this topic
2 Likes
Ah yes- the we don’t know hopes for a return. Considering there is stated one tank, 2 dps 2 support… they are not planning on OQ to date.
1 Like
as far as I know, they’ve not declared if role-less queue mode will be available or not in OW2
this does not mean that “they are not planning on OQ to date”
it means we dont know one way or the other yet
1 Like
If they were so decided on their plan they wouldn’t have bothered to ask the Koreans for their opinion. They listen to the Koreans.
If the Koreans tell them that they hate 5V5 RQ and want 6V6 open queue they might actually listen.
They might, but if they go that route, they might as well roll back to 6 v 6. Please continue to carry the torch for OQ.
1 Like
I think I’ll pass on the role thing being removed/erased/deleted
Qoute the team would be unbalanced
Thanks
1 Like
I mean, they kinda have to. 2-2-2 doesn’t go into 5. 
1 Like