Imagine complaining that you might lose a game if the opposition is better than you.
1 Like
I don’t think that’s the complaint. It’s that it’s not a balanced match because the system assumes flexing when too many people would prefer the same role.
The system actively punishes flexing through loss of ult charge and lower SR returns.
Plus flexing, particularly into stacked roles, is one of the things that makes the game so much harder to balance and limits the devs in the characters they are able to release.
Flexing is a problem, not a solution.
I know. I’d rather the system know what role they’re preferring to matchmake more accurately.
Flexing is what makes this game unique, and role lock takes that away.
Lets not group up, or fix the match making, or communicate. Just nuke from orbit. That’s how you kill games.
Couldn’t agree more. And i find it strange that the game is designed that way when Jeff Kaplan said in an interview that he was expecting players to flex and not to main.
1 Like
I am a flex player and I hate when I’m forced to flex around idiots who don’t care 2 craps about their choice of heroes and team composition. Solo healing/tanking with 3/4 DPS with no self sustain nor self reliance that proceeds to blame you because “you’re not assisting them enough”, HELL NAH.
I enjoy playing various heroes and roles to match what best fits my team, but I do NOT enjoy baby sitting idiots who have no sense of guilt for ruining a comp but dare to blame others for their own stupidity.
So role Q that forces idiots out of my game? Yes please. Also, players kill games. If OW matchmaking keeps being what it is it’ll just continue feeding idiots and forcing people who genuinely can’t take their ignorance anymore out of this game, like many already have.
2 Likes
Icon fits
Greater number of avoid slots and better match making would fix that as there would still be idiots even with role queue.
Seems with every update OW becomes less unique and more like every other shooter.
1 Like
It seems to me that in a competitive game mode, the goal would be to reduce as many random variables as possible from the experience. Less random variables = a more fair competition. The divide seems to be that both sides of the discussion disagree on what the goal of the mode is supposed to be. Those who are pro 2-2-2 seem to value consistency and a fair competition with as few random variables as possible over all things ( fun comes from the competition itself). Those who are against 2-2-2 seem to value ease of use and freedom of choice above those things (fun to them is being able to do whatever they want, find quick games). If the ‘competitive’ word attached to the competitive mode is intended to actually mean competitive, it seems that it is the former (more structured play, less randomness) . My question to those against 2-2-2, is your definition of competitive the literal dictionary definition (people competing and that’s it) or are there some qualifying requirements that you would also like met? I’m guessing the answer is no, as there are things many people obviously would want to add. For example we don’t allow cheating (in an effort to make the game fair), and we use an mmr system for that same purpose. Would trying to reduce the random variables in the experience not also be a goal?
2 Likes
You don’t have to want it. You’ve lived through earlier changes you no-doubt didn’t authorise and you’re still here. Chances are you’ll at least try 222 and see what it’s like. What Blizzard needs to do is make you not hate it. Easy right?
Chess rules have changed a bunch of times in the game’s life. All kings would be fun. Probably deeper than it first seems, too.
1 Like
chess player here, no it wouldn’t be fun and it makes no sense if you actually know the rules of the game. The current ruleset has been around for about as long as we’ve had a standardized rating system / “took the game seriously” . The reason chess is so fun is because there is perfect information, no random variables, and both sides (with the exception of the first move which is only really an issue in top level GM play) have a fair shot at winning. I understand why people will try to use chess examples in this type of discussion but really chess is not a good comparison. Team sports would probably be a better thing to draw analogies to in this case.
The avoid feature is a mistake in itself. It doesn’t fix the problem, it’s just a band aid to a flaw let rampant so long that the devs came up with pseudo solution that has zero ability to scale up. Do you realize how much 2 avoid slots already messes up with the natural matchmaking? Adding even one more will just make the matchmaking unnecessary long and complicated.
The number one reason people become toxic in this game is because people don’t get to play the role they want. Yes idiots will remain idiots, but I’d rather have 2 idiots on a fixed role than 5 idiots all wanting to play the same thing.
Also flexing in itself is contradictory to being competitive. Don’t kid yourself that you’re as good as someone who puts the effort solely for one role for countless hours. At higher rankings, it’s impossible for people to have the same skill level on every role. They simply require different kind of skillsets and mindset. It’s just unrealistic to expect people to perform on the same level across all roles.
The problem is that within the inherent design of the game there are times when you need to switch. And not being able to switch to the hero you need will make you lose the match. Even if its only in a small percentage of your games.
I cannot tell you how many times I have flexed and it allowed me to win a game. I find it to be fun and I do realize that others don’t.
You are asking me to basically forfeit potential wins. To take away my choice. All while there are better ways to fix the problem.
Please don’t take that away.
1 Like
Please read my post before replying to it, thank you. I posed a question at the end, if you’re not answering that question then anything you say is a non sequitur.
Yes but role queue is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Devs can adjust heroes, redesign maps, add better social features or improve the features all ready in game.
Also it’s late and I am on a tablet, so I appreciate your patience.
Exactly this. I just find it hilarious when people compare the joke called ‘SR system’ to the ELO system in chess. In chess, the only thing that matters is an individual skills against another. There’s no teamwork, communication, randomness, people tilting each other out of their minds, etc etc. The rating system in this game assumes your performance and puts it in a number when there is so many variables out of your control. And people being put in a role that they have no idea how to play on is one big thing they NEED to fix.
And no, I am not one to blame the results of my game for factors out of my control, but when I have people playing things they have no reason to deal with on their current SR, sometimes you just lose by default no matter what you try to do.
Ok were getting closer to an actual discussion with this, as it seems most other posts here were simply people arguing over semantics and throwing ad homs at eachother. So define the baby that’s being thrown out in the case that a role lock 222 is implemented into competitive and well go from there, weigh the pros and cons, etc.
It makes the game alot more like poker than it needs to be. In poker a very strong player may go on long losing streaks, etc, but in the long term they will end up going positive and making money by making the correct plays. I don’t think overwatch needs to be a game where climbing is the result of grinding out tons of games with a 60 percent winrate, along the way dealing with (bad hands you could call them) all of those variables mentioned. Noone finds games where you instantly lose or instantly win fun (well most sane people). I don’t think this random factor can be removed completely but it could definitely be made much better (i’m not saying which way of doing it is best), especially when these variables are things the matchmaker in its current state can’t account for.
1 Like
I have discussed many examples in this thread already. But to sum up, you get easier balancing and more streamlined games. Those who play solo will benefit.
However, switching is the core aspect of this game. Role lock goes against this. There will be games where you cannot switch to the appropriate counter. And role lock does not account for the human element.
Better social systems, better match making, and more heroes are the solutions. Guilds, Unranked mode, more diverse heroes are the solution. We shouldn’t be limiting ourselves.
1 Like