This is true and I agree with you here. Unless Group Priority Matchmaking is removed where a 6-stack can play against 6 solo queues, there is no incentive. However this leaves the perception of that single match to look really unfair for those who are solo queuing which seems to be a priority of the development philosophy of this game.
This is actually a myth that has been debunked by Scott Mercer.
Really Role Queue/Forced 2-2-2 will answer some of the issues that I have addressed, but not all of them of course.
As somebody who plays flex, which means tank/support because, no thanks. If I played DPS often my SR would be a slight bit higher, but I know how to team play.
2/2/2 would most likely make me quit. I have had a handful of comp games, and numerous qp games where I was done with the dps or the tank/supports and switched to that role and we won.
The most memorable one I have is Gibraltar in comp. At the time I was playing a bit of mercy. We defended first. I was Mercy with a Rein, (old) Torb, Bastion, Tracer, Zen. We ended up holding them on the ramp near the shuttle. Cheese comp and they still got half of point 2.
Attack comes I pick Mercy - rest of team, (old) Sym, (old) Torb, Tracer, Genji (2hr Genji btw who was a Rein main), and Reaper. We had 30 seconds left on first point and barely had made the bottom of the first ramp. The DPS couldn’t hit a thing and were trickling and feeding. Playing a healer was basically pointless at that point, can’t keep people alive if they trickle 1v4 the enemy or run off alone.
I was done, said whatever, went widow. This ended up with us getting the win (6dps mind you) and me having gold healing (12kish really one side), Elims, and Damage.
I’m convinced we wouldn’t have won if I stayed a healer. As a tank we may have pulled it off, but had I been locked into a bunch of people not doing their job and not being able to switch to another role I would have gone insane and the match lost.
Oh and as much as I hated it on release, bring back no limits. allows so many different strategies.
But in the end, I feel the pros, hardcore, and casual players let Blizzard down. Switching was supposed to happen, funky comps were supposed to be a thing, and certain characters were meant to be map/side dependent, but nope, people had to be reeeeeeee I have to play my fav character every game instead of learning other characters, which makes you better by learning timing of cool downs on your counters or their critical characters.
At this point give me a MH comp because I trust my skills on more than 1-3 characters.
I’ve also attempted it after the LFG update to now that I think about it… same results. Around a quarter of my matches resulted in this. (guessing off memory)
Either way, even without this the experience and climbing is heavily geared toward NOT stacking.
2-2-2 will really not solve much in terms of balance or cooperative teams. I doubt it will have anywhere near the effect people think.
Here are the issues I have with it.
It hurts flex players. Pretty much makes them extinct.
It doesn’t address the one trick issue but in fact magnifies the problem as they will have locked the role (no matter what the role is) and preventing others from stepping in when they refuse to switch.
It prevents creative comps to the extreme
It ruins niche hero’s.
Balancing will not be easier. It will just go in a different direction.
It devalue’s true teamwork. Teamwork and coordination are just as much as skill in competitive as game sense or mechanical prowess.
I really do think people are asking for something under the misconception that some how the real issue will go away. Poor teamwork.
Your source was just making an exaggeration, if you are unable to see that well, thats on you. If they knew that those were going to be the que times, then they would shut down the discussion about role que a long time ago, but guess what, they haven’t because they are actually working on it and its going to come, probably not very soon knowing Blizzard, but it’s coming they keep talking about it over and over and people keep pushing them towards it more and more.
I don’t think you understood what I meant by that, I meant that what you talk about losing freedom or creativity is an illusion, because that doesn’t actually exist or happen, players will always go for the win and abuse the strongest thing possible and that is more likely to happen on a system that works like the one we have right now. Role que would fix that due to better balance, and better structure, allowing for more creativity, more hero viability, and more combinations of things that can actually work.
That’s the thing, the “mal the muchos” doesn’t apply because is not actually a bad thing, it’s a good thing, you just perceive it as bad due to your own opinion on the matter. It would be like me saying its “bien de muchos” because it is a good thing that will help the game improve and be a better player experience. It’s all just a matter of perspective.
There is nothing wrong in what I said, you are just taking it the wrong way because you are getting defensive about it. It’s like saying that I like 2-2-2 and that is fine because I am entitled to my opinion. There is no negative intent on my comment, you took it that way because of your own prejudice. I do understand perfectly well that you don’t like forced structure, and I am arguing in favor of it.
You are saying that because you have to oppose it, still what I said is the truth. Toxicity in games has been going down thanks to the efforts of the developers and the systems that they have created, only negative people who are toxic cling to the idea that toxicity is still a huge problem because that is the world that they live in, a negative one.
Forced roles and longer queues will answer to toxicity with even more toxicity. Period. People here claim it will encourage flexing, while the description explains it way better: Forced 2-2-2 forces flexing. Either you flex or you wait 15-45 minutes to play >10 minutes. That’s forcing. And even worse, that’s passive-aggressive forcing
Sounds like the result of players getting boosted into a SR/MMR they aren’t capable of. With role locks, the game is more likely to be a loss if everyone isn’t playing competently at their rank in their role. This is actually a benefit to the system as a whole because that player will keep dropping until they can play competently at a given rank, while their teammates will rise back up since they are competent at that level. This should result in much more balanced feeling matches and less wondering how your teammates are in $YourRankHere$. Fewer bad teammates getting carried by better teammates into ranks they aren’t prepared for is a good thing.
Since some players are great tanks and bad supports, they attempt to fill in support and do horribly. Role-Based SR and role lock fixes that problem… meaning you won’t see them in your game once the new rules have been in effect for awhile, so you won’t have to swap off of support to DPS because you have DPS who have earned your $YourRankHere$ playing DPS.
Give me yours, then. Game director said this. Who said differently? Or is it just your assumption? He was not exaggerating, he said it to prove they were far from being able to implement this garbage.
You are entirely wrong, this is not an opinion. Objectively speaking, what you subjectively call “better balance” is actually “different way of balancing”; what you call “better structure” is actually “more restrictive structure”; what you call “more creativity” is actually “less tools to create”, you alleged “more hero viability” gets immediately trumped when you realise there will be an even more restrictive and forced meta, which will in time increase toxicity against those attempting to break it: it will start being Dive, then D.Va and Winston will get nerfed and Brigg buffed, and a new hard meta will appear; and how can you get “more combinations” will less options to combine? That’s mathematically impossible
Are you really this thick? “Everyone loses” is not good for anyone! You said “if you lose you lose on equal grounds” Losing is bad! Both parties losing is bad for both parties. “Mal de muchos; consuelo de tontos” means that is idiotic to be glad because you are not the only one suffering. I won’t be happy because everyone loses. I don’t want everyone loses, and it won’t comfort me, it’s idiotic.
No, you are just entirely ignoring my point, changing it into one that serves you better.
You are saying that because you have to oppose it, still what u said isn’t the truth.
So why should we change the system to decrease toxicity, if toxicity is not an issue?
And more playerbase will be lost, as @finesse pointed, and the toxic one-trickers will rule over Overwatch. Disencouraging one-trickeing, even if it is by punishment, is the only real solution. Don’t make SR gains dependant on kills (it encourages insta-locking dps), and if not a better idea comes around, punish one-trickers for one-tricking as I propossed: SR diminishing return for playing 5 matches in a row as the same role, higher diminish for playing the same hero 5 matches in a row. It’s way better than punishing the whole playerbase so one-trickers are happier.
Take a look at OWL now? Which matches are better to experience? Goats v Goats? Or those when one of the teams comes up with a cheese comp?
IMO They’ve rewarded One Tricking for far too long to ever be able to start punishing it directly like that. The wider playerbase is partly responsible for that, however, since they always viewed High Meta one tricks as a blessing and only low meta one tricks as a curse. (So reporting would be really inconsistent from patch to patch)
Now their best option is making the largest number of them wait in a super long line together. For those of us who play a lot of healer/tank already not much will change, role switching midgame gets less and less common as you get higher in rank anyway and we largely go in knowing the heroes we’d like to play, but I do feel for players who like DPS but were at least willing to switch when required.
You know what the game director also said? That they are working on it and just finding the best way to implement it. There is no way around it, I understand your frustration because you oppose the idea, mainly because you don’t seem to understand why it is the better option, but role que is happening that is a given.
You like to quote the game director so guess what the game director said about it, that role que would allow them to better balance the game, its not a “different way of balancing” it is what it is, better balance for the game. It is better structure because it encourages team play, it encourages people to play the game the way they want to and find other like minded players, it is just better in almost every way. It will allow for more creativity because the combination of heroes will be more dynamic, specially with better balance, we will no longer have to play the same heroes over and over again because they are the only ones viable. Again, your talk of freedom is an illusion, by having a clear focus and better balance, more heroes will be viable and strategies as well, which will lead to more interesting matches that will allow players to be more creative with their picks and the kind of plays they do.
Again you misunderstand what I say and distort it into something is not, what I said was that if you lose you lose fairly, not everyone loses, the better team wins and they win on equal grounds. And with the addition of role que we eliminate a number of issues that influence the outcome of matches heavily and replace that with clear focus and team play that will improve the player experience and the quality of matches.
Yes I know, what you said isn’t the truth, it’s good that you recognize that.
Because things are not black and white in reality. Role que is meant to fix a number of fundamental issues, with the way the game works, which in turns helps with toxicity, but its main focus is on the player experience, encouraging team work, attaining better balance, etc.
Yes, I know he said that. He also said current matchmaking took them 3 years to build, so if we are lucky it’ll take as much to build the knew one. And there’s nothing I have to understand, your subjective opinion of it being better is not a fact to be understood. It’s your opinion, and it is wrong, stop being so freaking condescending, when the only one ignoring points here is you.
He said “easier,” not better. And of course it would be easier; the less dynamic, the easier to balance. That’s why it would be easier.
It encourages one-tricking toxicity, mostly if they manage to fix the queue times; hard metas, and discards heroes in every patch, as all games with role queuing have.
It’s mathematically impossible for it to be more dynamic when you cannot change the dynamic of the comp.
You don’t have to. If you do, you are part of the one-tricking toxicity problem that should be punished.
The focus will be the same, the balance, again, you are misquoting as better, will just be easier. It’s physically impossible to have perfect balance with different characters. Either they get equalised, which means there’s just three actual heroes, or there will always be unbalanced characters. They can “rebalance” it quickly, sure, it will be easier, so the hard meta will change from patch to patch, but there will always be a hard meta, and the less flexible the comp, the harder the meta. Again, your talk of illusions is a fallacy, since you don’t actually grasp the problem, as you actively want it to be a good idea, apparently because you are a one-tricker yourself.
Losing on equal grounds means all parties losing, don’t you even know the meaning of your own words? Of course, it’s better for all parties losing equally, than just the one. But is even better for none to lose.
That’s the problem with copy-pasting your condescending garbage. We all know what you said is untrue, anyhow. It may be true for you, but your opinion hast nothing to stand on; you even deny what was officially said by the developing team.
I know, that’s why I’m advocating for the queuing to remain as grey as possible, while you want a hard, b&w 2-2-2
Role queuing is born out of the need to eradicate one-tricking. There’s not fundamental issues, just people’s toxicity. Yet it encourages it. It rewards you for one tricking even more than what you are rewarded now. I was all for it at the beginning, until I realised it’s worse than what we have today, for the several reasons I’ve already listed several times, already. The most important one, it will increase one-tricking and toxicity. Yes, one-tricking won’t end in 5-0-1 comps, but it will on everyone arguing about picking the meta dps, and don’t you there picking one other than the 6-8 characters in the meta at the moment. Trying to sound fancy and condescending doesn’t make you right, just makes you a douche.
And again, Jeff word was “easier” not better. Easier =/= better