Yes, but LFG being optional was one of the other reasons why it failed. People literally didn’t use it past Diamond because there weren’t enougj people so creating a full 6 stack wouldn’t happen even if you spent a day on it.
That was perfect because you didn’t need it past diamond. People who climb that high are serious players (not casuals), tend to join comms, tend to understand and play to the meta/comp, and usually don’t try to learn new heroes in their comp games. LFG primary benefit was to the lower elos who have problems with everything I just mentioned.
I’ve seen the word role spelled roll too many times today
Yeah no, as somone who plays in low masters it’s definitely needed there. Master players has some of the worst attitudes and often think they know what’s right and that they are the carry.
The amount of times people will tilt because they’d fight over who should be DPS and throw is too high to count.
That would be an absolutely terrible idea, as such a change would pretty much defeat the entire purpose of the system…
Because even though the majority of the player base enjoys 2/2/2 role - lock, the majority of the player base also happen to be DPS players and therefore just the idea of much shorter queue times would most probably be enough to make them start queuing without role - lock. Therefore the already reduced player base would be reduced even more as it would be even more split with that decision.
And finally, pairing teams with 2/2/2 and teams without any kind of role - lock would be an even more horrendous idea, but either way, the entire concept would result to huge balance problems in the first place.
Role Queue is better than the alternative.
It isn’t perfect, but it’s better overall for the game. Id rather get people who suck playing what they want, than people forced to play something they don’t want because someone locked in DPS before them.
Then of course they would die once, flame and switch to DPS anyway and throw your game. I also don’t like the argument people are “forced” into tank and support by long DPS queues, that’s not forcing you, that’s a choice you made to avoid long queues.
But yes, I wish queues were shorter.
1 Like
The reason for role queue was created was becasue you ended with 4-5 DPS teams and 99% of the time they were losing vs 2-2-2. So a lot of tanks & support mains already quit OW in mass
The quality a 2-2-2 match is tremendous good the problem is the DPS need to wait 5 minutes bronze to platinum and 10 minutes diamond
get your answer via qpc
1 Like
But roll queue is already optional.
I don’t believe there is at this time any valid data to support the claim of a majority
1 Like
Correction, literally every single piece of data out there concerning this subject proves the claim of a majority, but it’s not considered as valid by you, because it doesn’t fit with your made - up, biased and clearly false of 2/2/2 role - lock’s supposed ““failure””…
I really don’t understand how many more times you will have to copy - paste the same old answer until you realize your bias and the fact that you’re actually bothering me with all this spam…
Literally sad… 
collected data is incorrect, or majority just never speaks here or where they’re gathering this data.
So… All pieces of data that are not in line with your own subjective and anecdotal view concerning this subject are ““invalid”” according to your logic?? Because that’s really the vibe I’m getting from your response…
Also, who even told you the data I was talking about were gathered from these Forums??
The data I’m talkin cover pretty much every single source of evidence about this game out there (not kidding), even official statements by the devs themselves, which came out both when 2/2/2 role - lock was first released and even as early as just a month ago.
Needless to say that the devs especially have full access to all the data concerning the game they themselves developed and that the data I mentioned above are by far the most trustworthy ones concerning this specific subject, especially when compared to the anecdotal at best pieces of ““evidence”” proving 2/2/2 role - lock’s supposed ““failure””…
You know you can add a simple checkbox to only consider 222 opponents if it’s that important to you
As for the reply above…blizz’s actions the past few months would say otherwise…you don’t have to consider 132 if a large portion of your player base doesn’t complain about it…their are clearly enough complaints that they have tested and then let us try a completely different version of the game for which they even made alternate versions of heroes…(who knows what else they’ve tried)
Youre probably right that the majority like it…but that majority is not this runaway 99% hyperbole that people throw around on here…I’d bet money it’s closer to 60/40…and I can just about guarantee that it dwindles every day…blizz will never outwardly say it…but it’s a failed experiment man…
And that’s not even mentioning the fact that we now have to have hero bans for everyone (apparently) to solve the fact that this whole “easier to balance thing” they touted as a reason for it…didn’t happen
1 Like
Kindly post the data so we can assess its validity.
Data would be the specific numbers.
Dev statements saying “success” aren’t data - that would be more an interpretation of data. They could very well interpret Role Queue as a success based on their data.
The issue with this is that a creator is likely to draw a positive conclusion about their own creation. This may be done in good faith.
Even the most well-intentioned of development companies have shown throughout history that they can and do misinterpret data, make mistakes or are out of touch with their playerbase. Also yes even developers can slip up when it comes to the methodology used to gather data.
A neutral party may come to a different conclusion from the same data.
Until they make their data public, we can’t interpret it ourselves.
Let’s say you have 50% in favour of forced 2-2-2 and 50% against - this could be interpreted as a “success” for various reasons other than playerbase consensus. For example, it could be a factor in making OWL more enjoyable to watch. Forcing gamewide 2-2-2 could then be rationalised by it it making OWL more relatable for the normal players.
In the Role Queue Update by Scott Mercer ,he said they saw generally positive feedback. Where was that feedback from? The forums? Note also that that statement would be different from “most players support forced 2-2-2”. If the players that didn’t like it didn’t give any external feedback at all then of course it would skew the feedback they did receive to be positive.
In the Triple Damage video Jeff described Role Queue as “a system we think is very successful and has overall been a positive change to the game”. The wording is important. He specifically describes the Role Queue system as a whole rather than 2-2-2 specifically. Many players may indeed be happy with the Role Queue system but may prefer a different composition to 2-2-2.
That’s why polling methodology is important - what specifically do you ask the players and who/where do you ask? Are there any factors that may skew the responses?
1 Like
LFG failed, so I would say it didn’t work with the regular queue very well. There were a multitude of reasons such as increased time trying to from the group, matching LFG groups against regular six-stacks, difficulty finding equally skilled players especially for unranked modes, but also people quickly learned that two teams playing against each other with different rules gave a huge advantage to the one without the restrictions.
GOATS just flattens 2-2-2 comps. A balanced comp doesn’t have enough sustain to out last them, nor enough damage to burst through all the defensive abilities and healing. My group did play against GOATS regularly and the best way to beat it was to mirror and pray you weren’t too far down in ults that they snowball through the rest of the map.
the players who pushed 222 wanted to control how everyone plays not just their own experience.
they would lose their mind if you could chose to play a comp they deem unacceptable
1 Like
Okay then, for the tenth time:
- It the latest Developer Update Jeff Kaplan himself said that 2/2/2 role - queue was overall a “positive” change.
- Here are some official developer quotes that were released a couple of months ago:
And even more importantly, here’s the point where the overall very positive opinion of the majority of the game’s player base is touched upon:
- I have to admit this isn’t such a trustworthy source, but just the fact that the grand majority of the unofficial polls created in social places as historically negative for some reason as these Forums have surprisingly shown 2/2/2 role - lock to be a clear winner amongst fans, with the different concensus sometimes even touching 3:1 in favor of the system really says a lot…
I know you want to watch 2/2/2 role - lock crash and burn so much because you personally dislike it, but unfortunately, this sentence is the hard truth right now:
There simply is no piece of evidence out there that supports the scenario of 2/2/2 role - lock’s failure… Not a single one.
On the other hand, there are multiple instances supporting the exact opposite reality, such as the ones I cited above, which are mostly comprised of official developer statements… Statements that are obviously by far the most trustworthy sources of evidence concerning this subject, compared to the subjective and anecdotal at best opinions found in places like these Forums, the only ones that are supposedly ““proving”” 2/2/2 role - lock’s ““failure””.
I’m afraid this is the truth right now, even if most of the things you said in your post seem really logical and accurate.
Find me a single piece of evidence though that supports that the minority of the player base dislikes 2/2/2 role - lock and I’ll gladly reconsider.
Well, it wont be.
If you still dont like 222, arcade exist.
I’m not particularly fond of 2.2.2., but the devs aren’t planning on changing it anytime soon. They’re focusing on overwatch 2.