That’s an extremely optimistic “solution” that the game could be healthily balanced by completely reorganizing some characters kits so that they fit into homogenized cookie cutter shapes. There’s a good reason why we don’t have specifically main tanks vs off tanks and the likes, and it’s because the heroes weren’t made to fit those definitions. We made up those terms to describe the roster as a way to better understand what makes a conventional, solid comp – the devs never made healers thinking, “this one is a main healer, this one is an off healer,” because that wasn’t a thing to think about. The heroes were made and designed with specific strengths and weaknesses suited to them, not to match what other vaguely similar heroes were capable of doing.
Adding subclasses like this would not make the game better. It would reorganize the game and require an overhaul to properly “fit” every hero into these newly established categories, and on top of that, it would be brutal for queue times, as the matchmaker now needs to find six specific roles to fill, rather just two of each, while also juggling the SR-based algorithm. I can’t imagine this being cleanly implemented, so considering this a “half measure” or “stopping inches” is not the right way to look at role queue. Subclass role queue was and is not a necessity, it would not improve the areas role queue itself was meant to address.
I’m not a huge fan of this system because I don’t believe there needs to be a difference between quick play and unranked. Quick play is exactly that, a quick game of Overwatch that should play like one, albeit with one-round games and with the freedom to drop out and have backfills. An unranked mode would either be a carbon copy of quick play, or it would have to nix the backfill system and other incentives, which leads to less fun experiences that are “justifiably” unfun because “you don’t lose SR.” I don’t want to play “quick play classic,” that’s an entirely different game.
You could really just retitle quick play to unranked and you have all the divides you need, but the term “unranked” still implies a certain prestige and seriousness to its environment. If people want a strong competitive experience, they should queue for competitive and take the SR risk. If they don’t, then quick play is the queue for them, especially since after 2-2-2 games in quick play have frankly never been better. (I’d even argue it’s a waaay healthier and more fun environment than competitive can ever be.)
As consumers I’m pretty strongly against the idea of paying more for video games I paid for in order to have features I should otherwise expect. I don’t think trying to monetize a “proper” competitive queue is a morally satisfying answer. It’s effectively gambling and it’s giving Blizzard money for having made and not fixed a flawed system. I really don’t think it’s good to even suggest these ideas because Activision will hear this feedback and happily consider more ways to squeeze dollars out of us.
Most of your other suggestions and points are true, though. I do like the attitude Blizzard has recently taken towards the game and I hope that momentum carries forward. Things like LFG need an overhaul, guilds or factions can open up incentives to play, and I’m still hoping we eventually get weekend tournaments/competitive modes where you can only queue as six-stacks. That last one alone could do so much in improving the competitive scene and give players the experience they want in a positive environment, I think tons of ex-Overwatch players would definitely hop back on just for these weekends if they were prone to getting into intense, competitive matches.