Idea I have for Role Queue/Lock

NOTE: I cannot stress this enough but please be CIVIL, I don’t want childish arguments on this thread resulting in it potentially locked. We all know too well how this forum tends to act.
(I haven’t seen anyone suggest this as of yet, let me know if it has already)
For context, think of both Role-Lock and Role-Queue as separate subjects

  • Role-Lock: 2/2/2 Setting
  • Role-Queue: Queues for Roles

Role-Lock was a great (subjective) addition to the game, it allowed teams to be more cooperative and it allowed matches to be on equal footing.
However, it did cause a few problems, one of which is commonly addressed:

  • Certain Roles have very large queue times.
  • Players can no longer flex between roles.

Those are issues that came with Role Lock, and I wanted to find a way to address these issues whilst keeping the core concept of Role-Lock (2/2/2).
So the idea is pretty simple.

Remove Role-Queue but keep Role-Lock
By removing role-queues and replacing it with the original queue, this will allow players, regardless of role, to find games much faster but still keeps the idea of Role-Lock as players can only choose 2 of each role, basically a Role-Limits.

By doing this, it will also allow flexing to happen as well.
Let’s say for example you have a SUPPORT Player who isn’t doing too well but can do a pretty damn good TANK, because this version allows flexing, both of these players can swap their initial role allowing more teams to be more, well… team-based, which the game is meant to be.

BENEFITS

  • Faster queue times thus resolving the queue-time issue.
  • Still keeps the core concept of 2/2/2.
  • Players can flex between roles, allowing more team-work and cooperation.

DRAWBACKS

  • You are not guaranteed the role you want to get.
  • Players may throw games for not getting the role they want.

Anyways, thats my idea on Role Lock, I want to know your thoughts about it, also if any of you can use Workshop, maybe you could try recreating this concept?

I do have an alternate suggestion for this which is to have tboth of them where one allows faster queue times but no guaranteed role, and one where you are guaranteed your role but slower queue times.

TLDR: Remove Role-Queue but keep 2/2/2.

So basically you’re saying the queue would behave as it did pre role q, then once we are all in the game, we get to choose a 222 team composition? So basically first come first serve, whichever two players pick DPS first get those roles? But with the caveat of role switching if both parties agree? Just want to make sure I understood right.

By “civil” do you mean “don’t be critical of my untenable position”?

We all know too well how this forum tends to act.

Given that around 80% of active users on this forum are troll accounts, what do you think this is going to do?

Role-Lock was a great (subjective) addition to the game

It’s ok to be wrong.

Remove Role-Queue but keep Role-Lock

No, role lock IS THE PROBLEM that requires fixing.

still keeps the idea of Role-Lock as players can only choose 2 of each role, basically a Role-Limits.

This is already possible using LFG, except now players cannot force it onto everyone and ruin the balance of the game. If you want to play 222 you are free to do so, as always. The idea of allowing this to continue even when it has been shown to worsen every aspect of the game is not acceptable. It addresses NONE of the issues with the system.

Faster queue times

I would rather have 20 minute queue times if it meant the game was actually enjoyable.

Still keeps the core concept of 2/2/2.

That is not a benefit, that is the exact opposite of a benefit.

Players may throw games for not getting the role they want.

Or more accurately, players will join a match, two will instapick snipers, and the other 3 dps will leave the match. The advantage of the pre-selection system is that it puts the burden entirely onto people who want to queue for dps, which at the very least stops the rest of us getting our time wasted. You’re suggesting that we do nothing to fix how inherently imbalanced RQ is, while simultaneously guaranteeing that most matches end in a RESET TO MENU.

Civility does not require me to agree with you, especially when you’re making bad suggestions. Then again some people think Mei should become a tank, so it’s hardly the worst idea.

it will also allow flexing to happen as well

No it won’t. There is no room for flex play in a fixed role system.

I do have an alternate suggestion

We don’t need any alternatives, we’ve all agreed to scrap role lock in its entirety. Half-measures to apologise for how awful this idea was will not achieve anything.

stupiddddddddddddddd.