Quote:
Originally Posted by PogoPogoPogoPogo
It's just as likely that one team gets an 1800 support while the other team gets a 600 support.
|
That's a pretty scary range, to be sure. I agree that it could have an impact on this kind of thing, but I would say that this example might be a pretty extreme one. A
lot of people are playing this game at any given time. (It's a good game! Are you listening, Reds? =D?) I think that it's hard to say that the concept shouldn't even be attempted in beta because of this. You're right, the issue it should not be written off entirely, I apologize if you felt like I was being dismissive. But neither of us could possibly have any evidence of what it would be like, so we're left with two opinions. I don't think that it would be anywhere near as bad as the "600 Elo vs 1800 Elo" example makes it out to be. I'd be interested to know what range of Elo we get with the current system, we'd want to know that in order to judge how much of a variation a role-based queue might introduce.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PogoPogoPogoPogo
And I, for one, would much rather play a role other than my preferred role in order to have a competitive match than to work in a system that guarantees me my favorite role, but means matches are less competitive (and therefore less fun).
|
I applaud you, I often play roles other than my preferred ones as well, and I love to get teamed with players like you. This change isn't about letting capable players play what they feel like, it's about making it so that people who can
only play one role don't ruin matches when they don't end up playing that role. Players like you can just check off the roles they feel like playing and see what they get. Regarding competitiveness, I think forcing someone to play a role with which they are unfamiliar drastically reduces their effective Elo for that match; introducing a lack of competitiveness which I argue could be greater than the imbalance introduced by the system having to select higher or lower Elo supports.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PogoPogoPogoPogo
I don't know. I think giving the option for both is actually significantly worse than forcing one or the other (for queue time reasons primarily).
|
I was being a little coy, I apologize. My point is that if most players were given the option to play the role(s) they know for the price of having to wait a bit longer, I'm pretty sure they would take it.
Continued props for your thoughtful responses, my friend.