All those threads talking about role-queuing.

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

PogoPogoPogoPogo

Senior Member

11-05-2012

I don't think I really fully understand the 2nd idea you offered. That one needs some more explaining before I address it. But as for this idea:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolvenlight View Post
1) Instead of picking a single role before you start, the "Match Me With Teammates" button opens a checklist of roles that you can pick and choose from. Not lanes, but AP, AD (ranged), Bruiser, Support, Other, Tank, Jungler, and other roles. This checklist is saved and optional, so you can either choose to change it from game to game, or just have one more button to click to start up the queue.

You can pick as many or as little roles as you want. The more you have, the quicker you'll get matched with a team, for obvious reasons. Leave them all blank to have them all checked, so to speak.
How is this idea significantly different? Okay sure, you're not picking a role lane where you're playing your role, but this system still locks people in to particular team comps, right? It wouldn't put two people that only want to play AD ranged together, would it?

Moreover, even if you're okay with it locking in specific team comps, you still have the issue of trolls queuing for support (for fasted queue time), getting into lobby and saying "mid or feed"! And there's not a real good way of preventing this.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Frankintosh

Junior Member

11-05-2012

I think burying the concept isn't going to solve anything, I say we just let people keep posting about it until it eventually happens. Forums are too vast to pocket ideas in, new posts about a topic are the surest way of knowing how popular an idea is. If I search the forums I'm gonna find posts from 3 months ago and comment on them on the 1515th page, so I'd rather just post a new topic so it's seen by the whole community.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

PogoPogoPogoPogo

Senior Member

11-05-2012

If the idea came up once every few weeks, that'd be another story.

However, the idea has a nasty habit of coming up numerous times in the same day. I'm not trying to bury the idea. I'm trying to pull in everyone that wants to talk about it into a single thread.

A single thread with 20 pages says more about the popularity of the idea than 20 individual threads.

Most of these individual threads come up because people were mad they didn't get the role they wanted in draft mode. They think "How can I be sure to get the role I want," only thinking about how to change the system for their own benefit, and don't consider any of the consequences of this change, because mostly, they're posting because their upset they didn't get their role, as I said.

What's more, this basic idea has numerous major flaws. Every time one of these threads pops up, we're starting from square one, and it takes a handful of posts to convince the person who again opened a new thread on the idea that there are numerous flaws with the system. In the end, the conversation isn't really getting advanced. We're simply catching yet another person up on where we are in the debate over the pros and cons of the idea.

Now, when I see one of these threads, I just post them a link back to this thread. They can read through the pros and cons to date. If they've got something new that hasn't been discussed or pointed out so far, then they can ADD to the conversation. Forcing all these people into a singular thread forces the discussion to be advanced. We weren't advancing the conversation by having a new thread about the issue every day. We were catching more people up to where we already were in the conversation.

Point people to this thread, they can catch themselves up by reading previous posts, and new posts can be used for advancing the conversation. Because if anything is going to be changed, we need to advanced the conversation. The idea needs to be modified greatly before it's in any kind of shape that will actually be beneficial to the queuing system.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Grollm

Senior Member

11-05-2012

Pogog we think alike my friend! Check out my thread on forum criteria


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Energetic

Senior Member

11-05-2012

What is the point of this?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

PogoPogoPogoPogo

Senior Member

11-05-2012

You should probably read more than the thread title. And I don't mean just for this thread. It should be habit.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Grollm

Senior Member

11-05-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by PogoPogoPogoPogo View Post
You should probably read more than the thread title. And I don't mean just for this thread. It should be habit.
This guy Beaming Sunlight is a troll, just ignore him Pogo.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Wolvenlight

Member

11-05-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by PogoPogoPogoPogo View Post
I don't think I really fully understand the 2nd idea you offered. That one needs some more explaining before I address it. But as for this idea:

How is this idea significantly different? Okay sure, you're not picking a role lane where you're playing your role, but this system still locks people in to particular team comps, right? It wouldn't put two people that only want to play AD ranged together, would it?

Moreover, even if you're okay with it locking in specific team comps, you still have the issue of trolls queuing for support (for fasted queue time), getting into lobby and saying "mid or feed"! And there's not a real good way of preventing this.
Don't worry about number two, it was an overly complicated system taking a lesson from social media, which isn't really necessary here. Also, I don't really have time to devote attention to a streamlined explanation at the moment.

As for number 1. It's not significantly different, just slightly.

The main benefits of a system like this would be choice. Those who want quick queues would opt to choose as many roles they can play as possible, whereas those that want to risk much longer queues can pick very few roles. For issues where two people pick, and only pick, the same role, you could handle that in a few different ways. A time limit until the queue ignores preferences, for example. Or just letting them sit in queue forever until they decide to change up their preferences. Or let them all ignore the meta and pair them against a team that is also probably going to ignore the meta based on their lumped choices.

Now, for preventing trolls, make these preferences transparent. Teammates can see the preferences by scrolling over or clicking a summoner name. They see the preferences include support, (or everything is clicked,) but the player says "Insert Role Here or feed," the rest can opt to vote themselves out of the queue. 4 to 1. Now, let's change up what happens if preferences weren't picked. If no preferences were picked, it still acts as if they prefer everything, but players can see that this player didn't bother setting preferences in the first place and they can decide then whether they want to stick around or not.

An issue I see with the above paragraph; more incentive to dodge if the vote doesn't pan out. Granted, dodging happens all the time anyway for the same exact reason; Role confusion/Trolls. So a system like this has a chance of simultaneously fixing the dodging problem while creating it all over again.

As for the locking in a team composition issue, I agree, that's the main drawback of role-queuing. I don't care about long queues because I play everything, and I don't care about trolls because they're inevitable and I do my best to avoid them anyway. As I said before, the current system is fine by me because a new one wouldn't even affect me. That said, this system wouldn't really lock in a team comp in terms of the meta, just champions types people prefer to play, or if we want to get more in depth, styles of play, (Roamer for example.)

But without a fill in the blank option, which I can't see working in idea number 1, there is no real way I can see to prevent a stagnant meta if things get TOO in depth.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

PogoPogoPogoPogo

Senior Member

11-05-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolvenlight View Post
But without a fill in the blank option, which I can't see working in idea number 1, there is no real way I can see to prevent a stagnant meta if things get TOO in depth.
Which is pretty much the main counterpoint to all of this.

Any sort of role-queuing, no matter how lenient people dream it up to be, is going to lock certain compositions in, because the system is choosing people who preferred certain roles and pairing them with people who preferred other roles. I mean, if the system isn't doing this and setting compositions up, then what's the point of it?

But if it is, we're getting stuck with a team comp, and the way ranked games are played won't change until Riot has decided on a different meta.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Sky Mence

Senior Member

11-05-2012

How the **** did people come up with this terrible idea?
Role Queueing makes no sense whatsoever to me lol