All those threads talking about role-queuing.

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

PogoPogoPogoPogo

Senior Member

11-29-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolvenlight View Post
Oh hey, don't check for a while and 2 new pages!

I'm sad Pogo. You didn't respond to my last post. I didn't expect you to have to agree to do it, but I'd like an answer either way!
I've been away.

For right now, this post is a bump. I'll edit it into an actual post when I'm out of this match.

EDIT: Actually, Wolvenlight, if you could quote-bump the post you'd like me to respond to, that'd be helpful.

For now, I'm going to take care of this idea:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierce7d View Post
OP should edit to have links display titles. Maybe if I happen to come buy later, I'll have a C/P format for you.
EDIT: And that's now done, plus I added a link. I'm not going back through pages to find any I missed. I'm really against linking anything in this thread that wasn't on the front page at the time I linked it.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

PogoPogoPogoPogo

Senior Member

11-29-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by TvorRyn View Post
It seems PogoPogo is against the idea for a few reasons, but it's not exactly clear to me what they are. Would the idea's detractors be willing to distill their objections to the idea so that they can be discussed and possibly rebutted? Then we can eventually agree on which items for discussion have been settled and which are still points of contention.
Actually, I want something to be very clear here. I'm not as against the idea as I am against the new thread that regularly pops up in the forums. That's really my primary complaint in this thread.

If people want to discuss the pros and cons of this idea, then do it. And do it here, in this thread. The MAIN point of this thread is to get all the discussion consolidated together in one place. This thread has been at least somewhat successful in curbing the appearance of new threads. New threads on the same topic still pop up sporadically, but not nearly as often as the rate they were popping up before this thread existed.

Whether you're for or against this idea, the daily thread on the topic isn't constructive. If you're against the idea, flatly, you're tired of seeing the idea and explaining again and again all the reasons it's bad.

If you're for the idea, you should be opposed to a NEW thread being regularly opened as well, and here's why. A new thread being opened by an individual, particularly on this topic, results in 1 person debating against 5 people trying to convince the 5 that role-queuing is a good idea. The 5 disagree. The thread eventually dies out. And guess what? None of those threads stay on the front page. There's not an extended discussion. And there are hundreds and hundreds of threads opened every day. Riot can't possibly pay attention to each and every new thread that opens, and since the naming conventions of these threads remain wildly inconsistent, it's not even directly obvious that there's a repeated complaint.

So consolidating the discussion into one bigger thread means that Riot is more likely to pay attention to the thread.

I don't know whether or not Riot has taken a look at this thread or not. I know I've never seen a Rioter comment on this idea of Role-queuing before, so we don't really have their direct opinion on the matter, only the pros and cons as presented by ourselves. And even at just 9 pages, I'd argue it's probably a bit premature to expect Riot to post in this thread. But at 20 pages? 50 pages? 100 pages? If the discussion continues on, all in one consolidated thread, that shows there is an obvious interest from the community in having this issue address, then we're more likely to get a Rioter to speak to this issue.

One more page of new posts in an already existing thread is more constructive toward getting something done about the issue than a new thread with a couple pages worth of posts. When Riot sees a 10+ page thread out in the community, they know the community has already discussed among themselves most, if not all, of the pros and cons of the issue.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

mdiaz28

Senior Member

11-29-2012

Bump


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

PogoPogoPogoPogo

Senior Member

11-29-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by TvorRyn View Post
The most important thing I have to say is that role queues do not have to and should not replace solo ranked and normal queue. They can exist side by side
Ignoring, for the moment, all the other issues, this new twist on the idea only takes the problem of longer queue times and makes it that much worse.

Think of it this way. Let's say right now there are 100 people online for match-making to match me with, and it takes X seconds (and this could be several hundred seconds, depending on your Elo, etc.)

Now, if we went to role-queuing for all 100, queue times are already a bit longer for everyone except the 3 or 4 people who are queuing for support. If you'd play WoW, you know what it's like waiting in queue for a tank as opposed to queuing as a tank yourself. In WoW, this leads to non-tanks queuing as tank, which in WoW, means you actually can't complete the dungeon in a lot of cases (in any current content). But in LoL, not having a support doesn't automatically mean you can't win the match, as it turns out. In fact, personally, when I play support, I prefer playing non-standard supports, so that if the ADC is terrible, I can just take the farm myself and carry the game. Anyway, I'm willing to discuss this more, because I haven't really fleshed out this point, but I want to focus on queue times.

Now, we're agreed that the queue time is longer for this, eh?

Now consider if you split it, and let people choose whether to queue by role or not, is that better? Turns out, it'd end up being worse for both groups. The 100 that were queuing under the current system are now a smaller pool, since half the group went to queue by role, so there's only 50 instead of 100. And now their queue time is extended. Meanwhile, the other 50, also have a smaller pool of players. Now, for a support, your queue time remains about the same in a role-queuing queue: instant. But instead of 3-4 support players in queue, there are less, more like 1-2 support players. This makes the queue that much longer for everyone else in the queue.

So an optional split system (assuming no other problems with role-queuing) is actually a lot worse for queue times than a force role-queuing system, which is already worse than the standard system.



And here's something else to consider about how the match-making system works. The match-making system starts with a very narrow range of Elos for which to fill out the match with. In a perfectly made match, everyone would have identical Elo. But with each passing second in the queue, the system expands the range of Elos it will accept into the match. This means if you're doing something to the system that would increase the time it takes to match people up, you're also increasing the range of Elos included in the average match. This should be very concerning.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

PogoPogoPogoPogo

Senior Member

11-29-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by mdiaz28 View Post
Bump
Please don't bump threads that are on the first page.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

MexGenius

Senior Member

11-29-2012

Why is it a bad idea? people who want roles queue in such queue, people who don't give a **** queue in normal, you get reported for trolling anyways when u duo top or something that's not widely accepted by the meta so what gives?
Leave it up to people how much they want to wait and how they want to play, worst case scenario, no one uses so they take it out, but i think it definitely worth a shot.
And it's not like riot won't be able to spot that someone queued as top and went mid or adc, it will give them more control rather than checking testimonials or the chat log (if they even can do that).


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Wolvenlight

Member

12-05-2012

@Pogo

This idea here. I'll quote the whole post but the question I'll put in bold.

"I agree on that, people should try to read through previous arguments. On that note, I can't help but think that once this thread eventually grows beyond... I say 10 pages, it'll have the same problem you pointed out that multiple threads do.

Might I suggest that once we're past a certain number of pages that you make a list of some/all of the proposed ideas, throw them into one of those reserved posts on the first page, and make a quick summary of pro/cons, problems they face that need to be addressed, and/or reasons why some of the less stellar ideas wouldn't realistically work?

It'll probably be lot of information to keep track of as well as work after a while, so I'll understand if you don't, but that would help stem the repeated-idea tide.



Also, regarding leniency and creativity, I fail to see how an optional, and therefore lenient queuing system, (assuming we ever have one that works well,) would stifle creativity in any unbreakable fashion. If anything, I see it bringing those that want to metameta together so they can metameta, and those that who like to experiment, (or at least are okay with experimentation,) together so they can do silly things that either work or don't work.

(Assuming of course we're going with a queue system that separates potential teammates by which side of the system they chose to be on. Also assuming we don't just rely on quint-queues for that.)"


---

As for you're last post about how separating these queues would increase queue times, I totally agree. However, have it so different queues wind up on the same team, but can still be put AGAINST people in different queue types, and you can drastically reduce this problem.

Simply put, people who want to meta will be on the meta queue team, and people who want to experiment (or just don't care) can be on the normal queue team. However, matchmaking can still put these teams up against each other if that's how the 0's and 1's come out.

(This is going off the checklist role queue system, since I don't think a rigid pick-only-one list would work.)


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Shadowed Ruby

Senior Member

12-05-2012

Wolven, I'd have to say that if one wants to play meta, they'd be wanting to play against a team playing meta, to actually play meta. Putting them against a team doing something out of the ordinary quickly distorts their intended and desired play style, and I don't see the two queues working cohesively with each other.

In regards to a post like 2 weeks ago, if one can argue Bruiser Sona is trolling because you are not letting someone play the game they want, you can effectively reverse that argument to say that those not letting you play Bruiser Sona are trolling you, too. This can also apply to Role Queue.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

PogoPogoPogoPogo

Senior Member

12-08-2012

I will consider keeping an updated pros and cons list on the front page, however I would want some assistance with this, because if I do it alone, it'll be extraordinarily biased.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Wolvenlight

Member

12-08-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowed Ruby View Post
Wolven, I'd have to say that if one wants to play meta, they'd be wanting to play against a team playing meta, to actually play meta. Putting them against a team doing something out of the ordinary quickly distorts their intended and desired play style, and I don't see the two queues working cohesively with each other.

In regards to a post like 2 weeks ago, if one can argue Bruiser Sona is trolling because you are not letting someone play the game they want, you can effectively reverse that argument to say that those not letting you play Bruiser Sona are trolling you, too. This can also apply to Role Queue.
I disagree. Let me start by saying this isn't about preserving a meta, this is about people wanting to play a certain role and not wanting to wait until champ selection to make this clear to their allies, (while avoiding as many problems that a new system may create as possible.) The role queue just has the unintended side effect (detrimental or not) of adhering to a meta on a champion type level, (or a lane type level, if we go with that idea.) The role vs. non-role queue system would work just fine because a team doesn't care what strategy is in play, they care about winning the game.

They'll also do whats fun for them, but they have no say in what's fun for others. (So long as their definition of fun isn't feeding 20 kills in 5 seconds, or other rule breaking practices.) The team wide acceptance of a certain procedure only helps transition smoothly into the game, it shouldn't place any rules on the game itself.

Now, I don't speak for the entirety of the League community, but personally like it when new things are tried, whether it's by my enemies or allies. I was in a game where Mid Lee Sin wiped the floor with our teams Kat, and I had never seen Mid Sin before, though maybe the Kat was just terrible. Anyway, if people want to be on a team where everything works to the meta, that's just fine. However, if any given strategy beats that meta, that strategy will be used to win regardless. (Like backdooring towers when the enemy is focused on team fights, or that whole Roamer fad.) And after it's proven to work, it'll become the new meta/part of the meta anyway. And if the strategy doesn't work, hey, free win!

Separating the queues gives us the problem of stifling creativity, as well as increasing queue times. The argument itself also adds to the slippery slope of "What is the meta, and where does it end?" Does the meta include double AP? How about Roamers? And when do we cry foul? Do we report our enemies for roaming/double jungling/Mid Sinning? Is lane switching not okay now? What about jungle invasion?

It's better to keep them together to avoid all the problems, be it with the in game rules or out of game system, because separating them won't stop people from coming up with something on the fly in the role queues champion select. Besides, those who say it's unfair to be put against people doing something different don't have a leg to stand on. That's like saying a gun in Call of Duty is cheap and can't be used, or that Healers can't heal in Lunia PVP. If the play-style works, either counter it or use it. (Or ask for a patch, but that doesn't apply here.) For those who want to have a locked down game with a bunch of strict rules, there is always customs.

In any case, the non-role-queue won't strictly be non-meta, it'll just be a bunch of people who are assumed to be fine with trying new things if people on the team feel the need and synergy to do so. The meta will most likely be adhered to for over 90% of a players match history. (Or another arbitrary percentage I just made up on the fly. Point still stands I say!)



P.S. I miss the old definition of trolling. At least the one that applies to internet users and not to fish.

P.P.S. In the defense of the legless, the Direct Hit in Team Fortress 2 was cheap as hell and deserved to burn there. Using that thing made me laugh hysterically at how quickly I won games.

P.P.P.S I love parenthesis. Also, post scripts.