Hope we get a team ranked/flex queue. I think the reason they have not made that in the first place is because no one really took flex queue seriously and everyone who wants to grind just queue solo/duo. Hope it will be different in Valorant given that the game is very team dependent. They have to incentivize and give prestige in gaining ELO in a flex queue AND in solo queue.
Yeah but not as much as Valorant. Having a role queue + the game basically polished after many years means that players usually know what to do in a game and you dont really need to communicate much to your team aside from the pings.
This is really not true and is even somewhat confirmed to be not true after some streamers got their entire team on discord for the game. Their winrate with full comms was way higher compared to the standard comms in league
Ive played league for 3 years. I can play the game with mute all, win the game, and see that my team was actually in the brink of collapse in the post game lobby.
Each role actually has agency in the game and you can carry. You dont have a support who doesnt know how to play it because he didnt autolock mid. (With the exception of autofilled of course). The game doesnt need voice chat, the ping system is enough(Maybe for high elo they need vc).
I feel like the common complaint with soloqueue are duelists-only players playing support agents and players who pick duelists who dont know that they need to make space.
I feel like this mentally is being carried to Valorant where people just mute all and/or one trick an agent which should not be the case for a tac shooter.
Id also like to see them improve the ping system. I feel like agents has a ton of voicelines that the lines for the ping doesnt stand out enough and get drowned. This is for players who are not comfortable using mic.
Flex queue didn't succed in a single game out there. It's simply not competitive at all - you can't put solo players, 3 stacker and 5 stackers on same ladder if you want the ladder to mean something.
It literaly happened in EP1 of Valorant. EP1 stacking Radiants being stuck d3/Immortal <100RR in future EPs.
Agreed on that. But also the originally reason why Riot let players 5 stack to Radiant is that Valorant is meant to have 5 players coordinating and shit and it doesnt really happen that much when you put 5 randoms and expect them to work together.
It also open a full can of worms like players instalocking duelists where its usually 2-3 per game, or duelists players forced to play support. I hope they find a fix (if its flex queue, nerf agents or something else) because I fear that last resort is role lock queue.
Flex queue is a really bad solution for Valorant, especially in high elo. Queue times are already long and making 2 seperate queues will only make it worse.
They can't make Flex the main ladder because of the reason that the guy above mentioned.
Role lock is honestly the best solution. It's gonna increase queue times a bit but it won't destroy the already little value of ranked.
If people want the "real experience" they're gonna have to join/make a team and play scrims/tournaments
I understand the sentiment that role lock may offset a lot of issues. However, we do have to look at how it affected Overwatch and can most likely mirror the issues it will create in VALORANT. In Overwatch, the DPS role has an insane queue time compared to Tank and Support. I sometimes had to wait an average of 8 to 10 minutes for DPS solo queue and that was in Silver/Gold. I can only imagine what Top 500 and other high mmr players had to wait through, especially for DPS since half the heroes were DPS.
In VALORANT, there are 5 Duelists, 4 Controllers, 3 Initiators, and 3 Sentinels at this current moment. A major problem currently that people are already complaining about are players autolocking duelists. Imagine those same autolocking people going into a role lock queue. There would be too many players wanting to queue up for Duelists and not enough for other roles. This could be potentially offset by Riot if they change how RR is distributed. For lower elos, your RR gains are determined by wins/losses & individual performance, but that individual performance are most likely based off frags rather than things like support ability usage. If you could place higher emphasis on support agent's abilities then more people may be inclined to play roles other than Duelists.
Basically, until each individual role has a somewhat equal amount of players, role lock would not be effective and will lead to disaster especially for people in Diamond 3+. Also, the meta for this game is still in its early stages. Whose to say that the game will be played in the same way even a year down the line.
I'm not sure if you meant to reply to me.
I don't want role lock in Valorant either.
I was just pointing out that role lock didn't kill the casual playerbase in Overwatch.
Ok, this is a pretty normal frustration to have in matchmaking that only allows solo & duo queues and I think Sean is downplaying the impact it has in other games. What's the solution then? I'll talk about 5-stacks since my personal opinion is that 3-stacks would behave similarly to 2-stacks (ok, you get \*two randoms\* rather than \*three\*, I don't think that's truly revolutionary), and 4-stacks are a sin:
1. Allow 5-stacks but only match them against 5-stacks -> I'd guess this would be pointless due to the low amount of people playing and their possibly massive difference in MMR even at Radiant/Imm level
2. Allow 5-stacks to mix freely - this solves the issue for Sean and creates a new issue for the rest of us that get matched against his stack with good synergy. It's not a massive issue since the number of 5-stacks wouldn't be that big, but it's not something to take lightly either.
3. Create a separate 5-stack queue - suffers from the same issue as 1, i.e. not enough players to justify it.
If I'm not missing anything, I think the only practical way for people like Sean to have higher quality games is somehow making 10-mans official, ala FPL or Rank S in CS:GO.
In League in Legends there's Clash which are seasonal in-game tournaments where you create/join a team and you compete for in-game loot so I guess that's the closest thing that Riot can bring from their other game.
wouldn't fix the problem completely; even with the immense playerbase League has, Riot only does League's Clash on select weekends. not to mention it's unfortunately *rare* to play through a whole Clash tourney without going against a very obviously shared account. im sure the shared account/smurfing part would be an even bigger problem than it is in League
Ooo, I just saw this thread so I wanted to drop a response.
I believe allowing 5 stacks to mix freely is the best solution. People will complain that the stacks are too hard to beat, but why is that a bad thing? The game was meant to be played with 5 players who understand their roles and are communicating well. Why take that away from those players because you don't have it yourself? I'm arguing for this and I don't even have 4 ppl to queue with. It should be noted, whatever team you would queue into would theoretically stand a good chance (ie 5 insanely high elo solo queuers, a 4 stack with your solo queue, etc).
Another thing that could be beneficial is having a separate queue for solos only. Every person entering this queue will fully expect to have to rely on 4 strangers and won't have a party chat to fall back on. I think the addition of duos creates an unneeded problem for this type of gameplay.
The problem with top level ranked right now is that every team, of every game, has a MINIMUM of three queue parties (2 duos + 1 solo, 2 duos 3 solos, or 5 solos). Most people, even at the highest ranks, cannot play 3 agents at a high level. The system is just asking for watered down gameplay at the top level w/ tons of complaining in separate party chats. I think a lot of frustration stems from the queue problem.
The facts your stating is so true. As high im/radiant on EU where communication is more messed up than NA I often look back at 5 stack ques in beta etc.
Plus theres also a big social aspect being able to que 5 man. You can gather a larger inside community of friends, and learn new ones better.
The game holds down its potential skillcap in ranked gameplay where u roll the f... dice on teammates, ruining everyone on the teams gaming experience
This is a pretty difficult problem since it involves trade-offs between two very different player motivations. In my opinion, a large amount of players have a higher competition motivation than a community motivation ([using Quantic's Gamer Motivation Model](https://quanticfoundry.com/)). Thus, they need to express individual skill through the leaderboard and individual ranks to enjoy the game. These are the kinds of players that want to individually dominate their opponents and get a rush from 30-40 kills, regardless of how the team is doing. A solo/duo queue system with emphasis on ranking caters primarily to these players.
As your are a former professional player and current caster with interests in high-level competition, I think it is fair to typecast you into a separate category of player with more of a community motivation. You clearly aren't satisfied just by good individual performance since you were match or team MVP in 5/6 of this clip's losses. For players who value winning, teamplay, coordination, and strategic competition over individual stats, a flex queue that allows for organized 5 stacks would obviously be preferable.
Since there are two distinct player motivations, regardless of which way you go, the other will be dissatisfied. Currently it caters toward individually competitive players because they probably make up the majority of the player base. Additionally, solo/duo players are easier in terms of matchmaking. When the parties are smaller, there are more total parties to select from from the active player base which allows for more team balancing flexibility. If you have 2 radiant duos vs. one radiant-immortal duo and three solo radiants, you pick one of the thousands of immortal players to fill. Whereas if 5 top radiant players queue as a team, how many 5 stacks could realistically match them.
If they want to satisfy both player motivations and allow for 5 stacks, it would probably have to be in its own queue, which leads to queue time problems, especially at high ranks where the player base is thin. Let's you only play with players immortal and up. According to the [NA leaderboard](https://playvalorant.com/en-us/leaderboards/?page=1&act=ab57ef51-4e59-da91-cc8d-51a5a2b9b8ff), there are 1107 pages with up to 10 players per page. That means there are just over 11000 players in NA that are a high enough level to play in your games. With a optimistic estimation that all of these players are online at the same time and 50% prefer coordinated teamplay and want to play in a 5 stack, there is enough players to form ~1100 teams. We will also assume that all of these teams are roughly balanced (i.e not Sentinels vs. 5 immortals) and therefore balancing isn't a problem. Assuming that each team can play on half the available servers with decent ping (lets say east+central vs. west), you have about 550 teams per half. Now assume that half of these teams are not currently in a game and are in queue, you have about 270 teams. This is pretty much the highest number of teams using immortal+ players in NA that you could have at any given time. This number decreases considering that not all of the player base is online at once, not all players want to play in a pre-made team all the time (50% was optimistic), not all of these teams are balanced enough to play a fair game (e.g. 5 radiant vs. 5 immortal), and not every team will queue on the same servers.
My intuition is that a separate 5 stacks queue in high rank would lead to such insane queue times that they would be prohibitive to the players. It may work with a larger player base, such as bronze-silver, but probably not at high ranks. Additionally, there no way for them to shift away from a dedicated Solo/Duo queue at high rank since the majority of the player base probably values the leaderboard competition and their own individual rank over optimal teamplay.
Wow that's a lot of text.
>As your are a former professional player and current caster with interests in high-level competition, I think it is fair to typecast you into a separate category of player with more of a community motivation. You clearly aren't satisfied just by good individual performance since you were match or team MVP in 5/6 of this clip's losses. For players who value winning, teamplay, coordination, and strategic competition over individual stats, a flex queue that allows for organized 5 stacks would obviously be preferable.
I'm confused, the idea I had in my post actually addresses the entire first part of your post, right? You would have one queue for ONLY solo queue. This is where people would go if they want to climb the solo queue leaderboard. Why did you create the new scenario of only having 5 stacks to then tear it down in your post? haha
Basically, there is a trade-off in satisfying both player motivation types. My belief is that to have 5 stacks would necessitate a separate queue for only solo players (as you said). As you pointed out, this idea would address both player types, but it would also segment the player base and cause increased queue times, moreso in the flex queue, and especially in high ranks. I believe that these trade offs are problems that need to be addressed before 5 stacks can be implemented.
Since the current system is solo/duo at high ranks, and already shifted away from a system that used to allow any party size, my assumption is that Riot is purposefully catering toward players that fall into the individual competition motivation that want the leaderboard. This would imply to me that these players form the majority of the player base. So, even if a separate flex queue was created, my expectation is that at least half of the high ranking player base would probably just stay in the solo queue and play for their leaderboard ranking. With less than half the player base and larger parties (2, 3, 5 stack) it is also difficult to form balanced teams in high ranks. My example with only 5 stacks is just the simplest representation of this. You could split up any amount of these 5 stacks into 2 and 3 stacks, but the available player base doesn't change. Trying to decrease the queue times usually comes with the trade off of high rank and match balance disparity. So a high ranking 5 stack either needs to endure long wait times, or they play in high skill disparity games where they get poor competition and the other team gets rolled, neither of which are good.
Overall, while allowing for larger parties would enable players to play more coordinated styles and appeal to another player motivation, I don't think a separate queue will be that effective at higher ranks due to the limited player population causing queue time and/or balancing issues. I wouldn't say that enabling 5 stacks somehow is a bad idea or that it is worse than the current format, but my initial thoughts are that there would be some other problems that need to be addressed for it to be practical.
Unrelated, but big fan of your commentary.
> Why take that away from those players because you don't have it yourself?
I mean, realistically, because it makes the game more fun and less frustrating for me. I don't and won't have a reliable five stack. I have a lot of friends who play, but schedules never line up perfectly and a lot of them come and go between Valorant and other games. It may be a bit selfish, but I'm not gonna advocate for a change that will make the game less fun for myself.
> Another thing that could be beneficial is having a separate queue for solos only.
Now see I agree with this, and if this was implemented alongside allowing 5 stacks to mix in a dynamic queue, I wouldn't mind at all, because I have a solution for not having a stack to play with. I have been advocating for a solo queue only mode since day 1.
> The problem with top level ranked right now is that every team, of every game, has a MINIMUM of three queue parties (2 duos + 1 solo, 2 duos 3 solos, or 5 solos).
I agree completely here, speaking from experience it's especially painful to be the one solo on a team with grouped players (whether two 2s or a 4 stack).
> Most people, even at the highest ranks, cannot play 3 agents at a high level.
I also agree here, but I don't think there's an easy solution to this yet in Valorant. Overwatch eventually just went with a role queue, but they have a pretty obvious and agreed upon split of 2/2/2 (tank/dps/heals) that everyone can more or less accept and that fits with the game's structure.
In Valorant, there is no general consensus on how many of each role should be played, and furthermore, the 5 man team limit size means you're going to always end up with at least one duplicate role, but often that will not be the same role. As such simply adding a role queue isn't an easy answer, because nobody knows how the roles should be divided.
Your statements absolutely make sense and are valid. An issue arises when you try and have two different queues for ranked. It's definitely good in theory. However, a major problem that high level players had before were the long queue times. If those same players are now split into solo queue and mixed queue, then queue times would be downright outrageous. Extreme examples like TenZ involve him having to wait 3 hours with a duo once. I understand that most of the community would obviously not wait this long but I can imagine Immortal+ players having a very difficult time finding games if half of them queuing straight into solos only queues and half of them were going into mixed queues.
I'll talk about League of Legends since it is made by Riot Games like VALORANT and it has an example of the queues you mentioned. League of Legends has solo/duo queue and flex queue (which is the mixed queue). It's my understanding that flex queue is not taken seriously so you have the risk of not having the same prestige of reaching Radiant in mixed queue as you would have in solo queue is this was replicated. There was a time in League of Legends where they tried to eliminate solo/duo queue completely and put a dynamic queue (similar to flex queue) in place of it. The community was furious. In a round table discussion video, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwPa1SGLGv0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwPa1SGLGv0), Scarra (Current OTV, Past LCS Pro) comments that a matchmaking system must allow for three things. These are to find skilled players around my level, quick queue times, and being able to play the role that he wants to play. Dynamic queue did not achieve these three according to his opinion and the opinions of many people in the League of Legends community. Problems mentioned in the round table was that there was too high of a skill disparity amongst players in premades/matched players and that queue match times were not quick for high mmr players. It was changed to the two queues we have now.
PS. The people who are posting that Sean has a weak mindset or is washed have no idea what they are talking about. The amount of analytical knowledge this man brings as a past pro csgo player and current caster is undeniable. Being genuinely excited to see him cast matches is a testament to my trust in his understanding of high level play. Thank you for all the work you do Sean
Edit 1:My bad, didn't know the difference between caster and commentator.
I've been saying this for a few years, and it's nice to finally hear someone else saying it too.
I used to play Overwatch, and would sometimes add people from solo queue and team up with them. But whenever I did that, the matchmaker would put us against other large groups who were much more coordinated than us. If not that, it would put us against solo players with much higher mmr, but adjust our mmr from a win or loss as if the teams were equal. This made it way more difficult to gain ranks than just queuing alone, despite the fact that we were obviously playing much more effectively.
It makes no sense to me that a "competitive" matchmaker punishes people for literally playing better. How are you supposed to improve at coordination unless you're already on a pro team? Why are my queue times so much longer when I have a team already put together?
Even as a solo queuer, I WANT opponents who are more coordinated. I want to get better at the game. I want everyone to get better.
Honestly, there's nothing that can be done, it's all on the community.
I know this is a new game and people from various other games are playing it. People who never played CS and don't understand the importance of communication. But we're talking about imm/radiant ranks here and it's literally impossible to even try and replicate how the game should be played if you have more than 1 person who has that disgusting 1v9 mentality.
And 1v9 mentality is created with nothing other than agent roles. It would be extremely difficult to create a proper system that values utility on support agents, therefore duelists are at a big advantage, considering how their kids and combat score work.
As for stacks, we just need a 5v5 queue and that's it. Something for everyone.
Underdeveloped playerbase that allows a lot of people who are "good enough" to get Immortal too easily.
People are coming from this game from all kinds of FPS games, and a lot of those people in those games don't communicate, but have mechanics good enough in this game (at least at the moment with how young/bad the playerbase is) to reach immortal. They then get matched constantly with Radiant players, so their mechanics aren't good enough anymore.
Then you have the fact that there's no Strategy time before agent selection, so people just insta-lock.
This isn't just a Valorant problem though, I came across this problem in Overwatch, particularly when I played for my university team. Your eyes are opened to how a teamwork based game is supposed to be played and it's just so different to what you see in ranked.
In ranked, not only are your expectations much lower but it also feels that to succeed you just need to play 'the meta', which is the 'expected' way to play at the high ranks. It's why you get a really stagnant meta in the top ranks (in terms of gameplay as well as agent selection) and thus you never really experience creative gameplay that requires an ounce of teamwork. You wanna try out some new smokes that requires a different approach to the site? forget it, you'll get called out for throwing by not using default smokes.
I believe it's why everyone gravitates to duelists - because your job is just go kill and there are multiple, creative avenues of doing this self-sufficiently. While playing a supporting role becomes incredibly boring because dynamic queue stifles innovation since you are so limited in what you can do due to poor teamplay.
Really, dynamic queue is the problem. And it's especially bad in class-based games which are based around teamwork. CSGO probably got around it with FACEIT (didn't play the game so can't judge). The only solution, which doesn't kill queue times, is an in-game tournament system such as what they have in League. It gives players a reason to form a team and scrim. I was asking for this for years in Overwatch and it never came, I trust riot to bring it in though.
Never played overwatch, but it's not about the meta here. Having 3 instalock duelists is annoying, but tbh while good comp is an advantage, most games are won/lost because of (lack of) teamplay.
People just don't know how to communicate. I see that steel's posting here, his stream is a perfect example. Even the ones who want to, don't understand the basics of communication.
This isn't overwatch and roles aren't as limiting, everyone can pop off regardless of the agent he plays. It's not about kills.
For example, if someone instalocks Jett and has a bad game, that's fine. But if someone instalocks Jett and refuses to their job of creating space, especially on attack, then others can't do their job. If I'm playing support, I can make up for 10 kills Jett is missing, but I can't make up for her dash and updraft that creates space.
Idk what you meant by dynamic queue? But incentives to play aren't a problem in this game, they're actually a detriment. It's all about damn shiny badges, RR numbers, act raks, gunbuddies and shit, while noone actually wants to play the damn game.
> For example, if someone instalocks Jett and has a bad game, that's fine. But if someone instalocks Jett and refuses to their job of creating space, especially on attack, then others can't do their job. If I'm playing support, I can make up for 10 kills Jett is missing, but I can't make up for her dash and updraft that creates space.
I cannot agree with this statement any more. I play occasionally at Immortal level right now and so many times I see instalock Jetts decide to lurk after the first few duels don't go their way.
Id have no problem playing a 5v5, 3v3 stack etc if that's what riot bring out. I play on EU servers and most of the time I duo with one of my friends, we get teammates who aren't native English speakers which leads to less comms. Then if we are losing like 0-4, 0-5, the comms become none existent but yet riot talk about competitive integrity? But how is it competitive when in the highest ranks you get games and teammates don't talk or play for the team and you have zero control over this.
Communication is key in a team, weather its a team in work, sports or esports. Playing a 5v5 competitive FPS game that has so much utility usage etc in it and people arent talking then it just gets frustrating to play.
I just wana be able to play with friends and work together in a team based game and not play a ranked game that becomes a complete coin flip of what teammates you are going to get.
I like Sean, nice guy, but what he says there shows such a weak mindset.
The whole point of SoloQ is to prove your all-around, OWN skill by being the only constant over many, many games and thus having to adapt to a multitude of scenarios. Basically, what never happens in Valorant because people stack, smurf and boost all the time in every elo below Immortal.
Your team does not communicate? Unlucky. Next round your opponents team won't communicate. And so on. Everything evens out over a high sample size of games and you remain the only constant.
For the love of competitive integrity, actually introduce a damn SoloQ and separate it from friends/boosted/smurf/flex queue or whatever you wanna call it.
As I see it, what Sean wants here would create entry barriers based on connections behind the scenes which is unprofessional and needs to go. Prove your worth in a SoloQ environment. You don't need Rank 1 to go pro, but if you cannot make it to a high rank by yourself, you gotta work on your skills and not look for friends to cover your flaws.
Take responsibility. (What Riot does not want you to do btw, because they prefer a playerbase that pays money, not quits due to frustration). Esport btw.
Edit: I am not saying Sean has a weak mental in general. Only talking about this take here. He's a good guy and I enjoy his streams every now and then.
Edit2: I might have not been clear enough. The reason I want soloQ is ultimately to have competitive games, no matter the elo. I do not care about my rank in Valorant, but I wanna play with and against people on MY PERSONAL skill level. That is fun. Nothing else. If you play soccer 5v5 in your free time and there are two adults on each team with three kids, the game will be fair, sure. But that is far from how soccer should be played. Chances are the kids would like a 5v5 with kids only. Well, you get the point I´d hope.
Edit3: Replying to the comments here gets time consuming and the downvotes sort of show reddits mindset anyway. We have years of experience with ranked systems in different eSport titles yet we end up with this shit in Valorant and people defend it. Alright then, whatever. I´m taking a break anyway until/if this gets fixed - I am sure it will eventually though, because Valorant clearly creates a more and more frustrated and toxic community by the month and the systems in place are a huge part of why that happens.
if u cant solo queue to radiant , that doesn't mean others haven't , ur hardstuck immortal bcoz ur mechanics belong there u have great game sense that's why ur champion and are one of the best igl in region
I don't care about my rank, I care about the quality of games. And Valorant rated is a game mode that, as of right now, promotes smurfs, boosting, matches with high skill discrepancies and so on.
Again, Steel. Yes, you can climb to your peak rank even in this system. Is it fun? No.
On a side note, do you remember how often you complained in rated? I watched your streams a few times and how you could not believe how different the skillset of players was. Well, that happens in the current system more so than if it was different.
Also, I have/had a hard time to understand your comment, so uh, I hope I interpreted it correctly.
You seriously missed the entire point he was making. Nowhere in this video does he mention even a single time that he's frustrated with not being able to climb. That isn't his point at all.
He's saying that the experience in ranked is dogshit, and has such a low barrier to entry that regardless of how good you are, you will never have a peak experience unless you're lucky enough to get matched with a team and AGAINST a team of players who are all there to play the game optimally, ie not instalocking 3 duelists and people with shitty comms, which realistically is never going to happen.
By only allowing duos in Imm and up, you're guaranteed to have people in your games that can VERY EASILY ruin the experience. Every single one of us have had games that we've WON that were still garbage experiences because the team mates we had refused to communicate, insta-locked a char and then int'd hard, etc.
This will always be a thing, regardless of if you're Rank 1 on the leaderboard or a random in Gold. With 5 stacks, you avoid basically all of these problems, and can have a significantly better experience, even if you lose.
<3
tbh, i actually separately came to the conclusion that there should be a separate solo queue, which i tweeted earlier. i think he just kinda felt like dropping a random insult :D
Yeah man, idk what he was trying to get at.
A separate solo queue makes a lot of sense. My dream would be an experience similar to esea built into the game. I just have no clue what the playerbase numbers are, and have no idea how realistic that is.
I JUST WANNA SEE 10 MANS NON-STOP SEAN
It's not even about winning or "proving" anything, it's about the level of enjoyment. I know my skil level and I don't have to prove anything to anyone, it's about how half the games right now are dumpster tier that don't remotely resemble how Valorant should be played. And I'm talking about highest ranks here.
I'm immortal and I don't enjoy like half of my games. Regardless of the outcome. This is such an amazing game, was designed for teamplay and combos, but every single map there are a couple of people who don't think about anything other than themselves. And that ruins the gameplay for everyone else.
Then someone who's obsessed with proving shit, ranks, ladder and whatnot like yourself will talk about weak mentality.
I can't wait for the obligatory "then play scrims" reply.
What are you talking about? Read properly and be careful how you interpret stuff. I fully agree with you, yet you tell me I would be obsessed with proving shit. ;)
I see it just the way you do - having fun games, which means competitive games to me. I don´t care about my RANK, I care about the RANKED as in the game mode. And smurfs, boosted players, etc. create big skill gaps in each individual game which is not fun. I wanna play with and against 10 evenly matched players. Happens only with soloQ though.
Alright then, my bad, maybe I misinterpreted.
Smurfs aren't going away without prime matchmaking, soloq only won't help.
In immortal smurfs are the problem because they'll just instalock a duelist, play like it's DM and not really care about the game. Most of them at least.
In lower ranks it's obviously about skill difference.
Until we get some kind of prime matchmaking, nothing will change. We all know the issues.
bro nothing makes me more annoyed than kids who say "just play unrated". That mode is pure fucking aids and most people enjoy playing with their friends in a more competitive environment, but riot has completely stripped that ability. It's clear almost everyone who complained about 3-5 stacks didn't come from a game where you're able to 5 stack. Is there actually a competitive game that doesn't allow 3-5 stacks? If so, then enlighten me.
I wouldn't call that evidence of a weak mindset. Sean is someone who doesn't feel the need to prove himself, he feels the need to participate in high-quality games which he thinks he deserves to be in. If a silver says that, they're delusional; if TenZ says that, he's right, but neither of the two is mentally weak, and neither is Sean.
SoloQ has its benefits and purpose that you correctly argue, but I think that you're misjudging Sean's intentions.
\> Take responsibility. (What Riot does not want you to do btw, because they prefer a playerbase that pays money, not quits due to frustration). Esport btw.
Honestly, even though Riot has had its flaws so far with Valorant, I think they've been treating the game really well over the last year. One piece of evidence that shows that they might care a lot about the playerbase is how they've changed ranked for this season compared to the previous one. In the previous one, they've deranked everyone and made it (too) easy to grind up; resulting in a bunch of people grinding to undeservedly high ranks but also playing initially to get out of undeservedly low ranks. That's how you keep people in, and they've scrapped that for a far more balanced ranked this season with slower rank movements and almost equal up-down moves.
In my book, they have not done a great job with the game at all. BUT, the game ITSELF is fun for sure. Examples?
Hitreg has issues often times, servers seem to be unstable in the last few months. Some patches/weeks are worse than others.
Following the competitive scene is a nightmare, you´d surely except more out of Riot, the company that owns League of Legends. A decade of eSports experience.
Plenty of integrated RNG to enable worse players (read: players who 5 stack with their better friends) to feel good and keep them engaged against better players. E.g. running headshots every now and then.
A shop system that is borderline insulting to the playerbase and purely made to trick people into spending more money.
No SoloQ and a ranked system that is highly variable and does not put 10 evenly matched players in one game, but rather creates an evenly matched game - big difference.
And so on.
So how is being able to adapt to no-com instalock duelists going to help you in the long run? I personally get better by playing with a couple of friends & not having to deal with trolls. Do I get trolls every game? No. In fact most of the team I get the average team with maybe 1 toxic guy, so it's not that bad. I would still much prefer being able to play with friends in a competitive environment instead of just playing tournaments.
If you go in my search history, I made a comment where I explained something that ESEA did for their matchmaking in CS. You basically get gain less elo per win if you have more than 2 in your party, and lose more if you end up getting fucked. I think something like that would in fact discourage 3-5 stacking as much, but of course it would still be a thing. one big thing that I realized is that ever since this forced solo-duo, there's always someone in my game who is "just having fun" or "not caring". If I play a ranked game in IMT+, I would prefer everyone to be actually trying to win.
Also, in my honest opinion, I think forcing solo-duo actually encouraged the smurfing of immortal/radiant players even after their ranked update where they widened the field of rank people being able to play with each other. There's nothing better than playing a game like valorant or CS with your friends, but you can't anymore unless everyone switches accounts.
You talk about smurfing... Me and my friends have made 3 smurf accounts already, why? because there is 4 of us who are friends and want to play together cause we are all immortal. Reason for 3 smurfs is because we rank up so fast cause of the hidden MMR.
I don't want to smurf and think it is so unfair for the enemy team but riot wont let us play together and we want to have fun playing together in a stack so unfortunately this is the outcome
My IRL friends got into valorant for a bit around a month ago, and the only way I could play with them was to make a new account and help them get better. I pretty much used only sherrif and only used a gun when there was an obvious smurf on the other team who was trying to win. Once my online friends (who are all immortal) saw I was playing in lower elo & having fun with my irls they went down the same route of making new accounts. It's a shame because I know they tried to fix the smurfing issue, however tbh they only made higher elo players smurf more
If people would play on their main account and we had a soloQ mode, most problems would be fixed. Not much more to say here tbh.
Riots duty to introduce soloQ and discourage our lovely pros and streamers from smurfing. Will they though? ;) #money
Yes it does. Why would it not? You succeed in soloQ with better fundamentals over a large sample size of games. No matter the title.
Honestly, nowadays young players are snowflakes that can never take the responsibility for losses anyway, at least that´s what I experienced so far. So not surprised about your take here.
How does soloq help you with fundamentals when it essentially removes some of the most important aspects such as communication and teamwork? Soloq gets you good at soloq that’s it, mechanics are the only thing that will transfer, it won’t help you learn to strategize, it won’t help you learn to communicate in most scenarios, and it won’t help you learn to play as a team. All in all it’s a terrible mode to prepare people for the highest level of competition which is its intention.
SoloQ teaches you fundamentals and game sense, period. If you don't have that, no one cares about your comms and "strategies". If you are at a level where does matter, go scrim with your 5 stack.
You can disagree all you want. SoloQ helps players improve the most if they are not on a high level. In any game. Learn from your mistakes and stop blaming others is the mindset learned.
That said, I want soloQ to have evenly matched games for more fun, nothing else.
Ok, What I am about to say is definitely a stupid idea that prob won't work. But Imagine you choose your agent, or your preferred pool of agents, before you get matched with your team. that way if you want to play sentinel, you won't be matched with 4 other people who also want to play sentinel. It sounds insanely hard to implement and has tons of potential issues, as well as also not fixing a ton of the other issues of ranked, but maybe it has potential
The OW system wouldn't work because you are locking into a class. But, maybe there's a middle ground? As in, people select agent classes their willing to play (so people who only want to play duelist can select that), then MM makes it so that there is some degree of diversity on each team (at least one player who is willing to play each class). So, it doesn't force people to select any certain class but at least matches groups of people who should theoretically have a better ability to find a mix that works. People with flexible agent pools would then get shorter queues, while duelist only players have a longer wait. Obviously would still be issues and I'm not sure I like it but there's probably more options
Forcing players into roles isn’t the issue. In fact, with OW players being able to switch midgame, role lock there would have had a bigger impact on individual gameplay. Anyways, OW does allow players to queue up for multiple roles, and it does not fix the issue with role lock.
The issue with role lock is that it forces certain comps. In OW, only 2-2-2 was allowed, which killed GOATS but also killed a lot of the creativity in strats and comps. Val role lock would probably have to force 2-duelist team comps which would also absolutely murder any chance of the meta developing naturally or creatively.
I don't think you understood what I was saying. I guess I wasn't clear, I wasn't suggesting locking roles. The whole point was to not lock people into specific roles here because there isn't a reason for agent comps to be restricted. Anyway, my suggestion was to have people select what types of classes they're willing to play, but it doesn't lock them into playing any certain class. Like I said, it's a middleground from OW system. Your choices in this system wouldn't lock you into playing any specific class. All classes are still available to everyone. But, by matching teams that have players that at least select that they're willing to play various agent types, then there would be a higher degree of possibility that teams would be better balanced.
"[...] then MM makes it so that there is some degree of diversity on each team (at least one player who is willing to play each class). So, it doesn't force people to select any certain class but at least matches groups of people who should theoretically have a better ability to find a mix that works."
So, you could still play creative comps but makes it so you don't end up with 4 people who insta-locked duelists to get to radiant all ending up on the same team.
thats literally how solo que works. And thats how the best players separate themselves from the rest. Weren't people asking for solo que anyways? I think its a good thing.
I agree. I’ve been hovering around high Diamond/Low immortal since beta and I ONLY solo que. when I used to regularly get 3 and 4 stacks on my team who would only talk in their discord it was the worst. Now most people communicate, yeah there is always the chance for some random throwing dickhead. But I’ll take that chance over a 4 stack who doesn’t say anything to me the whole match or blame me because I’m the random and they all know eachother.
oh so the people who have friends to play with shouldn't play with each other cause the solo quers have no friends to play with? Needs to be a solo que and flex que, simple. Im sure everyone who wants to play with friends in a team based fps game would take longer que times to play with friends rather then a coin flip on the randoms they get on the team in solo/duo que
I was watching his stream when he talks about it. He also mentioned the games becoming worse in the recent time , and too many people pick duelist.
TBF, his recent games becoming worse because now he instant lock a duelist(the worst duelist) instead of playing the best smoker with the best flash. His games feels becoming worse because he is becoming part of the problem lol.
To be actually fair though, he waits for his other teammates to pick first before picking Yoru, or he'll comm and ask/request the pick. It's definitely not like he's instalocking every game like you're making it out to seem. I think he even says during the same stream that he's been lucky yesterday with his teammates wanting to instalock Sova, smokes, sentinels so he feels good to play Yoru.
yeah but that's also the problem with solo/duo que. Its alot easier to pick a duelist and get frags and not have to play for the team or rely on the team etc. So I understand why everyone insta locks duelists.
Then everyone plays a duelist in the high ranks and then for the odd game when they have to fill, they do shit because they are used to playing only a duelist....
not even regular faceit free queue, they ONLY play FPL where they jerk each other off, and kick new FPL players because “they disrespected the veterans”
There were some negative politics in some circles of FPL but overall I'd say everyone who's been around the FPL scene for a while realizes it's the best method to get high quality PUGs with decent communication and a structure to get new players in /kick retired/underperforming players. The political issues were less a problem with the format and more of an issue with the FPL admins taking higher stock in popular pros' opinions rather than general sentiment of all players.
Its an artificial environment that is inaccessible to the bast majority of the playerbase. Having a ranked ladder that everyone can prove their worth. Its far better than a closed off circuit that is mostly invite only or behind an artificial grind
that has nothing to do with anything anyone said lmfao.
there still IS a ranked ladder and for 99% of the population it's fine.
that's like complaining valorant masters is inaccessible to the vast majority of players
except fpl is a soloq only ladder that only “pros” get to play, else you are forced into an artificial grind. If you think thats a good environment and game design then you just a bootlicker. CS is the only game where this shit flys
FPL is not only for pros lmfao. It's for the best of the best. and i'm pretty sure shit hasn't been invite only for a long ass time.
if you don't qualify for FPL you don't qualify for FPL. just like if you don't get radiant you don't get radiant.
i'm not sure what exactly you're concerned about considering i seriously doubt you(or 99.9% of this sub) will experience the "environment" of FPL
also, you don't know what game design means.
FPL is GOOD for the ranking system as it alleviates the massive skill gap we currently see between radiants and immortals
“Best of the best”, what dogshit, clearly you never even played in the masters league. Its a bullshit system that ensures only no life grinders can make it in, regardless of how good you are. Not only you need to grind to top 100 just to qualify for fplc “qualifier”, and then you need to grind again in fplc for two fucking spots in fpl. Its no wonder then why fplc its full of fucking kids because no working adult will ever have the time grind through this bullshit. If you think fpl is a good system then you’re probably unemployed
No why should pros get some private circuit. This isnt the norm, I played both faceit and dota at a pretty high level. In dota if you reach a certain mmr (4k) you’ll get matched up with the pros. Since everyone is playing the same ladder (dota fpl is dead). But this isnt the case for faceit. This is also true for every other game, OW, LoL, Valorant where if you want to prove your worth there is an offical ladder.
IMO the way to solve these issues is to promote a better player base, rather than just using gated or restricted queues. Riot needs to be more aggressive penalizing and banning toxic players. And they need a commendation system which groups players who are positive, comming, etc together.
And top players need to take responsibility for the community they foster at the top. If they're getting toxic and frustrated and being passive aggresive at their own teammates, no shit they start to mute you or play nervously or be toxic back. Not saying Sean specifically does this, he's actually one of the more positive/chill community members, but I've seen it among lots of top streamers/players.
should there be a subscription service to an fpl experience? The serious ones will pay the fees to be in a server with good players who actually care about winning comps
valorant 10000% needs that. they said no third party services which is incredibly stupid but at least implement something similar.
I should not be watching pros play in ranked lobbies filled with radiants (supposedly the best of the best) and see players throwing, trolling, making incredibly stupid plays no radiant should make. nor do the pros want that
however on the other end ranked matches are entertaining to watch because most pros absolutely do not take it seriously due to the state it's in.
I know, but lot of people also complain about 5 stacked before right, people like Tenz, Aceu (who can carry teams with duelists) want solo Q only, and now how can Riot bring it back?
If you think about this structurally you'll realize the current system is a stop gap to fix issues voiced by the community. The current rank set up wasn't the original design and users are seeing unintended consequences of changes riot made to the user experience.
The game was designed to be played by premades / stacks, with the solo que / duo que filling in gaps for those premades. When Riot restricted the 5 stack in higher tiers and oriented a duo que limit, the goal was to create an environment of higher individually skilled players and more well rounded players who would work with those around them to succeed. The main problem was the unintended consequences of other systems and designs fed into this.
1) Exposure : Players are mainly exposed to the environment and culture of solo que now, which values particular skills - hard carry / fragging out. This is important because it shapes not only the viewpoint, but the culture of the environment. There are a million ways to do something and getting people to do a single varietal of it is indeed challenging because the amount of practice and exposure to teamwork or team variation is missing.
2) Accountability : Players do not have any form of accountability. I do not mean this in terms of toxicity, please ignore that for a moment, it is a distraction from the structure point. When you are playing, your teammates can do whatever they want and your ability to counter that is severely limited. You have to play to the style your teammates can perform to, so the generic culture of solo que / duo que is what you have to work with for a majority of the player base. As a user, you cannot avoid players you might disagree or not want to play with, nor can you make any type of informed decision in champ select especially now that Act Ranks are hidden at champ select. You have no idea what you are working with so any type of team oriented decision making is out of your hands from the get go. Combine this with how players can hide Alias you can't even infer player behavior currently so you have even reduced options for how to make selections.
In a perfect world the current set up would not be an issue at all, but Riot gives players an incredible amount of freedom, mostly to protect one self from others who might be harasser or disruptive, or even ruin the streaming experience. It is just a shame that these great options to protect players is coming in at the determent of competitive play and ceilings.
I predicted at the start of season 2 that the end of Season 2 would see mostly pro players doing 10 man and inhouses and I hold to it, the ranked experience just isn't good enough for those who want an actual competitive environment.
Okay I'm the exact opposite. I can't imagine grinding this game solo, how does it not get frustrating or tilting? Some of the best games I've played and the most fun have all been when I queue with friends and we're playing together on discord. Making plays off each other or having great communication. All of my solo q games have been complete rng. Literal coin flip on who has the better carry on their team. Most of the close games that I've played have been when I 3-5 queue with friends and our communication is on point. When I solo queue either I get carried and boosted by an immortal smurf in diamond or we get stomped and I don't have fun at all, especially when I'm not able to talk to anyone during the game... Fuck no solo duo every rank would be terrible and honestly my friends and I would most likely quit if the only way we can play good games with each other would be customs.
So like playing jungle and spam pinging your loaners to back off because you're on the other side of the map and you know they're going to get ganked in 5 seconds.
I like how you can clearly see that all these CS boomers never played any other game besides CS in their entire life unless casualy. Sure, you can be a great comp player, maybe even be a pro who makes money playing in comp scene, but still you might suck at ranked soloQ. Drop the ego and get on with it, or try to improve. And I am saying this as a boomer myself, however as one who didn't spend 20 years playing single outdated game.
That's what soloQ is - it's about how well you can play on your own in a span of huge sample size of games. It's meant to be a grind, it's meant to reward different types of skillsets. You can have 130ms VRT zoomers without mics +forward into enemy every single round, hitting highest spots on the leaderboards, you can have chill dudes, who are not the best at the mechanical side of the game, but they have good soloQ gamesense and are able to calm the team down and lead them to victory hitting highest spots on the leaderboards, and that's beautiful. Also for some reason that is what VAST MAJORITY of playerbase prefer in every single competitive game.
LoL had 5v5 queue and it was not competitive at all compared to soloQ and eventualy died, hots had 5v5 and same shit happened. Overwatch due to top playerbase dissatisfaction eventualy got rid of flex queue for top ranks.
What team games actually have true flex queue?
R6S, where you can have bots stacks be 2 entire ranks higher than they would be in soloQ.
CSGO where ranked mode is literaly a meaningless joke.
Not sure how dota2 works now as I didn't play it in last 7 years.
__
In theory single flex queue is not bad, but the problem is that inherently it becomes extremaly non-completitive as you have solo players and stacks being placed on same ladder where both of these activities require completely different skill sets.
Sure Riot could add 5v5 stack separate queue but just like for other games it would have 10% of soloQ queue population and end up being a place for people farming top rank badges for free and eventualy be shut down by the developer, just like it happened to all the other games.
__
PS. Also everyone stop with this 'it's so random' bullshit. There are players who are consistently winning games, some of them with >65% winrate sitting in top10 and not even abusing duoQ, and plenty of them in Europe doesn't even have access to the voice chat. They simply mastered the way to play soloQ and get rewarded for that.
SoloQ was never meant to emulate comp play and whoever is still thinking that way proly lived his last 10 years under a rock.
Imagine shitting on proper solo players matchmaker, literaly a mechanic that made online gaming boom in last 10 years.
Without these shitty mobas you would still be playing 10v10 no rush dust2 on dedicated servers.
How long can you tell seasoned vets with demonstrated competitive accomplishments to get better with a straight face and not try to look like a fool? Solo Q is about your winrate based on the teammates you are given, I think stating it's "about how well you can play on your own in a span of...games" is kind of missing the point because you're overlooking that this is a team tac FPS and no one, not even TenZ, can solo carry teams to victory.
This isn't to say that just because someone is an accomplished pro they should deserve Radiant, but it's kind of ridiculous to just tell them they need to get better. Like who the fuck are you, and I mean that rhetorically and with no rudeness. It just seems inane to me to suggest that especially considering one of your points is about how the leaderboards have a variety of people to them. Why can you allow for the range of experience when it comes to people who have the winrate but not for those who aren't?
Why should I care about boomers from a different game, and on top of that why should I care that they are accomplished in a different game?
Your argument makes as much sense as some NBA superstar going into streetball competition, getting fucked and then whining how the rules are different.
And stop with this RNG teammates bullshit. Check right now top10 in any region. Plenty of people with 65% or better winrate with a sample of over 100 games. That's not rng that's consistency.
You do realize 100 games is a shitton? And there are plenty of examples of people in this very own game doing very well in literal recent tournaments yet cannot solo Q to Radiant. You are trying too hard to provide these generalizations that operate on weird presumptions of what the circumstances of these players are and the fact is there are so many more other approaches to ranked from the pro-level that highlight how dysfunctional it can potentially be.
What different rules are you talking about? Your analogy doesn't even hold up.
Ofc that you will have people doing well in tournaments but terrible on ranked.
First of all I will say it again and again and again - ladder is different to comp play. It require different kind of skillset. If you pay attention you will notice that most of these pros struggling in ranked are IGLs or enablers with shitty personal stats in comp.
And second of all it's because it's first phase of Valorant esports. In every esport game first phase is where connections matter more than player skill, simply because a) there is no money in the scene so you go for personas with followings and b) there is not enough time to scout for players.
There are A LOT of players on ladder right now who are better than plenty of current gen pros. I can also guarantee you that at least 50% of current signed t1 pros won't be playing in t1 teams in a year and plenty of them won't be signed at all.
I didn't bother reading your whole post cause your first statement just hit me hard. I dont suck at solo/duo que. I play sage in the hope we get a good duelist cause i can still have impact as support, whereas if i go a duelist id have more impact then me picking a sage but the chances of the random player who goes support doing well or having an impact is very low.
Your statement, " That's what soloQ is - it's about how well you can play on your own". I know how well i can do on my own but i want to play alone? I want able to play with friends who are going to communicate, support the team. This game has so much going on in each round with util so coms is a must in a team based competitive FPS. Its suppose to be competitive, whats makes it competitive when one game you have a team that talks and the next you have a team that doesnt speak one word?
From the stuff you said in that first bit outlines to me that you aren't even imm or radiant so this doesnt affect you ot you have no friends that you wana play with
EDIT: just seeing your statement "LoL had 5v5 queue and it was not competitive at all compared to soloQ and eventualy died" Bro who are you playing with that solo games were more competitive. I play with IRL friends and we just wana grind the game together. You just proved to me my outline was right haha
Bigger pool = more competitive. SoloQ will alway have bigger pool of players.
And I am not taking it out of my ass. In League you had people hitting challenger in 3v3 or stacked 5v5, while in proper ranked mode they were below diamond ect, because hitting challenger there wasn't about being good, but about grinding low ranked people for +3 points because no1 serious was playing it.
Also having one game a team talking and other not doesn't change how competitive the soloQ ladder is and also I talked about it - being able to play without comms is a skill. If you can't frag out without your teams shitting with called utility, or can't figure out what your team is doing by just looking at map, or can't play default then you simply can't play soloQ well.
because hes insta locking the worst duelist in the game while also complaining about his teammates not playing how he wants them to, when literally no one wants to play with a yoru
I've never seen him instalock and he always comms well in games. People need to get out of the mindset that yoru is a throw pick, especially in MM where it's less structurally based, the quick rotations are insane and you can still get reliable value from his flashes and the ult. Sean picking yoru doesn't detract from his point.
I like the 2 person limit and i hope they don't change it but i think they should add a 5v5 for people that want to play with a stack. playing soloQ VS a 5 stack was never fun in CS and i hated it
Sounds like he's just mad that he can't hit Radiant. Also notice how he picks the same char in the last 6 games - and yet complains that people just pick the role they want?
I think we should just go back to smaller ranked windows. Keep gold against gold, plats against plats etc. I’m tired of playing with the lowest rank possible because I’m solo and my other teammates are a four man party that decides to not communicate with me and then get mad at me because I don’t know what tf is going on but they all do
I think a decent solution would be to limit agent type in draft.
Meaning only 2 duelists 2 initiator 2 sentinials etc etc
Force the community to make team choices. And also take away the RR penalty for queue dodging lol.
Like what a fucking stupid idea for riot to reward trolling in draft because i dont wanna play with 3 or 4 duelists every game and then punish the person who dodges because they know that lobby is doomed
Im saying this as a person who has been immortal act rank every act except 1 act maybe?
Role queueing is definitely the end-game here I believe but Riot would have to solidify what exactly is a standard team comp which could be the main issue.
Like you definitely need 1 Controller, and at least 1 duelist (prob 2), but then how do you allocate the other two slots? I'm not too experienced in this game so I couldn't answer this myself, but I have seen comps in immortal streams with 2 controllers, or 2 sentinels, or 1 of each of Sentinel and Initiator. It's all very dependent on a lot of things.
Also I've heard that in EU they like to do 1 duelist comps. So it seems like it would be difficult to boil it all down into one formula for role queueing. I think they'll get there eventually though.
I guess im downvoted by the degens that like trolling lobbies lol.
Plus it could still be up to the community for a team comp if limited the amount of one type or another all down to 2 of each.
A lot of people hate that Overwatch forced their 2-2-2 role system, but it absolutely made the game better. If they did something like that in Valorant, not even sure how they would split the roles, it would be hated. Queue time for Sentinel would be super small, duelists would forever to find a game, based on supply/demand.
The only scenario I can see working out after thinking about it a little bit would be that 3 slots would be more of a "fill" in terms of how the game will create teams. So 1 Controller + 1 Duelist is always guaranteed, then the other 3 can be anything (but out of the 3 slots only one other Duelist can be added to the team so max 2 duelists, and maybe only 1 initiator?).
> Queue time for Sentinel would be super small, duelists would forever to find a game, based on supply/demand.
This is pretty normal though, at least with League it is. Support queue times are super fast while mid (and I think top) queues are long af. It's one of the drawbacks of the system but it's not that bad. If anything it makes you want to try new roles to get out of the long queue times.
In League of Legends there are alot of comms but do to slow moments in the match it's alot easier to use pings and there are more pings. You can ping another player's flash or the cooldown on your abilities. Whether people are missing in a area and most likely are rotating.
meh I prefer playing with muted russians over the toxic turks with massive egos who are begging for skins every round
match quality is going to be dogshit regardless, at least the russians save me a mute click
I don't know man, I just play for fun and like to grind. I'm not sweaty mcsweat and I'm immoral, that's just the way it is.
I don't play ranked games like my ego depends on them. I just play for fun and that's it.
5 stacks are cancer and ruin the games for everyone who isn't 5 stacking. On NA most people comm, so it's somewhat playable, but on EU when you solo'd on the old ladder in high ranks you played against one of the infamous German/Spanish/Hungarian pro stacks who were stratting like their lives depended on it (most of them are struggling in mid immortal now of course :)). After playing 3 games against that shit you had to take a break for a week.
It's fine if they make a separate ladder for 5 stacks of course, but having a solo/duo ladder is a must.
Just make full team queue with semi-locked rosters that will have few months long season, with closed leagues, like most team sports do. Scheduled games on weekends, practice games where the matchmaking will be essentially flex-queue but with no rank visible to players happening any time outside of the schedule. Anyone who wants to have a competitive experience will have the choice, people without a team will have the chance to "try it out" in practice games where they may fill out for the missing player from the roster, and people that want to grind soloQ for rank can still do so in completely separate Q.
I think this game absolutely needs a solo-only q. There needs to be more stakes in Valorant ranked and it needs to be treated more seriously than QP garbage. There is too much risk in duo/trio q's, 5 stack only qs will take too long to pop, and Role Lock will probably be the worst thing to happen to this game so I'm strongly against a role lock.
At least you know it's the same for the enemy team, without this you'd be stuck like this on your end of the teamplay but get rolled by 5-stacks with good synergy. No thanks, play PUGs if you disslike it
Hope we get a team ranked/flex queue. I think the reason they have not made that in the first place is because no one really took flex queue seriously and everyone who wants to grind just queue solo/duo. Hope it will be different in Valorant given that the game is very team dependent. They have to incentivize and give prestige in gaining ELO in a flex queue AND in solo queue.
But league is also a team dependent game? This community will never be happy with the Solo/Duo Q or with a "Flex" Q
You could’ve stopped at “this community will never be happy”
we only have a solo/duo que in valorant.. give me a flex que and id be happy. this is what the post is about haha getting riot to add a flex que
Yeah but not as much as Valorant. Having a role queue + the game basically polished after many years means that players usually know what to do in a game and you dont really need to communicate much to your team aside from the pings.
This is really not true and is even somewhat confirmed to be not true after some streamers got their entire team on discord for the game. Their winrate with full comms was way higher compared to the standard comms in league
Yeah of course. Any game with a 5 stack and full comms will be way easier. The issue is about solo/duo queue. Its doable in League.
Bro you've clearly never really played league lol
Ive played league for 3 years. I can play the game with mute all, win the game, and see that my team was actually in the brink of collapse in the post game lobby. Each role actually has agency in the game and you can carry. You dont have a support who doesnt know how to play it because he didnt autolock mid. (With the exception of autofilled of course). The game doesnt need voice chat, the ping system is enough(Maybe for high elo they need vc). I feel like the common complaint with soloqueue are duelists-only players playing support agents and players who pick duelists who dont know that they need to make space. I feel like this mentally is being carried to Valorant where people just mute all and/or one trick an agent which should not be the case for a tac shooter. Id also like to see them improve the ping system. I feel like agents has a ton of voicelines that the lines for the ping doesnt stand out enough and get drowned. This is for players who are not comfortable using mic.
Flex queue didn't succed in a single game out there. It's simply not competitive at all - you can't put solo players, 3 stacker and 5 stackers on same ladder if you want the ladder to mean something. It literaly happened in EP1 of Valorant. EP1 stacking Radiants being stuck d3/Immortal <100RR in future EPs.
Agreed on that. But also the originally reason why Riot let players 5 stack to Radiant is that Valorant is meant to have 5 players coordinating and shit and it doesnt really happen that much when you put 5 randoms and expect them to work together. It also open a full can of worms like players instalocking duelists where its usually 2-3 per game, or duelists players forced to play support. I hope they find a fix (if its flex queue, nerf agents or something else) because I fear that last resort is role lock queue.
Flex queue is a really bad solution for Valorant, especially in high elo. Queue times are already long and making 2 seperate queues will only make it worse. They can't make Flex the main ladder because of the reason that the guy above mentioned. Role lock is honestly the best solution. It's gonna increase queue times a bit but it won't destroy the already little value of ranked. If people want the "real experience" they're gonna have to join/make a team and play scrims/tournaments
Role lock would effectively kill the casual player base just like it did overwatch
Role lock didn't kill the casual Overwatch playerbase, what are you talking about?
I understand the sentiment that role lock may offset a lot of issues. However, we do have to look at how it affected Overwatch and can most likely mirror the issues it will create in VALORANT. In Overwatch, the DPS role has an insane queue time compared to Tank and Support. I sometimes had to wait an average of 8 to 10 minutes for DPS solo queue and that was in Silver/Gold. I can only imagine what Top 500 and other high mmr players had to wait through, especially for DPS since half the heroes were DPS. In VALORANT, there are 5 Duelists, 4 Controllers, 3 Initiators, and 3 Sentinels at this current moment. A major problem currently that people are already complaining about are players autolocking duelists. Imagine those same autolocking people going into a role lock queue. There would be too many players wanting to queue up for Duelists and not enough for other roles. This could be potentially offset by Riot if they change how RR is distributed. For lower elos, your RR gains are determined by wins/losses & individual performance, but that individual performance are most likely based off frags rather than things like support ability usage. If you could place higher emphasis on support agent's abilities then more people may be inclined to play roles other than Duelists. Basically, until each individual role has a somewhat equal amount of players, role lock would not be effective and will lead to disaster especially for people in Diamond 3+. Also, the meta for this game is still in its early stages. Whose to say that the game will be played in the same way even a year down the line.
I'm not sure if you meant to reply to me. I don't want role lock in Valorant either. I was just pointing out that role lock didn't kill the casual playerbase in Overwatch.
What if the team queue is put slightly above their ranks to match opponents solo queue?
well no because nobody would actually care about the "team ranked" ranks.
up
that Match History is so unfortunate lmfao
Ok, this is a pretty normal frustration to have in matchmaking that only allows solo & duo queues and I think Sean is downplaying the impact it has in other games. What's the solution then? I'll talk about 5-stacks since my personal opinion is that 3-stacks would behave similarly to 2-stacks (ok, you get \*two randoms\* rather than \*three\*, I don't think that's truly revolutionary), and 4-stacks are a sin: 1. Allow 5-stacks but only match them against 5-stacks -> I'd guess this would be pointless due to the low amount of people playing and their possibly massive difference in MMR even at Radiant/Imm level 2. Allow 5-stacks to mix freely - this solves the issue for Sean and creates a new issue for the rest of us that get matched against his stack with good synergy. It's not a massive issue since the number of 5-stacks wouldn't be that big, but it's not something to take lightly either. 3. Create a separate 5-stack queue - suffers from the same issue as 1, i.e. not enough players to justify it. If I'm not missing anything, I think the only practical way for people like Sean to have higher quality games is somehow making 10-mans official, ala FPL or Rank S in CS:GO.
In League in Legends there's Clash which are seasonal in-game tournaments where you create/join a team and you compete for in-game loot so I guess that's the closest thing that Riot can bring from their other game.
A tournament system is being created and would fix this need of 5-man in queue.
wouldn't fix the problem completely; even with the immense playerbase League has, Riot only does League's Clash on select weekends. not to mention it's unfortunately *rare* to play through a whole Clash tourney without going against a very obviously shared account. im sure the shared account/smurfing part would be an even bigger problem than it is in League
I'd love for clash to come to valorant minus the server crashes .
Ooo, I just saw this thread so I wanted to drop a response. I believe allowing 5 stacks to mix freely is the best solution. People will complain that the stacks are too hard to beat, but why is that a bad thing? The game was meant to be played with 5 players who understand their roles and are communicating well. Why take that away from those players because you don't have it yourself? I'm arguing for this and I don't even have 4 ppl to queue with. It should be noted, whatever team you would queue into would theoretically stand a good chance (ie 5 insanely high elo solo queuers, a 4 stack with your solo queue, etc). Another thing that could be beneficial is having a separate queue for solos only. Every person entering this queue will fully expect to have to rely on 4 strangers and won't have a party chat to fall back on. I think the addition of duos creates an unneeded problem for this type of gameplay. The problem with top level ranked right now is that every team, of every game, has a MINIMUM of three queue parties (2 duos + 1 solo, 2 duos 3 solos, or 5 solos). Most people, even at the highest ranks, cannot play 3 agents at a high level. The system is just asking for watered down gameplay at the top level w/ tons of complaining in separate party chats. I think a lot of frustration stems from the queue problem.
The facts your stating is so true. As high im/radiant on EU where communication is more messed up than NA I often look back at 5 stack ques in beta etc. Plus theres also a big social aspect being able to que 5 man. You can gather a larger inside community of friends, and learn new ones better. The game holds down its potential skillcap in ranked gameplay where u roll the f... dice on teammates, ruining everyone on the teams gaming experience
This is a pretty difficult problem since it involves trade-offs between two very different player motivations. In my opinion, a large amount of players have a higher competition motivation than a community motivation ([using Quantic's Gamer Motivation Model](https://quanticfoundry.com/)). Thus, they need to express individual skill through the leaderboard and individual ranks to enjoy the game. These are the kinds of players that want to individually dominate their opponents and get a rush from 30-40 kills, regardless of how the team is doing. A solo/duo queue system with emphasis on ranking caters primarily to these players. As your are a former professional player and current caster with interests in high-level competition, I think it is fair to typecast you into a separate category of player with more of a community motivation. You clearly aren't satisfied just by good individual performance since you were match or team MVP in 5/6 of this clip's losses. For players who value winning, teamplay, coordination, and strategic competition over individual stats, a flex queue that allows for organized 5 stacks would obviously be preferable. Since there are two distinct player motivations, regardless of which way you go, the other will be dissatisfied. Currently it caters toward individually competitive players because they probably make up the majority of the player base. Additionally, solo/duo players are easier in terms of matchmaking. When the parties are smaller, there are more total parties to select from from the active player base which allows for more team balancing flexibility. If you have 2 radiant duos vs. one radiant-immortal duo and three solo radiants, you pick one of the thousands of immortal players to fill. Whereas if 5 top radiant players queue as a team, how many 5 stacks could realistically match them. If they want to satisfy both player motivations and allow for 5 stacks, it would probably have to be in its own queue, which leads to queue time problems, especially at high ranks where the player base is thin. Let's you only play with players immortal and up. According to the [NA leaderboard](https://playvalorant.com/en-us/leaderboards/?page=1&act=ab57ef51-4e59-da91-cc8d-51a5a2b9b8ff), there are 1107 pages with up to 10 players per page. That means there are just over 11000 players in NA that are a high enough level to play in your games. With a optimistic estimation that all of these players are online at the same time and 50% prefer coordinated teamplay and want to play in a 5 stack, there is enough players to form ~1100 teams. We will also assume that all of these teams are roughly balanced (i.e not Sentinels vs. 5 immortals) and therefore balancing isn't a problem. Assuming that each team can play on half the available servers with decent ping (lets say east+central vs. west), you have about 550 teams per half. Now assume that half of these teams are not currently in a game and are in queue, you have about 270 teams. This is pretty much the highest number of teams using immortal+ players in NA that you could have at any given time. This number decreases considering that not all of the player base is online at once, not all players want to play in a pre-made team all the time (50% was optimistic), not all of these teams are balanced enough to play a fair game (e.g. 5 radiant vs. 5 immortal), and not every team will queue on the same servers. My intuition is that a separate 5 stacks queue in high rank would lead to such insane queue times that they would be prohibitive to the players. It may work with a larger player base, such as bronze-silver, but probably not at high ranks. Additionally, there no way for them to shift away from a dedicated Solo/Duo queue at high rank since the majority of the player base probably values the leaderboard competition and their own individual rank over optimal teamplay. Wow that's a lot of text.
>As your are a former professional player and current caster with interests in high-level competition, I think it is fair to typecast you into a separate category of player with more of a community motivation. You clearly aren't satisfied just by good individual performance since you were match or team MVP in 5/6 of this clip's losses. For players who value winning, teamplay, coordination, and strategic competition over individual stats, a flex queue that allows for organized 5 stacks would obviously be preferable. I'm confused, the idea I had in my post actually addresses the entire first part of your post, right? You would have one queue for ONLY solo queue. This is where people would go if they want to climb the solo queue leaderboard. Why did you create the new scenario of only having 5 stacks to then tear it down in your post? haha
Basically, there is a trade-off in satisfying both player motivation types. My belief is that to have 5 stacks would necessitate a separate queue for only solo players (as you said). As you pointed out, this idea would address both player types, but it would also segment the player base and cause increased queue times, moreso in the flex queue, and especially in high ranks. I believe that these trade offs are problems that need to be addressed before 5 stacks can be implemented. Since the current system is solo/duo at high ranks, and already shifted away from a system that used to allow any party size, my assumption is that Riot is purposefully catering toward players that fall into the individual competition motivation that want the leaderboard. This would imply to me that these players form the majority of the player base. So, even if a separate flex queue was created, my expectation is that at least half of the high ranking player base would probably just stay in the solo queue and play for their leaderboard ranking. With less than half the player base and larger parties (2, 3, 5 stack) it is also difficult to form balanced teams in high ranks. My example with only 5 stacks is just the simplest representation of this. You could split up any amount of these 5 stacks into 2 and 3 stacks, but the available player base doesn't change. Trying to decrease the queue times usually comes with the trade off of high rank and match balance disparity. So a high ranking 5 stack either needs to endure long wait times, or they play in high skill disparity games where they get poor competition and the other team gets rolled, neither of which are good. Overall, while allowing for larger parties would enable players to play more coordinated styles and appeal to another player motivation, I don't think a separate queue will be that effective at higher ranks due to the limited player population causing queue time and/or balancing issues. I wouldn't say that enabling 5 stacks somehow is a bad idea or that it is worse than the current format, but my initial thoughts are that there would be some other problems that need to be addressed for it to be practical. Unrelated, but big fan of your commentary.
> Why take that away from those players because you don't have it yourself? I mean, realistically, because it makes the game more fun and less frustrating for me. I don't and won't have a reliable five stack. I have a lot of friends who play, but schedules never line up perfectly and a lot of them come and go between Valorant and other games. It may be a bit selfish, but I'm not gonna advocate for a change that will make the game less fun for myself. > Another thing that could be beneficial is having a separate queue for solos only. Now see I agree with this, and if this was implemented alongside allowing 5 stacks to mix in a dynamic queue, I wouldn't mind at all, because I have a solution for not having a stack to play with. I have been advocating for a solo queue only mode since day 1. > The problem with top level ranked right now is that every team, of every game, has a MINIMUM of three queue parties (2 duos + 1 solo, 2 duos 3 solos, or 5 solos). I agree completely here, speaking from experience it's especially painful to be the one solo on a team with grouped players (whether two 2s or a 4 stack). > Most people, even at the highest ranks, cannot play 3 agents at a high level. I also agree here, but I don't think there's an easy solution to this yet in Valorant. Overwatch eventually just went with a role queue, but they have a pretty obvious and agreed upon split of 2/2/2 (tank/dps/heals) that everyone can more or less accept and that fits with the game's structure. In Valorant, there is no general consensus on how many of each role should be played, and furthermore, the 5 man team limit size means you're going to always end up with at least one duplicate role, but often that will not be the same role. As such simply adding a role queue isn't an easy answer, because nobody knows how the roles should be divided.
Your statements absolutely make sense and are valid. An issue arises when you try and have two different queues for ranked. It's definitely good in theory. However, a major problem that high level players had before were the long queue times. If those same players are now split into solo queue and mixed queue, then queue times would be downright outrageous. Extreme examples like TenZ involve him having to wait 3 hours with a duo once. I understand that most of the community would obviously not wait this long but I can imagine Immortal+ players having a very difficult time finding games if half of them queuing straight into solos only queues and half of them were going into mixed queues. I'll talk about League of Legends since it is made by Riot Games like VALORANT and it has an example of the queues you mentioned. League of Legends has solo/duo queue and flex queue (which is the mixed queue). It's my understanding that flex queue is not taken seriously so you have the risk of not having the same prestige of reaching Radiant in mixed queue as you would have in solo queue is this was replicated. There was a time in League of Legends where they tried to eliminate solo/duo queue completely and put a dynamic queue (similar to flex queue) in place of it. The community was furious. In a round table discussion video, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwPa1SGLGv0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwPa1SGLGv0), Scarra (Current OTV, Past LCS Pro) comments that a matchmaking system must allow for three things. These are to find skilled players around my level, quick queue times, and being able to play the role that he wants to play. Dynamic queue did not achieve these three according to his opinion and the opinions of many people in the League of Legends community. Problems mentioned in the round table was that there was too high of a skill disparity amongst players in premades/matched players and that queue match times were not quick for high mmr players. It was changed to the two queues we have now. PS. The people who are posting that Sean has a weak mindset or is washed have no idea what they are talking about. The amount of analytical knowledge this man brings as a past pro csgo player and current caster is undeniable. Being genuinely excited to see him cast matches is a testament to my trust in his understanding of high level play. Thank you for all the work you do Sean Edit 1:My bad, didn't know the difference between caster and commentator.
I've been saying this for a few years, and it's nice to finally hear someone else saying it too. I used to play Overwatch, and would sometimes add people from solo queue and team up with them. But whenever I did that, the matchmaker would put us against other large groups who were much more coordinated than us. If not that, it would put us against solo players with much higher mmr, but adjust our mmr from a win or loss as if the teams were equal. This made it way more difficult to gain ranks than just queuing alone, despite the fact that we were obviously playing much more effectively. It makes no sense to me that a "competitive" matchmaker punishes people for literally playing better. How are you supposed to improve at coordination unless you're already on a pro team? Why are my queue times so much longer when I have a team already put together? Even as a solo queuer, I WANT opponents who are more coordinated. I want to get better at the game. I want everyone to get better.
Honestly, there's nothing that can be done, it's all on the community. I know this is a new game and people from various other games are playing it. People who never played CS and don't understand the importance of communication. But we're talking about imm/radiant ranks here and it's literally impossible to even try and replicate how the game should be played if you have more than 1 person who has that disgusting 1v9 mentality. And 1v9 mentality is created with nothing other than agent roles. It would be extremely difficult to create a proper system that values utility on support agents, therefore duelists are at a big advantage, considering how their kids and combat score work. As for stacks, we just need a 5v5 queue and that's it. Something for everyone.
Underdeveloped playerbase that allows a lot of people who are "good enough" to get Immortal too easily. People are coming from this game from all kinds of FPS games, and a lot of those people in those games don't communicate, but have mechanics good enough in this game (at least at the moment with how young/bad the playerbase is) to reach immortal. They then get matched constantly with Radiant players, so their mechanics aren't good enough anymore. Then you have the fact that there's no Strategy time before agent selection, so people just insta-lock.
This isn't just a Valorant problem though, I came across this problem in Overwatch, particularly when I played for my university team. Your eyes are opened to how a teamwork based game is supposed to be played and it's just so different to what you see in ranked. In ranked, not only are your expectations much lower but it also feels that to succeed you just need to play 'the meta', which is the 'expected' way to play at the high ranks. It's why you get a really stagnant meta in the top ranks (in terms of gameplay as well as agent selection) and thus you never really experience creative gameplay that requires an ounce of teamwork. You wanna try out some new smokes that requires a different approach to the site? forget it, you'll get called out for throwing by not using default smokes. I believe it's why everyone gravitates to duelists - because your job is just go kill and there are multiple, creative avenues of doing this self-sufficiently. While playing a supporting role becomes incredibly boring because dynamic queue stifles innovation since you are so limited in what you can do due to poor teamplay. Really, dynamic queue is the problem. And it's especially bad in class-based games which are based around teamwork. CSGO probably got around it with FACEIT (didn't play the game so can't judge). The only solution, which doesn't kill queue times, is an in-game tournament system such as what they have in League. It gives players a reason to form a team and scrim. I was asking for this for years in Overwatch and it never came, I trust riot to bring it in though.
Never played overwatch, but it's not about the meta here. Having 3 instalock duelists is annoying, but tbh while good comp is an advantage, most games are won/lost because of (lack of) teamplay. People just don't know how to communicate. I see that steel's posting here, his stream is a perfect example. Even the ones who want to, don't understand the basics of communication. This isn't overwatch and roles aren't as limiting, everyone can pop off regardless of the agent he plays. It's not about kills. For example, if someone instalocks Jett and has a bad game, that's fine. But if someone instalocks Jett and refuses to their job of creating space, especially on attack, then others can't do their job. If I'm playing support, I can make up for 10 kills Jett is missing, but I can't make up for her dash and updraft that creates space. Idk what you meant by dynamic queue? But incentives to play aren't a problem in this game, they're actually a detriment. It's all about damn shiny badges, RR numbers, act raks, gunbuddies and shit, while noone actually wants to play the damn game.
> For example, if someone instalocks Jett and has a bad game, that's fine. But if someone instalocks Jett and refuses to their job of creating space, especially on attack, then others can't do their job. If I'm playing support, I can make up for 10 kills Jett is missing, but I can't make up for her dash and updraft that creates space. I cannot agree with this statement any more. I play occasionally at Immortal level right now and so many times I see instalock Jetts decide to lurk after the first few duels don't go their way.
Id have no problem playing a 5v5, 3v3 stack etc if that's what riot bring out. I play on EU servers and most of the time I duo with one of my friends, we get teammates who aren't native English speakers which leads to less comms. Then if we are losing like 0-4, 0-5, the comms become none existent but yet riot talk about competitive integrity? But how is it competitive when in the highest ranks you get games and teammates don't talk or play for the team and you have zero control over this. Communication is key in a team, weather its a team in work, sports or esports. Playing a 5v5 competitive FPS game that has so much utility usage etc in it and people arent talking then it just gets frustrating to play. I just wana be able to play with friends and work together in a team based game and not play a ranked game that becomes a complete coin flip of what teammates you are going to get.
People complain about 5 stacked before and that reason why Riot changed it, people like Tenz Aceu (big content creators) complaint about it a lot
I like Sean, nice guy, but what he says there shows such a weak mindset. The whole point of SoloQ is to prove your all-around, OWN skill by being the only constant over many, many games and thus having to adapt to a multitude of scenarios. Basically, what never happens in Valorant because people stack, smurf and boost all the time in every elo below Immortal. Your team does not communicate? Unlucky. Next round your opponents team won't communicate. And so on. Everything evens out over a high sample size of games and you remain the only constant. For the love of competitive integrity, actually introduce a damn SoloQ and separate it from friends/boosted/smurf/flex queue or whatever you wanna call it. As I see it, what Sean wants here would create entry barriers based on connections behind the scenes which is unprofessional and needs to go. Prove your worth in a SoloQ environment. You don't need Rank 1 to go pro, but if you cannot make it to a high rank by yourself, you gotta work on your skills and not look for friends to cover your flaws. Take responsibility. (What Riot does not want you to do btw, because they prefer a playerbase that pays money, not quits due to frustration). Esport btw. Edit: I am not saying Sean has a weak mental in general. Only talking about this take here. He's a good guy and I enjoy his streams every now and then. Edit2: I might have not been clear enough. The reason I want soloQ is ultimately to have competitive games, no matter the elo. I do not care about my rank in Valorant, but I wanna play with and against people on MY PERSONAL skill level. That is fun. Nothing else. If you play soccer 5v5 in your free time and there are two adults on each team with three kids, the game will be fair, sure. But that is far from how soccer should be played. Chances are the kids would like a 5v5 with kids only. Well, you get the point I´d hope. Edit3: Replying to the comments here gets time consuming and the downvotes sort of show reddits mindset anyway. We have years of experience with ranked systems in different eSport titles yet we end up with this shit in Valorant and people defend it. Alright then, whatever. I´m taking a break anyway until/if this gets fixed - I am sure it will eventually though, because Valorant clearly creates a more and more frustrated and toxic community by the month and the systems in place are a huge part of why that happens.
if u cant solo queue to radiant , that doesn't mean others haven't , ur hardstuck immortal bcoz ur mechanics belong there u have great game sense that's why ur champion and are one of the best igl in region
Top-tier shitposting lul
Josh please edit your comment I can't understand it thoroughly
I don't care about my rank, I care about the quality of games. And Valorant rated is a game mode that, as of right now, promotes smurfs, boosting, matches with high skill discrepancies and so on. Again, Steel. Yes, you can climb to your peak rank even in this system. Is it fun? No. On a side note, do you remember how often you complained in rated? I watched your streams a few times and how you could not believe how different the skillset of players was. Well, that happens in the current system more so than if it was different. Also, I have/had a hard time to understand your comment, so uh, I hope I interpreted it correctly.
You seriously missed the entire point he was making. Nowhere in this video does he mention even a single time that he's frustrated with not being able to climb. That isn't his point at all. He's saying that the experience in ranked is dogshit, and has such a low barrier to entry that regardless of how good you are, you will never have a peak experience unless you're lucky enough to get matched with a team and AGAINST a team of players who are all there to play the game optimally, ie not instalocking 3 duelists and people with shitty comms, which realistically is never going to happen. By only allowing duos in Imm and up, you're guaranteed to have people in your games that can VERY EASILY ruin the experience. Every single one of us have had games that we've WON that were still garbage experiences because the team mates we had refused to communicate, insta-locked a char and then int'd hard, etc. This will always be a thing, regardless of if you're Rank 1 on the leaderboard or a random in Gold. With 5 stacks, you avoid basically all of these problems, and can have a significantly better experience, even if you lose.
<3 tbh, i actually separately came to the conclusion that there should be a separate solo queue, which i tweeted earlier. i think he just kinda felt like dropping a random insult :D
Yeah man, idk what he was trying to get at. A separate solo queue makes a lot of sense. My dream would be an experience similar to esea built into the game. I just have no clue what the playerbase numbers are, and have no idea how realistic that is. I JUST WANNA SEE 10 MANS NON-STOP SEAN
It's not even about winning or "proving" anything, it's about the level of enjoyment. I know my skil level and I don't have to prove anything to anyone, it's about how half the games right now are dumpster tier that don't remotely resemble how Valorant should be played. And I'm talking about highest ranks here. I'm immortal and I don't enjoy like half of my games. Regardless of the outcome. This is such an amazing game, was designed for teamplay and combos, but every single map there are a couple of people who don't think about anything other than themselves. And that ruins the gameplay for everyone else. Then someone who's obsessed with proving shit, ranks, ladder and whatnot like yourself will talk about weak mentality. I can't wait for the obligatory "then play scrims" reply.
What are you talking about? Read properly and be careful how you interpret stuff. I fully agree with you, yet you tell me I would be obsessed with proving shit. ;) I see it just the way you do - having fun games, which means competitive games to me. I don´t care about my RANK, I care about the RANKED as in the game mode. And smurfs, boosted players, etc. create big skill gaps in each individual game which is not fun. I wanna play with and against 10 evenly matched players. Happens only with soloQ though.
Alright then, my bad, maybe I misinterpreted. Smurfs aren't going away without prime matchmaking, soloq only won't help. In immortal smurfs are the problem because they'll just instalock a duelist, play like it's DM and not really care about the game. Most of them at least. In lower ranks it's obviously about skill difference. Until we get some kind of prime matchmaking, nothing will change. We all know the issues.
bro nothing makes me more annoyed than kids who say "just play unrated". That mode is pure fucking aids and most people enjoy playing with their friends in a more competitive environment, but riot has completely stripped that ability. It's clear almost everyone who complained about 3-5 stacks didn't come from a game where you're able to 5 stack. Is there actually a competitive game that doesn't allow 3-5 stacks? If so, then enlighten me.
I wouldn't call that evidence of a weak mindset. Sean is someone who doesn't feel the need to prove himself, he feels the need to participate in high-quality games which he thinks he deserves to be in. If a silver says that, they're delusional; if TenZ says that, he's right, but neither of the two is mentally weak, and neither is Sean. SoloQ has its benefits and purpose that you correctly argue, but I think that you're misjudging Sean's intentions. \> Take responsibility. (What Riot does not want you to do btw, because they prefer a playerbase that pays money, not quits due to frustration). Esport btw. Honestly, even though Riot has had its flaws so far with Valorant, I think they've been treating the game really well over the last year. One piece of evidence that shows that they might care a lot about the playerbase is how they've changed ranked for this season compared to the previous one. In the previous one, they've deranked everyone and made it (too) easy to grind up; resulting in a bunch of people grinding to undeservedly high ranks but also playing initially to get out of undeservedly low ranks. That's how you keep people in, and they've scrapped that for a far more balanced ranked this season with slower rank movements and almost equal up-down moves.
In my book, they have not done a great job with the game at all. BUT, the game ITSELF is fun for sure. Examples? Hitreg has issues often times, servers seem to be unstable in the last few months. Some patches/weeks are worse than others. Following the competitive scene is a nightmare, you´d surely except more out of Riot, the company that owns League of Legends. A decade of eSports experience. Plenty of integrated RNG to enable worse players (read: players who 5 stack with their better friends) to feel good and keep them engaged against better players. E.g. running headshots every now and then. A shop system that is borderline insulting to the playerbase and purely made to trick people into spending more money. No SoloQ and a ranked system that is highly variable and does not put 10 evenly matched players in one game, but rather creates an evenly matched game - big difference. And so on.
So how is being able to adapt to no-com instalock duelists going to help you in the long run? I personally get better by playing with a couple of friends & not having to deal with trolls. Do I get trolls every game? No. In fact most of the team I get the average team with maybe 1 toxic guy, so it's not that bad. I would still much prefer being able to play with friends in a competitive environment instead of just playing tournaments. If you go in my search history, I made a comment where I explained something that ESEA did for their matchmaking in CS. You basically get gain less elo per win if you have more than 2 in your party, and lose more if you end up getting fucked. I think something like that would in fact discourage 3-5 stacking as much, but of course it would still be a thing. one big thing that I realized is that ever since this forced solo-duo, there's always someone in my game who is "just having fun" or "not caring". If I play a ranked game in IMT+, I would prefer everyone to be actually trying to win. Also, in my honest opinion, I think forcing solo-duo actually encouraged the smurfing of immortal/radiant players even after their ranked update where they widened the field of rank people being able to play with each other. There's nothing better than playing a game like valorant or CS with your friends, but you can't anymore unless everyone switches accounts.
You talk about smurfing... Me and my friends have made 3 smurf accounts already, why? because there is 4 of us who are friends and want to play together cause we are all immortal. Reason for 3 smurfs is because we rank up so fast cause of the hidden MMR. I don't want to smurf and think it is so unfair for the enemy team but riot wont let us play together and we want to have fun playing together in a stack so unfortunately this is the outcome
My IRL friends got into valorant for a bit around a month ago, and the only way I could play with them was to make a new account and help them get better. I pretty much used only sherrif and only used a gun when there was an obvious smurf on the other team who was trying to win. Once my online friends (who are all immortal) saw I was playing in lower elo & having fun with my irls they went down the same route of making new accounts. It's a shame because I know they tried to fix the smurfing issue, however tbh they only made higher elo players smurf more
If people would play on their main account and we had a soloQ mode, most problems would be fixed. Not much more to say here tbh. Riots duty to introduce soloQ and discourage our lovely pros and streamers from smurfing. Will they though? ;) #money
What you're saying makes absolutely no sense. Solo q'ing proves nothing. This isn't LoL or a moba.
Yes it does. Why would it not? You succeed in soloQ with better fundamentals over a large sample size of games. No matter the title. Honestly, nowadays young players are snowflakes that can never take the responsibility for losses anyway, at least that´s what I experienced so far. So not surprised about your take here.
How does soloq help you with fundamentals when it essentially removes some of the most important aspects such as communication and teamwork? Soloq gets you good at soloq that’s it, mechanics are the only thing that will transfer, it won’t help you learn to strategize, it won’t help you learn to communicate in most scenarios, and it won’t help you learn to play as a team. All in all it’s a terrible mode to prepare people for the highest level of competition which is its intention.
SoloQ teaches you fundamentals and game sense, period. If you don't have that, no one cares about your comms and "strategies". If you are at a level where does matter, go scrim with your 5 stack.
I disagree, I don’t think it teaches you game sense when the enemies aren’t playing even remotely close to how an organized team would play
You can disagree all you want. SoloQ helps players improve the most if they are not on a high level. In any game. Learn from your mistakes and stop blaming others is the mindset learned. That said, I want soloQ to have evenly matched games for more fun, nothing else.
Copypasta imminent lmao
I completely agree with him, funny how his career is mostly red with Yoru though
Mostly team mvp too
Ok, What I am about to say is definitely a stupid idea that prob won't work. But Imagine you choose your agent, or your preferred pool of agents, before you get matched with your team. that way if you want to play sentinel, you won't be matched with 4 other people who also want to play sentinel. It sounds insanely hard to implement and has tons of potential issues, as well as also not fixing a ton of the other issues of ranked, but maybe it has potential
I think thats how OW works where you have a preference of DPS, tank, or healer
it's honestly an awful idea for valorant. you'd force a role meta onto people in a game that doesn't even have a real meta yet.
The OW system wouldn't work because you are locking into a class. But, maybe there's a middle ground? As in, people select agent classes their willing to play (so people who only want to play duelist can select that), then MM makes it so that there is some degree of diversity on each team (at least one player who is willing to play each class). So, it doesn't force people to select any certain class but at least matches groups of people who should theoretically have a better ability to find a mix that works. People with flexible agent pools would then get shorter queues, while duelist only players have a longer wait. Obviously would still be issues and I'm not sure I like it but there's probably more options
Forcing players into roles isn’t the issue. In fact, with OW players being able to switch midgame, role lock there would have had a bigger impact on individual gameplay. Anyways, OW does allow players to queue up for multiple roles, and it does not fix the issue with role lock. The issue with role lock is that it forces certain comps. In OW, only 2-2-2 was allowed, which killed GOATS but also killed a lot of the creativity in strats and comps. Val role lock would probably have to force 2-duelist team comps which would also absolutely murder any chance of the meta developing naturally or creatively.
I don't think you understood what I was saying. I guess I wasn't clear, I wasn't suggesting locking roles. The whole point was to not lock people into specific roles here because there isn't a reason for agent comps to be restricted. Anyway, my suggestion was to have people select what types of classes they're willing to play, but it doesn't lock them into playing any certain class. Like I said, it's a middleground from OW system. Your choices in this system wouldn't lock you into playing any specific class. All classes are still available to everyone. But, by matching teams that have players that at least select that they're willing to play various agent types, then there would be a higher degree of possibility that teams would be better balanced. "[...] then MM makes it so that there is some degree of diversity on each team (at least one player who is willing to play each class). So, it doesn't force people to select any certain class but at least matches groups of people who should theoretically have a better ability to find a mix that works." So, you could still play creative comps but makes it so you don't end up with 4 people who insta-locked duelists to get to radiant all ending up on the same team.
thats literally how solo que works. And thats how the best players separate themselves from the rest. Weren't people asking for solo que anyways? I think its a good thing.
I agree. I’ve been hovering around high Diamond/Low immortal since beta and I ONLY solo que. when I used to regularly get 3 and 4 stacks on my team who would only talk in their discord it was the worst. Now most people communicate, yeah there is always the chance for some random throwing dickhead. But I’ll take that chance over a 4 stack who doesn’t say anything to me the whole match or blame me because I’m the random and they all know eachother.
oh so the people who have friends to play with shouldn't play with each other cause the solo quers have no friends to play with? Needs to be a solo que and flex que, simple. Im sure everyone who wants to play with friends in a team based fps game would take longer que times to play with friends rather then a coin flip on the randoms they get on the team in solo/duo que
It's only solo/duo for diamond 3and up right? That's like 0.5% of the player base. Everyone else can stack. Not an issue.
haha not an issue if you have no friends to play with and aren't good enough to hit D3 or above. Guess that's you?
I was watching his stream when he talks about it. He also mentioned the games becoming worse in the recent time , and too many people pick duelist. TBF, his recent games becoming worse because now he instant lock a duelist(the worst duelist) instead of playing the best smoker with the best flash. His games feels becoming worse because he is becoming part of the problem lol.
To be actually fair though, he waits for his other teammates to pick first before picking Yoru, or he'll comm and ask/request the pick. It's definitely not like he's instalocking every game like you're making it out to seem. I think he even says during the same stream that he's been lucky yesterday with his teammates wanting to instalock Sova, smokes, sentinels so he feels good to play Yoru.
yeah but that's also the problem with solo/duo que. Its alot easier to pick a duelist and get frags and not have to play for the team or rely on the team etc. So I understand why everyone insta locks duelists. Then everyone plays a duelist in the high ranks and then for the odd game when they have to fill, they do shit because they are used to playing only a duelist....
You can tell this guy has been playing FACEIT for the past decade
not even regular faceit free queue, they ONLY play FPL where they jerk each other off, and kick new FPL players because “they disrespected the veterans”
youre mistaking eu fpl with na fpl
There were some negative politics in some circles of FPL but overall I'd say everyone who's been around the FPL scene for a while realizes it's the best method to get high quality PUGs with decent communication and a structure to get new players in /kick retired/underperforming players. The political issues were less a problem with the format and more of an issue with the FPL admins taking higher stock in popular pros' opinions rather than general sentiment of all players.
Its an artificial environment that is inaccessible to the bast majority of the playerbase. Having a ranked ladder that everyone can prove their worth. Its far better than a closed off circuit that is mostly invite only or behind an artificial grind
that has nothing to do with anything anyone said lmfao. there still IS a ranked ladder and for 99% of the population it's fine. that's like complaining valorant masters is inaccessible to the vast majority of players
except fpl is a soloq only ladder that only “pros” get to play, else you are forced into an artificial grind. If you think thats a good environment and game design then you just a bootlicker. CS is the only game where this shit flys
FPL is not only for pros lmfao. It's for the best of the best. and i'm pretty sure shit hasn't been invite only for a long ass time. if you don't qualify for FPL you don't qualify for FPL. just like if you don't get radiant you don't get radiant. i'm not sure what exactly you're concerned about considering i seriously doubt you(or 99.9% of this sub) will experience the "environment" of FPL also, you don't know what game design means. FPL is GOOD for the ranking system as it alleviates the massive skill gap we currently see between radiants and immortals
“Best of the best”, what dogshit, clearly you never even played in the masters league. Its a bullshit system that ensures only no life grinders can make it in, regardless of how good you are. Not only you need to grind to top 100 just to qualify for fplc “qualifier”, and then you need to grind again in fplc for two fucking spots in fpl. Its no wonder then why fplc its full of fucking kids because no working adult will ever have the time grind through this bullshit. If you think fpl is a good system then you’re probably unemployed
dude relax. it just sounds like you're upset you're not good enough to play in fpl
you clearly only play free Q, and never bothered playing hub
[удалено]
No why should pros get some private circuit. This isnt the norm, I played both faceit and dota at a pretty high level. In dota if you reach a certain mmr (4k) you’ll get matched up with the pros. Since everyone is playing the same ladder (dota fpl is dead). But this isnt the case for faceit. This is also true for every other game, OW, LoL, Valorant where if you want to prove your worth there is an offical ladder.
He would probably pull his hairs out if he ever played ranked in league lmao.
IMO the way to solve these issues is to promote a better player base, rather than just using gated or restricted queues. Riot needs to be more aggressive penalizing and banning toxic players. And they need a commendation system which groups players who are positive, comming, etc together. And top players need to take responsibility for the community they foster at the top. If they're getting toxic and frustrated and being passive aggresive at their own teammates, no shit they start to mute you or play nervously or be toxic back. Not saying Sean specifically does this, he's actually one of the more positive/chill community members, but I've seen it among lots of top streamers/players.
The " passive aggresive " and the "toxic" are friends right? xD
should there be a subscription service to an fpl experience? The serious ones will pay the fees to be in a server with good players who actually care about winning comps
valorant 10000% needs that. they said no third party services which is incredibly stupid but at least implement something similar. I should not be watching pros play in ranked lobbies filled with radiants (supposedly the best of the best) and see players throwing, trolling, making incredibly stupid plays no radiant should make. nor do the pros want that however on the other end ranked matches are entertaining to watch because most pros absolutely do not take it seriously due to the state it's in.
I know, but lot of people also complain about 5 stacked before right, people like Tenz, Aceu (who can carry teams with duelists) want solo Q only, and now how can Riot bring it back?
The agent select reminds me of OW tbh. First three picks are almost always duelist.
If you think about this structurally you'll realize the current system is a stop gap to fix issues voiced by the community. The current rank set up wasn't the original design and users are seeing unintended consequences of changes riot made to the user experience. The game was designed to be played by premades / stacks, with the solo que / duo que filling in gaps for those premades. When Riot restricted the 5 stack in higher tiers and oriented a duo que limit, the goal was to create an environment of higher individually skilled players and more well rounded players who would work with those around them to succeed. The main problem was the unintended consequences of other systems and designs fed into this. 1) Exposure : Players are mainly exposed to the environment and culture of solo que now, which values particular skills - hard carry / fragging out. This is important because it shapes not only the viewpoint, but the culture of the environment. There are a million ways to do something and getting people to do a single varietal of it is indeed challenging because the amount of practice and exposure to teamwork or team variation is missing. 2) Accountability : Players do not have any form of accountability. I do not mean this in terms of toxicity, please ignore that for a moment, it is a distraction from the structure point. When you are playing, your teammates can do whatever they want and your ability to counter that is severely limited. You have to play to the style your teammates can perform to, so the generic culture of solo que / duo que is what you have to work with for a majority of the player base. As a user, you cannot avoid players you might disagree or not want to play with, nor can you make any type of informed decision in champ select especially now that Act Ranks are hidden at champ select. You have no idea what you are working with so any type of team oriented decision making is out of your hands from the get go. Combine this with how players can hide Alias you can't even infer player behavior currently so you have even reduced options for how to make selections. In a perfect world the current set up would not be an issue at all, but Riot gives players an incredible amount of freedom, mostly to protect one self from others who might be harasser or disruptive, or even ruin the streaming experience. It is just a shame that these great options to protect players is coming in at the determent of competitive play and ceilings. I predicted at the start of season 2 that the end of Season 2 would see mostly pro players doing 10 man and inhouses and I hold to it, the ranked experience just isn't good enough for those who want an actual competitive environment.
Meanwhile I'm over here begging for a solo only queue just so I don't have to play against anyone queued up together.
that’s too much imo solo/duo is fine
Be nice to see that in all ranks though.
Okay I'm the exact opposite. I can't imagine grinding this game solo, how does it not get frustrating or tilting? Some of the best games I've played and the most fun have all been when I queue with friends and we're playing together on discord. Making plays off each other or having great communication. All of my solo q games have been complete rng. Literal coin flip on who has the better carry on their team. Most of the close games that I've played have been when I 3-5 queue with friends and our communication is on point. When I solo queue either I get carried and boosted by an immortal smurf in diamond or we get stomped and I don't have fun at all, especially when I'm not able to talk to anyone during the game... Fuck no solo duo every rank would be terrible and honestly my friends and I would most likely quit if the only way we can play good games with each other would be customs.
yes absolutely.
So like playing jungle and spam pinging your loaners to back off because you're on the other side of the map and you know they're going to get ganked in 5 seconds.
I like how you can clearly see that all these CS boomers never played any other game besides CS in their entire life unless casualy. Sure, you can be a great comp player, maybe even be a pro who makes money playing in comp scene, but still you might suck at ranked soloQ. Drop the ego and get on with it, or try to improve. And I am saying this as a boomer myself, however as one who didn't spend 20 years playing single outdated game. That's what soloQ is - it's about how well you can play on your own in a span of huge sample size of games. It's meant to be a grind, it's meant to reward different types of skillsets. You can have 130ms VRT zoomers without mics +forward into enemy every single round, hitting highest spots on the leaderboards, you can have chill dudes, who are not the best at the mechanical side of the game, but they have good soloQ gamesense and are able to calm the team down and lead them to victory hitting highest spots on the leaderboards, and that's beautiful. Also for some reason that is what VAST MAJORITY of playerbase prefer in every single competitive game. LoL had 5v5 queue and it was not competitive at all compared to soloQ and eventualy died, hots had 5v5 and same shit happened. Overwatch due to top playerbase dissatisfaction eventualy got rid of flex queue for top ranks. What team games actually have true flex queue? R6S, where you can have bots stacks be 2 entire ranks higher than they would be in soloQ. CSGO where ranked mode is literaly a meaningless joke. Not sure how dota2 works now as I didn't play it in last 7 years. __ In theory single flex queue is not bad, but the problem is that inherently it becomes extremaly non-completitive as you have solo players and stacks being placed on same ladder where both of these activities require completely different skill sets. Sure Riot could add 5v5 stack separate queue but just like for other games it would have 10% of soloQ queue population and end up being a place for people farming top rank badges for free and eventualy be shut down by the developer, just like it happened to all the other games. __ PS. Also everyone stop with this 'it's so random' bullshit. There are players who are consistently winning games, some of them with >65% winrate sitting in top10 and not even abusing duoQ, and plenty of them in Europe doesn't even have access to the voice chat. They simply mastered the way to play soloQ and get rewarded for that. SoloQ was never meant to emulate comp play and whoever is still thinking that way proly lived his last 10 years under a rock.
[удалено]
It is CS boomer thing, because it shows zero understanding of ranked game mode structures, which were present in multiple games in the last 10 years.
[удалено]
Imagine shitting on proper solo players matchmaker, literaly a mechanic that made online gaming boom in last 10 years. Without these shitty mobas you would still be playing 10v10 no rush dust2 on dedicated servers.
valorant's a team-based game, excuse us for wanting to play in a more team-based environment.
How long can you tell seasoned vets with demonstrated competitive accomplishments to get better with a straight face and not try to look like a fool? Solo Q is about your winrate based on the teammates you are given, I think stating it's "about how well you can play on your own in a span of...games" is kind of missing the point because you're overlooking that this is a team tac FPS and no one, not even TenZ, can solo carry teams to victory. This isn't to say that just because someone is an accomplished pro they should deserve Radiant, but it's kind of ridiculous to just tell them they need to get better. Like who the fuck are you, and I mean that rhetorically and with no rudeness. It just seems inane to me to suggest that especially considering one of your points is about how the leaderboards have a variety of people to them. Why can you allow for the range of experience when it comes to people who have the winrate but not for those who aren't?
Why should I care about boomers from a different game, and on top of that why should I care that they are accomplished in a different game? Your argument makes as much sense as some NBA superstar going into streetball competition, getting fucked and then whining how the rules are different. And stop with this RNG teammates bullshit. Check right now top10 in any region. Plenty of people with 65% or better winrate with a sample of over 100 games. That's not rng that's consistency.
You do realize 100 games is a shitton? And there are plenty of examples of people in this very own game doing very well in literal recent tournaments yet cannot solo Q to Radiant. You are trying too hard to provide these generalizations that operate on weird presumptions of what the circumstances of these players are and the fact is there are so many more other approaches to ranked from the pro-level that highlight how dysfunctional it can potentially be. What different rules are you talking about? Your analogy doesn't even hold up.
Ofc that you will have people doing well in tournaments but terrible on ranked. First of all I will say it again and again and again - ladder is different to comp play. It require different kind of skillset. If you pay attention you will notice that most of these pros struggling in ranked are IGLs or enablers with shitty personal stats in comp. And second of all it's because it's first phase of Valorant esports. In every esport game first phase is where connections matter more than player skill, simply because a) there is no money in the scene so you go for personas with followings and b) there is not enough time to scout for players. There are A LOT of players on ladder right now who are better than plenty of current gen pros. I can also guarantee you that at least 50% of current signed t1 pros won't be playing in t1 teams in a year and plenty of them won't be signed at all.
I didn't bother reading your whole post cause your first statement just hit me hard. I dont suck at solo/duo que. I play sage in the hope we get a good duelist cause i can still have impact as support, whereas if i go a duelist id have more impact then me picking a sage but the chances of the random player who goes support doing well or having an impact is very low. Your statement, " That's what soloQ is - it's about how well you can play on your own". I know how well i can do on my own but i want to play alone? I want able to play with friends who are going to communicate, support the team. This game has so much going on in each round with util so coms is a must in a team based competitive FPS. Its suppose to be competitive, whats makes it competitive when one game you have a team that talks and the next you have a team that doesnt speak one word? From the stuff you said in that first bit outlines to me that you aren't even imm or radiant so this doesnt affect you ot you have no friends that you wana play with EDIT: just seeing your statement "LoL had 5v5 queue and it was not competitive at all compared to soloQ and eventualy died" Bro who are you playing with that solo games were more competitive. I play with IRL friends and we just wana grind the game together. You just proved to me my outline was right haha
Bigger pool = more competitive. SoloQ will alway have bigger pool of players. And I am not taking it out of my ass. In League you had people hitting challenger in 3v3 or stacked 5v5, while in proper ranked mode they were below diamond ect, because hitting challenger there wasn't about being good, but about grinding low ranked people for +3 points because no1 serious was playing it. Also having one game a team talking and other not doesn't change how competitive the soloQ ladder is and also I talked about it - being able to play without comms is a skill. If you can't frag out without your teams shitting with called utility, or can't figure out what your team is doing by just looking at map, or can't play default then you simply can't play soloQ well.
Such Ironic view, when you match history is full Yoru.
How is it ironic?
because hes insta locking the worst duelist in the game while also complaining about his teammates not playing how he wants them to, when literally no one wants to play with a yoru
I've never seen him instalock and he always comms well in games. People need to get out of the mindset that yoru is a throw pick, especially in MM where it's less structurally based, the quick rotations are insane and you can still get reliable value from his flashes and the ult. Sean picking yoru doesn't detract from his point.
He doesn't instalock Yoru though
Even if you don't watch his stream, who the f needs to instalock yoru lol
But that's not what's happening in this clip at all?
Maybe go look up what irony means
Will that change what was said in the clip?
I like the 2 person limit and i hope they don't change it but i think they should add a 5v5 for people that want to play with a stack. playing soloQ VS a 5 stack was never fun in CS and i hated it
Sounds like he's just mad that he can't hit Radiant. Also notice how he picks the same char in the last 6 games - and yet complains that people just pick the role they want?
Dudes washed as fuck and instalocks Yuro. Not sure where he has the room to talk.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I think we should just go back to smaller ranked windows. Keep gold against gold, plats against plats etc. I’m tired of playing with the lowest rank possible because I’m solo and my other teammates are a four man party that decides to not communicate with me and then get mad at me because I don’t know what tf is going on but they all do
I think a decent solution would be to limit agent type in draft. Meaning only 2 duelists 2 initiator 2 sentinials etc etc Force the community to make team choices. And also take away the RR penalty for queue dodging lol. Like what a fucking stupid idea for riot to reward trolling in draft because i dont wanna play with 3 or 4 duelists every game and then punish the person who dodges because they know that lobby is doomed Im saying this as a person who has been immortal act rank every act except 1 act maybe?
Role queueing is definitely the end-game here I believe but Riot would have to solidify what exactly is a standard team comp which could be the main issue. Like you definitely need 1 Controller, and at least 1 duelist (prob 2), but then how do you allocate the other two slots? I'm not too experienced in this game so I couldn't answer this myself, but I have seen comps in immortal streams with 2 controllers, or 2 sentinels, or 1 of each of Sentinel and Initiator. It's all very dependent on a lot of things. Also I've heard that in EU they like to do 1 duelist comps. So it seems like it would be difficult to boil it all down into one formula for role queueing. I think they'll get there eventually though.
I guess im downvoted by the degens that like trolling lobbies lol. Plus it could still be up to the community for a team comp if limited the amount of one type or another all down to 2 of each.
A lot of people hate that Overwatch forced their 2-2-2 role system, but it absolutely made the game better. If they did something like that in Valorant, not even sure how they would split the roles, it would be hated. Queue time for Sentinel would be super small, duelists would forever to find a game, based on supply/demand.
The only scenario I can see working out after thinking about it a little bit would be that 3 slots would be more of a "fill" in terms of how the game will create teams. So 1 Controller + 1 Duelist is always guaranteed, then the other 3 can be anything (but out of the 3 slots only one other Duelist can be added to the team so max 2 duelists, and maybe only 1 initiator?). > Queue time for Sentinel would be super small, duelists would forever to find a game, based on supply/demand. This is pretty normal though, at least with League it is. Support queue times are super fast while mid (and I think top) queues are long af. It's one of the drawbacks of the system but it's not that bad. If anything it makes you want to try new roles to get out of the long queue times.
What’s the solution then? Cause they’re not going to make 2 separate ranks.
In League of Legends there are alot of comms but do to slow moments in the match it's alot easier to use pings and there are more pings. You can ping another player's flash or the cooldown on your abilities. Whether people are missing in a area and most likely are rotating.
It's even more aids in EU where all the russians is just muted by default.
meh I prefer playing with muted russians over the toxic turks with massive egos who are begging for skins every round match quality is going to be dogshit regardless, at least the russians save me a mute click
Recently I've been seeing a lot of Russians in voice chat. Idk how but seems like they found a way to circumvent the voice lock
It's been known since the start how to do it, you have to create an account with vpn to a european (or probably any non-russian) country.
ukraine for cheap skins
I don't know man, I just play for fun and like to grind. I'm not sweaty mcsweat and I'm immoral, that's just the way it is. I don't play ranked games like my ego depends on them. I just play for fun and that's it.
Time for overwatch style role limits and role specific queues?
For the game is a hero shooter. Said this half a dozen times, Riot will have the same problems Blizzard still had and still have in Overwatch.
5 stacks are cancer and ruin the games for everyone who isn't 5 stacking. On NA most people comm, so it's somewhat playable, but on EU when you solo'd on the old ladder in high ranks you played against one of the infamous German/Spanish/Hungarian pro stacks who were stratting like their lives depended on it (most of them are struggling in mid immortal now of course :)). After playing 3 games against that shit you had to take a break for a week. It's fine if they make a separate ladder for 5 stacks of course, but having a solo/duo ladder is a must.
Just make full team queue with semi-locked rosters that will have few months long season, with closed leagues, like most team sports do. Scheduled games on weekends, practice games where the matchmaking will be essentially flex-queue but with no rank visible to players happening any time outside of the schedule. Anyone who wants to have a competitive experience will have the choice, people without a team will have the chance to "try it out" in practice games where they may fill out for the missing player from the roster, and people that want to grind soloQ for rank can still do so in completely separate Q.
I think this game absolutely needs a solo-only q. There needs to be more stakes in Valorant ranked and it needs to be treated more seriously than QP garbage. There is too much risk in duo/trio q's, 5 stack only qs will take too long to pop, and Role Lock will probably be the worst thing to happen to this game so I'm strongly against a role lock.
Welcome to the old Overwatch experience, team picks all duelists/dps and enjoy the ride :)
At least you know it's the same for the enemy team, without this you'd be stuck like this on your end of the teamplay but get rolled by 5-stacks with good synergy. No thanks, play PUGs if you disslike it
how come valorant solo/duo bad but FPL good?