TequilaFire wrote: »Not self centered are we?
Why does having a choice scare you?
Having 2 queues satisfies everybody.
Stick it out & ignore the whiners for once — I'd really like to see how this turns out.
TequilaFire wrote: »Not self centered are we?
Why does having a choice scare you?
Having 2 queues satisfies everybody.
Stick it out & ignore the whiners for once — I'd really like to see how this turns out.
There are a lot of people that are very happy with this change, they're just not making endless posts about it. I think it'll be good for BGs.
TequilaFire wrote: »Could it be how worded your post?
Just saying.
ManwithBeard9 wrote: »Does anyone really think there's enough groups of 4 queueing for BGs at the same time to make it so you don't end up playing the same groups several times every night? They'd be better off having a "ranked" system and a solo queue instead of a solo and group queue.
ManwithBeard9 wrote: »Does anyone really think there's enough groups of 4 queueing for BGs at the same time to make it so you don't end up playing the same groups several times every night? They'd be better off having a "ranked" system and a solo queue instead of a solo and group queue.
I know it's an experiment, that's why I said "I'd really like to see how this turns out." It seems like most of the people complaining about it however, think it's permanent.Way too early to tell on this one.
It’s an experiment.
Seriously? My post was the complete opposite of patronising — in fact I just edited it to make it [slightly] less rude. Are you thinking of a different word? In any case, the people that have legitimate issues are not the "crybabies" I was referring to.Don’t be so patronising about people who have a genuine issue (eg they can’t play with friends).
Agreed — that's why I said I'd like to see this pan out. If ZOS gets cold feet & caves, (unsure of the likelihood of that) we won't know either way.Having every BG a total random slugfest may not be the solution you are looking for.