Informal and Unofficial Poll- Would you prefer to keep or abolish GC-based PVP queues

[DividedSky]

Some people go to the school for little people who can't read good.

[Atreus]

Swore I posted somewhere else, but an alternative to the Grand Companies could be the factions they used in 1.0.

Brotherhood of the Broken Blade
Azeyma's Shields
The Horn and Hand (was that it?)

Sounds a little more lore-friendly than red, blue, claws, and fangs maybe?

[kisada]

it's horrific game design to segregate players based on GC when it only leads to worse queue times.

[CeveArthu]

Regardless of how many fixes you could put in place to keep the GC system and have good times, it's nowhere near as effective as simply removing the GC restriction

[TheWaywardWind]

Based on your cumulative experiences so far, would you rather a) be able to queue up alongside premade and PUG groups regardless of which GC they happen to be in, or b) only have premade/PUG parties be able to form consisting of those who happen to be in the same GC as you as of the point in time you're running a PVP instance?

This is the most awkwardly phrased question I have ever seen. You've worded this way more confusingly than it needed to be.

[Buff_Archer]

The reason it's worded as such is in reference to the fact that GC alignment is not immutable, and so someone evaluating their opinion on GC-restricted queueing should take into account the fast that as the system currently stands now, the people your GC is composed of can change from one day to the next (even with two week swap restriction). So if you are on Maelstrom for example and want to keep GC-tied queueing, selecting option B as written means accepting the fact that as things work right now people who are currently your opponents under Adder/Flames today could instead be your teammates tomorrow should they swap GC's. There's no bias interjected into that statement btw, it's just a fact having to do with how the system works, and it's something that someone weighing the benefits/drawbacks of GC-based queueing would need to take under consideration. I don't think anyone else really had trouble with this, and the two choices themselves make it 100% clear which outcome someone is voting for.

Edit: If that is truly the most awkwardly written question you've ever seen, I submit this often used phrase within a question for your consideration- “Did you not do ______?" Because a response of "Yes" could be "Yes I did not do it." and likewise "No" could be "No I did not do it." Because unlike with the question I asked above, saying Yes or No here doesn't fully answer things.

[DividedSky]

You do realize that you included your own bias in the question tho right? Your statement implies people can change frequently (implying GC restriction is pointless when I don't think it is) and that's not really the case. Most people are patriotic to their GC. Yeah there will be lots of "fillers" but for the most part your core players, as it stands, are not swapping GCs as frequently as your questions imply.

Use yourself as an example you have been primal adders for a long time and have not changed maybe BC of rank? I dunno.

I think the poster above was just pointing out that you could have simply asked "Do you think SE should abolish GC restriction?" without interjecting any unintentional bias by explaining why responding with "no" is a silly choice. Which is exactly what you did with your wording.

[Buff_Archer]

One person can't change GC's frequently; however, the composition of a particular GC can change constantly. The distribution between Adders/Flames/Maelstrom players today, will be different than what it is tomorrow, and it will be different yet again the day after that- under the current system. So I'm simply making it clear that if someone wants to only play with fellow Adders/Maelstrom/Flames and they want to keep the current GC tie-in, being in favor of the system as-is means accepting the fact that a portion of who comprises their GC's player base can still change under the current system. It's a clarification rather than a bias because no distinction is made as to whether someone should see this fact as positive or negative, and that's up to each individual to decide.

[DividedSky]

Yes I know what you are saying 100% but you are making it unnecessarily clear why the second option is worse than the first which is BIAS. Lol you just basically admitted it. I mean you could have said this and it would have also been clarifying facts but it still includes bias.

"Based on your cumulative experiences so far, would you rather a) be able to queue up alongside premade and PUG groups regardless of which GC they happen to be in knowing that you will be with different players every match, or b) only have premade/PUG parties be able to form consisting of those who you most likely have played with before on a regular basis, with the occasional new player or GC transfer.?"

Or you could have been completely unbiased and said this....

"Based on your cumulative experiences so far Do you think SE should abolish GC restriction? A: Yes B: No"

The way in which you phrased your question basically asks the reader to consider the negative effect of B while providing no counter negative to option A and you even added a suttle positive to option A.


I'll break it down:

"a) be able to queue up alongside premade and PUG groups regardless of which GC they happen to be in" - this implies easier access to queues.

"b) only have premade/PUG parties be able to form consisting of those who happen to be in the same GC as you as of the point in time you're running a PVP instance?" - this implies that option B has unnecessary GC restrictions


The only way you are going to remove all bias is to either break down ALL the pros and cons of both options (which will still have your bias in them) or just leave them all out completely by using my above example.. Yes... or No.

[Hyrist]

Have the three nations remain the three factions in name only.

Treat the Adventurers as freelance mercenaries with fluid loyalties and can join whatever GC campaign provides them the work.

Lore wise, you can excuse it as the nations becoming desperate to fill their ranks to gain some sort of edge, and signing a release of restrictions on Adventures so that they may support who they choose to. This is not without precedent, the Grand Companies have, on many occasions, differed to adventurers for assistance regardless of allegiance, even when their interests were in question.

No reason to impose players for the lore restriction on characters.