I want to pick my team mates, all 5 of them (no excuses)

You can't legally say the population can't support 5 man queues.

Because you CLAIM 11 million "STRONG".

So, there must be enough.

And, no separate queues, 1-5 for everyone.

Also, I still havent forgot....you never took that second vote about keeping it this way.

Do it now.

You know why you dont do it?

Because I am right.

I am so right, and you HATE to be wrong.

5 person will be voted back in a landslide.

@"Crab Fear.1624" said:You can't legally say the population can't support 5 man queues.

Because you CLAIM 11 million "STRONG".

So, there must be enough.

And, no separate queues, 1-5 for everyone.

Also, I still havent forgot....you never took that second vote about keeping it this way.

Do it now.

You know why you dont do it?

Because I am right.

I am so right, and you HATE to be wrong.

5 person will be voted back in a landslide.

You didn't happen to consider that maybe full 100% of the population doesn't actively play PvP?

I have no friend to queue with...

Bring it back

@NorthernRedStar.3054 said:

@"Crab Fear.1624" said:You can't legally say the population can't support 5 man queues.

Because you CLAIM 11 million "STRONG".

So, there must be enough.

And, no separate queues, 1-5 for everyone.

Also, I still havent forgot....you never took that second vote about keeping it this way.

Do it now.

You know why you dont do it?

Because I am right.

I am so right, and you HATE to be wrong.

5 person will be voted back in a landslide.

Fine, 1% of the population probably pvps.

1% of 11 million strong is 110,000.

Half, 55,000, is for NA, and the other half is for EU.

If we say half are daytime and half are nighttime, then 27,500 players are enough to scrape up some five peeps.

But the active game in total is probably more like the breakdown above, so we got to go 1% of that.

.01 of (27,500) gives 275 active players to pool from at any given time.

If there is .0025% (.000025x11,000,000) of the population playing at any given time....

And it is around 275 players across all divisions with 50% falling into average, there could be up to 28 teams just in the gold spectrum alone.

I wouldn't expect everyone to play teams though.

It is just even if the population is this small, it can support the teams.

.0025%.....

At this point even tho all my friends stop playing GW2. Then likely I'm soon to follow. I would also rather have 5 man team queue in Rank. Give us a opinion to have some control over our matches.

But most of all ANet, start actually suspending and banning people, who cheat in Ranked. Cause right now, cheating is starting to become the META for leaderboards.

Gw2 is not know to be a good pvp game, it’s a pure pve gameplay with poor rotation base game, easy dodge aoe from bosses, but game it’s pretty to look at.

People test laught and leave.

The way classes are played and the lamer popish combat gameplay helped pvp being in this state.

If they made gw2 skill designs based on gw1 system game could flourish once again.

When classes do a lot to easy gameplay, due Anet believes they should help players, game looses its value and teams loose their team gameplay structure cause all u see is gimmicks back n forth cap and decal with poor communication, when classes conflict with each other roles while some keep overperformance due damage output and sustain, players over time loose interest cause it’s a redundancy spam and damage to win moments while players keep thinking its their personal skill, when something appears that is even effortless to play and kills even faster they QQ while not looking at the mirror...

This gw2 pvp... 2012-2014, even back in time game never had much team work even half compared with gw1.

It is obvious the many reasons why gw2 pvp failed from start.

@Crab Fear.1624 said:

@NorthernRedStar.3054 said:

@Crab Fear.1624 said:You can't legally say the population can't support 5 man queues.

Because you CLAIM 11 million "STRONG".

So, there must be enough.

And, no separate queues, 1-5 for everyone.

Also, I still havent forgot....you never took that second vote about keeping it this way.

Do it now.

You know why you dont do it?

Because I am right.

I am so right, and you HATE to be wrong.

5 person will be voted back in a landslide.

I have problems finding soloq games gl finding team 5v5.

@Crab Fear.1624 said:

@NorthernRedStar.3054 said:

@Crab Fear.1624 said:You can't legally say the population can't support 5 man queues.

Because you CLAIM 11 million "STRONG".

So, there must be enough.

And, no separate queues, 1-5 for everyone.

Also, I still havent forgot....you never took that second vote about keeping it this way.

Do it now.

You know why you dont do it?

Because I am right.

I am so right, and you HATE to be wrong.

5 person will be voted back in a landslide.

So why do ATs only have such a low team count? And you made a big mistake by thinking NA has as many PvP players as EU.

@Tharan.9085 said:

@Crab Fear.1624 said:

@NorthernRedStar.3054 said:

@Crab Fear.1624 said:You can't legally say the population can't support 5 man queues.

Because you CLAIM 11 million "STRONG".

So, there must be enough.

And, no separate queues, 1-5 for everyone.

Also, I still havent forgot....you never took that second vote about keeping it this way.

Do it now.

You know why you dont do it?

Because I am right.

I am so right, and you HATE to be wrong.

5 person will be voted back in a landslide.

Because ATs are not Rated, don't give nowhere near as much gold, takes almost 2 hours to finish if there are even few teams + are on a fixed schedule and thus can't be accessed at will.

@Alatar.7364 said:

@Tharan.9085 said:

@Crab Fear.1624 said:

@NorthernRedStar.3054 said:

@Crab Fear.1624 said:You can't legally say the population can't support 5 man queues.

Because you CLAIM 11 million "STRONG".

So, there must be enough.

And, no separate queues, 1-5 for everyone.

Also, I still havent forgot....you never took that second vote about keeping it this way.

Do it now.

You know why you dont do it?

Because I am right.

I am so right, and you HATE to be wrong.

5 person will be voted back in a landslide.

Apparently it gives enough gold, why else would botters run ATs over ranked

Considering it takes upwards of 3 minutes to find a solo Q game at least when i try(like once a month if that) i doubt the pvp population is sitting at 1%. its probably at like .001%

Where do you even take the number of 11million active ppl? Thats probably accounts ever bought, and many ppl have 2 or more accounts. Or 11million active player after release, but i doubt there are still that many playing the game on a daily basis.

@Tharan.9085 said:

@Crab Fear.1624 said:

@NorthernRedStar.3054 said:

@Crab Fear.1624 said:You can't legally say the population can't support 5 man queues.

Because you CLAIM 11 million "STRONG".

So, there must be enough.

And, no separate queues, 1-5 for everyone.

Also, I still havent forgot....you never took that second vote about keeping it this way.

Do it now.

You know why you dont do it?

Because I am right.

I am so right, and you HATE to be wrong.

5 person will be voted back in a landslide.

They don't.

I haven't been in an AT in several months that had less than 10 teams sign in during early hours of eastern, and I haven't been in a prime time AT that had less than 15 to 20. Then you have to consider that when it's AT time, and 10 teams form to stand in that queue for 30 to 45 minutes until it is finished, you're talking subtracting 50 players from the Ranked queue population even during off peak hours, and the Ranked match making is still forming matches in 2 and a half minutes to 3 minutes average with absolutely no problems or hiccups.

Saying the population can't support 5 man is bologna. Use your common sense and open your eyes.

In fact, if it were 1-5 man queue, there would be even more teams because the solid 5 man queues would divide into 4s and 3s, ect ect, and they'd fill to 5 man quickly due to this demographic that insists on solo. Actually my dude good, due to this, que times might be faster, because we'd have the bulk of a team queueing in together right off the bat with 3 or 4 players, with only a slot or two to fill. <- These are the kinds of realities that people are too blind or bias to recognize. We just have a lot of solo advocates who push the solo because they "imagine" how tremendously frightening it would be to have to LFG into a party and meet people with behavioral adjustment, instead of having the liberty to rage at random PUGs whom they assume they'll never need to make formal communication with. And in reality this would probably solve much toxicity, because it is easier to rage at a random PUG than it is a formal team join invite. I rarely rarely ever seen arguments or raging during formal team invitation. Something else to point out there.

I sometimes honestly believe that Arenanet had engineered and forced us into solo/duo because the scene was easier to control for certain people. When you really start looking at and questioning why this is still happening, this is the only thing that makes sense. The solo/duo system is a terrible illusion of equal match making spread amongst those who are unable to identify what's really going on here, and that illusion couldn't be further from the truth.

@"Dante.1763" said:Considering it takes upwards of 3 minutes to find a solo Q game at least when i try(like once a month if that) i doubt the pvp population is sitting at 1%. its probably at like .001%

Stop looking at claims of number estimates and use common sense.

Example:

When I am queueing, there usually seems to be 2 map instances active of the pvp lobby in NA. In both of these maps, if I right click join around to different people who are in my team, if I walk around and do head counts, there are never less than about 50 people in each map. Sometimes around prime time, I'll see 30+ standing around just the bank area, 30+ standing in random various locations, and 20+ hovering in the practice arena or standing and watching it. Keep in mind those are just the people who "aren't in a match at the moment." That's roughly around 80+ people in each map in NA. And we aren't even talking the people who queue in from pve zones like LA or Divinity's Reach or some misc. explorable map. I'd say it's safe to say that during NA prime time, there are probably at least 200 to 300 people who are actively queueing into Conquest. Probably about half of that doing Unranked, and the other half running Ranked. So with Ranked queue we're looking at realistically maybe about 100 to 150 people queueing at any given point in time during prime time, and probably half of that during early morning hours, like 50 or 75 people queueing into ranked. During prime time that would be enough for 10 to 15 different teams to form and be weighed against each other in the match making.

I should point out that with 5 man queues again, you're gonna get ALL of the top players queueing into 5 mans together. This means that entities such as Team USA, would only be effecting 1 game at a time as they would be all bundled up together, leaving the other 14 teams out of that experience. That would be better than the system now, where top players are all divided into duo queues and spread out amongst many different games at a time, effecting all of our matches. And then of course a 5 man queue would completely disable a discord full of guys running win trade tactics from being able to effect the performance of your team during a match.

Furthermore, it would actually be A LOT easier to queue dodge those guys if they were all together in a team. Just queue dodge them in the same way they queue dodge each other, if you don't want to play against TEH SCURY 5 MAN TAEMZ. I'll tell you what though, I certainly wouldn't queue dodge anyone at all, when I knew I had a solid 5 man that eliminated secret alt throw PUGs from effecting my performance. I'd gladly go against anyone, and I would sincerely enjoy being able to do it the way the game mode was originally designed to be played, with fair team natural selection.

I don't know what else to say. If people haven't figured it out the pros & cons of this stuff yet, they never will. I hear these people who complain about toxicity all of the time. They happen to largely be the same demographic who strongly advocates solo queue. I always think it's hilarious how these people don't seem to recognize how much toxicity solo/duo queue has brought into the game.

I think bringing 5 man Que back to ranked is a HORRIBLE idea. I think it would be much better to stop allowing duo que and make everyone solo que in ranked. that would make it the MOST balanced on average.

Or just get rid of the rating system because the idea of the same rating applying to people who 5 man vs solo que makes the entire idea of rating a HUGE JOKE.

@"Moradorin.6217" said:I think bringing 5 man Que back to ranked is a HORRIBLE idea. I think it would be much better to stop allowing duo que and make everyone solo que in ranked. that would make it the MOST balanced on average.

Or just get rid of the rating system because the idea of the same rating applying to people who 5 man vs solo que makes the entire idea of rating a HUGE JOKE.

Explain yourself and your ideas though. People who just drop in these solo/duo vs. 5 man threads with "I don't want this to happen" and "I think this would be more balanced" are a dime a dozen, no offense and with all due respect. What we all really need to see, are the reasons why you believe in your statement, or why you know it is true.

Sorry, I just really want to hear people explain this.

@Trevor Boyer.6524 said:

@Dante.1763 said:Considering it takes upwards of 3 minutes to find a solo Q game at least when i try(like once a month if that) i doubt the pvp population is sitting at 1%. its probably at like .001%

Erm..i was just pointing out how long it takes to get into a game, and making a snarky comment about the population. i wasnt making any statement either way about having a pre made of 5 people.

Common sense tells me that since it takes so long to get into a match there cant be many people trying to get into a match. 3-5 minutes is absurd, ive never seen that in any game ive played. Even WOT doesnt take that long and it has like 8k people playing on the US server.

@Trevor Boyer.6524 said:

@"Moradorin.6217" said:I think bringing 5 man Que back to ranked is a HORRIBLE idea.

I think it would be much better to stop allowing duo que and make everyone solo que in ranked.

that would make it the MOST balanced on average.

Or just get rid of the rating system because the idea of the same rating applying to people who 5 man vs solo que makes the entire idea of rating a HUGE JOKE.

I just wonder why people want soloQ for a team based game mode? Shouldn't it be the other way around? Like, imagine football/soccer/ect. but team are just randomly drawn.

@Trevor Boyer.6524 said:

@"Moradorin.6217" said:I think bringing 5 man Que back to ranked is a HORRIBLE idea.

I think it would be much better to stop allowing duo que and make everyone solo que in ranked.

that would make it the MOST balanced on average.

Or just get rid of the rating system because the idea of the same rating applying to people who 5 man vs solo que makes the entire idea of rating a HUGE JOKE.

Ok sure. I felt like it was apparent what I was getting at. Here I will attempt to explain why I see adding 5 man que as nothing more than a bad joke.

We are talking about ranked pvp only. Ranked pvp has a "rating" system. The "rating system" in my view should have a rating that relates to the persons skill as a pvp player. The suggestion that the same rating system would apply to people in a pre-made organized 5 man team against a 5 player team who dont know each other and are not in VOIP, etc (a PuG) is a travesty of logic. What I mean is for rating to actually mean anything we should all at least mostly be in a similar situation when "competing". Otherwise the rating system is meaningless in which case its the same as unranked.So again I think 5 man que vs solo q people in a game with a "skill rating" is just flat-out bad. No room for debate. It would 100% defeat the purpose of having any rating.

So then if you want 5 man ques in ranked seems like we may as well get rid of ranked and move all rewards to unranked cause you are talking about turning ranked into unranked with ratings. Why dont you go play unrank and leave ranked to the rest of us who dont feel we need a 5 man team.

@Zexanima.7851 said:

@Trevor Boyer.6524 said:

@"Moradorin.6217" said:I think bringing 5 man Que back to ranked is a HORRIBLE idea.

I think it would be much better to stop allowing duo que and make everyone solo que in ranked.

that would make it the MOST balanced on average.

Or just get rid of the rating system because the idea of the same rating applying to people who 5 man vs solo que makes the entire idea of rating a HUGE JOKE.

Because its not practical to only 5 man. GW2 is setup to be able to allow individuals to play content. 5 man takes 5 people being on at the same, time and all having the same window of free time. Many people like being able to que solo because its less hassle and allows one to do a few matches in when time permits.

@Leonidrex.5649 @Tharan.9085 @Dante.1763 @"Moradorin.6217"

I think you guys are just not aware of the extreme amount of alt play smurfing, throwing and organized match manipulation that controls these leaderboards.

Everything you have said would be true, if everyone were playing legitimately. However, literally 50% of the top 100 as example, are alt accounts my dudes. Alt accounts that are used to throw against other player's mains who threaten positions, and to block leaderboard rankings. When this kind of stuff is going on, the solo/duo only system is doing nothing but enabling that activity. I notice that the people who advocate solo/duo que are the ones who believe that is not happening.

And aside from that, if the top players whom you "believe are not using such tactics" are already achieving 90% win rates, then what's the difference between having them in a solo/duo match or a 5 man match? I mean you're going to lose to them anyway right? Might a well funnel them more together into one game as a 5 man, instead of having them distributed amongst many games as duos or solos. If they were all in a 5 man queue together, you have better chances of avoiding them or queue dodging that team. And upon that, 5 man queue enables your option to block yourself from potential alt throw PUG play. <- This stuff is real and it is happening all day long. Have none of you ever cared enough to notice when some random f2p account you've never seen before with 300 APs is performing at a Helios level? Come on guys wake up, start paying attention.

I don't understand you guys who have played nearly as long as I have, who have somehow not noticed such things. Eh, I assume you must not be the discord type or watch streams often. If you were, you'd have stumbled across & witnessed plenty of blatant evidence to support what I'm saying here. And people don't even hide what they're doing anymore because most of it isn't even against the TOS.

@Tharan.9085 said:So why do ATs only have such a low team count? And you made a big mistake by thinking NA has as many PvP players as EU.There are several reasons why ATs aren't popular:

• Have to be ready at a specific time, as opposed to whenever you and your friends are online. No one wants to schedule their life around a game.
• Lots of downtime. Wait for AT too start (many people sit for 5-10min ahead of start) then if you have a round 1 bye, you wait another 10-15min. 2min to accept match then 1.5min to start it.
• Play against a team you have no chance against (rating doesn't factor into matching) and get destroyed. I'm not taking gold vs. High plat, I mean bronze/silver vs. gold. It's not fun normally, and when you compound that with the waiting, it feels even worse.

Having a normal team queue addresses all these problems - though doesn't completely fix them.

@Zexanima.7851 said:

@Trevor Boyer.6524 said:

@"Moradorin.6217" said:I think bringing 5 man Que back to ranked is a HORRIBLE idea.

I think it would be much better to stop allowing duo que and make everyone solo que in ranked.

that would make it the MOST balanced on average.

Or just get rid of the rating system because the idea of the same rating applying to people who 5 man vs solo que makes the entire idea of rating a HUGE JOKE.

Because it would make perfect sense that Michael Jordan was forced to carry a team of 6 year olds and lose a basketball game to a team of high school kids.

Or if Michael Jordan successfully carried the 6 years during several games, to the point that the game statistics of the 6 years reflected that they were stronger & better players than the high school kids.

Makes sense.

The bottom lining truth to all of this is that conquest was meant to be a team game, where a team was rated by its performance, not the individual players. Glicko is an unbelievably dysfunctional and disappointing system for rating individuals in a team based game mode. It doesn't work, and it completely falls apart and fails when the door is opened to invite such easily performed match manipulation.

@Trevor Boyer.6524 said:@Leonidrex.5649 @Tharan.9085 @Dante.1763 @"Moradorin.6217"

I think you guys are just not aware of the extreme amount of alt play smurfing, throwing and organized match manipulation that controls these leaderboards.

Everything you have said would be true, if everyone were playing legitimately. However, literally 50% of the top 100 as example, are alt accounts my dudes. Alt accounts that are used to throw against other player's mains who threaten positions, and to block leaderboard rankings. When this kind of stuff is going on, the solo/duo only system is doing nothing but enabling that activity. I notice that the people who advocate solo/duo que are the ones who believe that is not happening.

And aside from that, if the top players whom you "believe are not using such tactics" are already achieving 90% win rates, then what's the difference between having them in a solo/duo match or a 5 man match? I mean you're going to lose to them anyway right? Might a well funnel them more together into one game as a 5 man, instead of having them distributed amongst many games as duos or solos. If they were all in a 5 man queue together, you have better chances of avoiding them or queue dodging that team. And upon that, 5 man queue enables your option to block yourself from potential alt throw PUG play. <- This stuff is real and it is happening all day long. Have none of you ever cared enough to notice when some random f2p account you've never seen before with 300 APs is performing at a Helios level? Come on guys wake up, start paying attention.

I don't understand you guys who have played nearly as long as I have, who have somehow not noticed such things. Eh, I assume you must not be the discord type or watch streams often. If you were, you'd have stumbled across & witnessed plenty of blatant evidence to support what I'm saying here. And people don't even hide what they're doing anymore because most of it isn't even against the TOS.

Well I like your points. You have clearly thought a long time about this issue. That said Im still not so sure Im in favor of 5 man team ques due to concern about que times, seems like it would still end up throwing rating balance off just as much or even more just via other means, and that I don't think I would be able to have a 5 man ranked team to que with reliably when I have time and desire to play ranked, so it wouldn't ever benefit me, but might very well make it much worse. If anything I would suggest we should get rid of titles and the rating system and be done with it. People would stress less about win ratios and maybe people would end up having more fun. I pretty much play ranked because the matches seem more consistent vs unranked and I want the "good" rewards. I think most people are in that boat.