It's hard but not impossible. It's probably impossible at this point for all 8 players to have similar ratings but you should be able to structure a match such that the sum of the ratings of any 4 players are very similar to any other 4 players if you have 16 queuing each side.

Sweet. Another genius that can't read.

The reading comprehension of some people is just so lacking. Read the OP- closely. Cross-server queues provide ZERO POINT ZERO precent of a solution to the problem cited. As others have pointed out, just by rearranging the team designations of the exact eight people that queued, you can get a near perfect match. You don't need the complication of more people from other servers. Cross server queues might improve the variance within teams, but that's a second-order tweak which is a distant concern relative to the OP's identified problem. Don't distract from the core problem. Would it be so bad for Bioware, if they just released the algorithm they used for translating points on wins and losses and for queuing? This problem could be fixed in hours with as many people willing to take a look at the code as are reading this thread. There is nothing remotely proprietary in that code. Also, I can't think of any problems that would be created in terms of gaming the system. ELO systems used in Chess are 100% transparent and "gaming" doesn't compromise those rankings. We need to get to the point where solving the problem is more important that keeping some non-proprietary code confidential. Getting more eyes looking at the problem is the best way to do that. There is no reason to keep the players working blind. Much more complicated code is fixed on a daily basis in the open source world.

That's a long essay for a guy that doesn't even play. Fewer servers means greater population concentration which reduces, not increases, the need for cross-server queues. Maybe we do need cross-server queueing but fewer servers has nothing to do with it. I honestly find queue times to be perfectly reasonable. Any competitive PVP players is going to want the best gear so as to be the most competitive. If you eliminate Expertise you are going to have even greater need for PVP players to PVE for PVP competition. Hardcore PVP players don't want that. Expertise solves that problem. By reducing the core stats but granting Expertise you also make PVP gear undesireable in PVE. It isolates the mini-games and rewards hard core PVP guys. Casual PVP guys shouldn't care one way or the other. Other "ranters" in this thread are complaining that there is no point in bringing any DPS other than Sents- that Sents so dominate in pure DPS that the other classes can't keep up. Well, the other classes have utility. Scoundrels have stealth, and Gunslingers/Commandos have range. Maybe it's not completely balanced but it is clear that there isn't a consensus that one is dominate. You seem to think that Scoundrels should dominate, but others are saying the exact opposite. I agree it shouldn't be hard to lessen CC effectiveness. There does seem to be some consensus around this.

I call b.s. I told my cousin Joe Bob Billy Bud that I wanted guild ships a looooong time before you ever even thought of it. I knew I coudn't trust that sneaky sob. I bet he tole you my idea- didnnt ee?

I agree- it seems like there is about 0% chance of a new base class. It's expensive to write and produce the class story lines. I would love to see new advanced classes though. I don't really care who or what the lore archetype is- I just care about mechanics. I think one negative thing about TOR is the over simplified game mechanics. I think it would add a lot of variety to game play if they introduced a Buffer and Debuffer advanced class. RIFT has done this well. The problem is that you would have to create several new skills and a total of eight new trees (assuming that one tree continues to be shared as the current model). One of these trees would be a new Buff or Debuff tree and the second would be some new DPS tree for each base class. That's quite a bit of work and would require a lot of creativity and balancing. Hell, I'd be happy if they just created Buff and Debuff trees and reused some of the existing DPS trees to round it out- but that would be a diversion from the current model. I would love something like the following roles... Hunter/Trooper - DPS/Tank; DPS/Heal; DPS/Buff Inquisitor/Consular - DPS/Tank; DPS/Heal; DPS/Debuff Warrior/Knight - DPS/Tank; DPS/DPS; DPS/Buff Agent/Smuggler - DPS/Heal; DPS/DPS; DPS/Debuff

... - Sorry, I posted in wrong forum