I havn't really got the time or inclination to prove it but intuitively it would seem to me that if you have a situation where a there is a shortage of one role then increasing the player pool would both increase the size of the queue and the rate that group's are formed by the same amount, meaning the average wait times wouldnt change. Also intuitively but not worked out I'd expect increased rate of groups forming would lower the variance in wait times which can only be a good thing
That would only apply when groups are ready to go as soon as the indemand class turns up, in situation's where you don't have that critical mass you would expect the averages to be higher for all roles as when there is no actual queue you could be waiting for anyone
I'm not against x-server lfg but some of the critisism's of it are justified, if the required critical mass cant be reached on a single server then its right to implement a x-server solution, I'd quiet like to see one that prioritises same server matches before looking out to other servers to fill the empty roles
Wrong. It drastically speeds it up because there are more people in queue than would be LFG without. A lot of people, msyelf included, do not want to sit and spam LFG while doing NOTHING.
hence groups form faster because people that otherwise wouldn't be sitting around doing NOTHING but waiting are now doing other things while queue'd up.
you're wrong. fact.
we need a cross-server LFG tool. not raid tool, raids should stay as they are. If I have to explain why than I can't help you.