They need to do 2 things to make PvP succeed in this game and to get subs back.

 

1. Cross server queues. This is a given, it would just take a lot of effort from Bioware to figure out how to implement this.

 

2. Arenas. Disagree all you want, I'm aware of the balance issues it would present, but I feel as though a game like this needs arenas. Large scale PvP can not thrive here because of the lag it causes. So why not focus on adding more choices to small scale PvP. This would again, require effort from Bioware to deal with the balance issues that would come up if this was ever implemented.

 

Unfortunately, I believe the chances of Bioware implementing either of these things anytime soon are slim to none.

This wont work and here is why

 

group allowance: people will simulque and will most likely get into the same game.

 

friend/guild: just remove them from friends list or /gquit on when you want to pvp together.

 

only thing that i like from your post is the class role restrictions but only if they do not effect que times. As in, if there are no healers queing repub or imp side, that faction will still get que pops with no time delay regardless of of group composition.

 

If there are actually a lot of warzones happening, and especially if the game goes same faction, the chances of those guilds getting their groups together like that are far lower than the number of times it won't happen or their groups would get broken up. They'd then have to drop, let other people actually get in the game, and re-try later on so as not to get put right back in the same game again.

 

If they were really determined, they'd just keep trying that for an hour so they could play for 10 minutes and actually roll a full PUG, but what if they wind up against another premade that tried this too, so they can't even roll them? Or a skilled group of PUGs that stream roll them?

 

The problem would just sort itself out. If the population is too low then it's only a few people playing anyway so it doesn't matter. If the population is high it's such a waste of time to try it that nobody is going to try doing it.

 

The only reason people say it would be a problem is because they don't want Bioware to implement it in the first place, since right now you don't even have to bother with that and can just roll solo queuers with a guaranteed premade.

Rated should remain group queue....why on earth would you want to pug against an 8man premade on teamspeak with a perfect composition? There's already thousands of threads to kick 4man premades out of regular I can only imagine how you would deal with 8man.

Pure Solo Q for ranked. No groups at all. That way groups couldn't play a role in it at all. It would super fair that way.

I solo que a ton and I am only on a premade if I ever get invited and I use a DPS operative so you can understand how many times I get invited. I have given this some thought because it is something that I look forward to and hopefully implement this in the game. I think that it needs some concrete rules and rules with exceptions. This is the hard part to implement. Since some rules are bendable and others not. Stay with me. Lets say one of the rules "no guilds on the same team". Should this be a concrete rule or one that is bendable? Meaning if the search mechanic is set as a concrete, what if que doesnt pop due to the fact that there are enough people but some are in the same guild?

 

Should this be a bendable? Meaning allow more than one person from the same guild on one team or stagger the them between the 2 teams. Should this be allowed only if "X" happens? Some servers arent as populated as others and some play at odd hours where que pops are far and few in between with the current mechanics in place.

 

The above is an example of a suggestion. This can also include team make up. Search mechanic looks for 3 healers, 3 dps, 2 tanks. Concrete, stays looking for this and nothing more. Bendable, cant find a healer lets say for both teams (since to keep it fair, both teams have the same make up). It decides to add another tank and/or dps of the same AC to both teams to keep it fair. You can see where this can or will cause issues as well.

 

Some really great suggestion in this thread. I really dont know how it should be, but together I think we can come up with enough suggestion (concrete and bendable) to make this work. Take the top 5 or 10 from this thread and tweak them. Think about what good/bad can come from the suggestion. Tweak some more. Think again, tweak the idea some more. At work we had a "boot camp" to hash out what was needed and what was not and adding in suggestions to our pm's (think of it like this: you know what is needed to do an oil change and it takes15 steps to finish. How can you take these 15 steps and change it to 11 to save time with out giving up safety or quality?) We had around ten for the same pm before it was finalized. Wow I wrote a ton. Will be keeping an eye in this thread.

I think a better solution would be to allow 4 man or 8 man groups for Rated Warzones.

 

Taking all group allowances, and friend/guild preferences from the unranked allowing a more fair and balanced approach to these warzones.

 

I would also recommend roles be added to Warzones, and if someone isn't performing their role properly their Votes to remove not be expired.

 

I would like to see as a minimum starting point them allowing 4 man teams sign for rated, then two groups of 4 will be put together. I would also be happoy with solo signing for rated games if they made it so if u have a rating between A Aand B youll be teamed in a match mostly populated by similar rating where possible.

Not only would it kill normal WZs it would reduce the quality of rated WZs, and I can already imagine the ridiculous cries of "omg there should be a seperate queue for premade rateds"