I vote no.

 

choosing WZ would just open up to premades custom tailored with classes that are more successful in certain WZ.

 

To be on the losing end of that would be very, very frustrating.

 

people would choose wz for have fun (i would choose hutball because i love it)

While I thought this is a good idea, the concerns of those arguing against it are legitimate. After considering what everyone has said, I propose a compromise. Instead of a system that allows players to choose which WZs they do and don't play altogether, have a system that allows players to select their preferred WZ(s). While this sounds pretty much the same, let me explain the difference. Instead of making it so that players only get queued for the WZ(s) of their choice, make it so that they are just more likely to be queued for them. If the WZ que is putting a team together for a player's preferred WZ(s), they will be given priority for being put on that team over players who don't prefer it. If all the slots are full, then the que acts as normal, putting them in random WZs when they get to the front of the que. It could be even better if it included a ranking system that allows players to choose more specifically what they prefer over others.

 

For example: Player X ranks The Civil War as #1 on his list, so he will be put in that whenever possible. He ties Huttball, Void Star, and Novare Coast as #2 on his list, so if his #1 pick isn't available, he will be put into one of those if possible. He ranks Ancient Hypergate dead last, meaning that the game will never put him in a AH match unless all of his higher ranked choices are unavailable.

Edited February 13, 2013 by KepavEgi

no.

 

The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 5 characters.

 

I agree with this guy.

 

While I sincerely hope they remove the failmap that is CIvil War ASAP I think this is a bad idea.

_________________________________________________

I vote no.

 

choosing WZ would just open up to premades custom tailored with classes that are more successful in certain WZ.

 

To be on the losing end of that would be very, very frustrating.

_________________________________________________

 

people would choose wz for have fun (i would choose hutball because i love it)

 

I admire the innocence of that post, but unfortunately that's not always how it works. While many have fun regardless of the outcome of a game, some people only consider winning fun. Weaksauce has a point. There are people that would form teams tailored to a specific WZ, and anyone that went up against them and didn't do the same would likely be annihilated.

Edited February 14, 2013 by KepavEgi

Choosing warzones would destroy the queue responsiveness we have currently.

 

Even though it does lead to a rash of saboteurs quitting warzones and leaving the team behind with a deficit when some precious snowflake stumbles across a warzone they "don't like" and then leave, I'd still rather have a good number of players in all queues for all warzones.

 

If you let people choose, they will only choose the ones they like, and instead of all of us being able to PVP with the high frequencies we have today, we'll all be stuck in much longer queues, waiting for the few warzones that will pop (as no one is playing the others).

 

Additionally, I'd like to take all of the players who think they can narrow one warzone down into some unstoppable strategy, and toss them into the other 4 warzones so they have to compete.

 

What we need is a warzone quitter debuff that starts to cut you down as you quit and keep stranding teams behind without a member. The rest, personally disagree... no choice is necessary.

Choosing warzones would destroy the queue responsiveness we have currently.

 

Even though it does lead to a rash of saboteurs quitting warzones and leaving the team behind with a deficit when some precious snowflake stumbles across a warzone they "don't like" and then leave, I'd still rather have a good number of players in all queues for all warzones.

 

If you let people choose, they will only choose the ones they like, and instead of all of us being able to PVP with the high frequencies we have today, we'll all be stuck in much longer queues, waiting for the few warzones that will pop (as no one is playing the others).

 

I think that problem could be solved by setting a limit to how many matches of each WZ can be going, relative to how many people are actively playing them, at a given time. And those limits wouldn't have to be perfectly divided. For example: Say there are 1000 people on each side playing WZs. The game could set a limit of 30 matches of each of the 5 WZs, which is over 20%, to be running at one time. That way it wouldn't be super strict, but could keep the PVP environment from getting stale.

Why can't they just do what wow does, add a bonus for queuing random and no bonus if you choose a specific wz...most people will still queue for random and the other guys can be happy if they just want to run a certain wz.