Scenario Leeching

[peterthepan3]

Why? Should we also get guild warbands reduced to 12 people so that pug wb/rvrs can stand a chance?

Some of these suggestions are very very funny. Queuing up with 3 players...really.
This is why threads derail.

The lakes doesn't have a limit amount of players so that argument is completly invalid.
Also 12 man guild warband cap wouldn't do anything as they could easy just make 2 12man groups and run together anyway.

It's the principle: you are basically saying that a group designed for 6 player synergies, who put time into making a premade yadda yadda we've heard it all before.....should be PENALISED for playing the game AS IT WAS INTENDED.

How can you logically justify that when the game is SUPPOSED to be played as such?!

[roadkillrobin]

Why? Should we also get guild warbands reduced to 12 people so that pug wb/rvrs can stand a chance?

Some of these suggestions are very very funny. Queuing up with 3 players...really.
This is why threads derail.

The lakes doesn't have a limit amount of players so that argument is completly invalid.
Also 12 man guild warband cap wouldn't do anything as they could easy just make 2 12man groups and run together anyway.

It's the principle: you are basically saying that a group designed for 6 player synergies, who put time into making a premade yadda yadda we've heard it all before.....should be PENALISED for playing the game AS IT WAS INTENDED.

How can you logically justify that when the game is SUPPOSED to be played as such?!

It's funny you're using the exact same arguments as the guild bomb groups do wich you hate so much.

[peterthepan3]

Didn't reply to my point, but s'all good - to be expected.

[roadkillrobin]

I won't reply to it coz devs stated some days ago that anything refering to "how game supose to be played/intended to be played" etz is not a legit argument.

[magicthighs]

This is why threads derail.

No, this is why threads derail:

Would promote people to get their butts into gear and form groups!

[Telen]

How the game was intended isnt a valid argument when it changed so much. Originally SCs were going to use points values based on renown. So a pre of higher renown geared players would face double their number in a pug. That was abandoned when scs were reduced in importance and keeps added.

[tomato]

This is why threads derail.

No, this is why threads derail:

Would promote people to get their butts into gear and form groups!

Pretty sure roadkillrobin started with the suggestion to limit premades to 3 ppl in non 6vs6 scenarios.
No one was talking about premade **** before.

[Scrilian]

>limit premades to 3ppl
Poor pug victims at it again, lmao

[xdkt28]

remove premades

This

[roadkillrobin]

>limit premades to 3ppl
Poor pug victims at it again, lmao

'

Nope, i play both premades and pugging when i got nothing else to do. This is about what impact premades should have against pugs nothing else. I have no problem running premades or against it. I can sugest stuff even if it contradict with my
personal intrreast unlike some people. And from what i get the devs arn't very keen on the concept of premades vs pugs either. The premades got their 6v6 scenario, what they been asking for and now they don't bothering quing for it exclusivly due to long que times. You think another 6v6 scenario gonna change this??? The "issue" is still gonna be there. Pugs will still be paired against premades in t4. So wouldn't it just be better to limit the impact premades have on scenarios in that case.
That way 6mans would have to que for 6v6 to play with a 6man and scenarios would pop faster for them aswell asuming there is a intreast for it. They also have the option to roam the lakes while qeuing.