I've got to say that after reading through all of the blue responses in this thread my stomach is churning with perplexity and concern about the future of PvP in this game. I definitely don't have a problem with you, Daxxarri, but I simply cannot agree with what you're saying; whether it be your personal opinion, that of your employer, or both. My writing can come off as a little personal sometimes, so I'd like point out that no ill-will is intended. Civil discussion and debate are important.
Where do we draw the line about which "advantages" are okay to have in PvP? Is it okay for a player to have the "advantage" of being more geared than their opponent - should we add item level brackets to the queue? Is it okay for a player to have the "advantage" of being more skillful than their opponent - or should we add an MMR-style system to the standard queue? Is it fair that people should have to fight against others that have the "advantage" of owning a powerhouse computer, or blazing fast internet?
The word "advantage" is such an ambiguous term that you can twist to fit whatever situation you'd like, I hate it. It's an excuse, and an easy out.
It is, very frankly, disturbing that you're wagging your finger at players for attempting to play battlegrounds the way they were meant to be played - that being in an organized manner. People actually fighting for objectives instead of out scattered on the road with no care in the world about the outcome of the match. You repeatedly cater to the lowest common denominator and you only facilitate the continued degradation of the experience and play in regular battlegrounds.
You call organization an "advantage," but to what end? Is one team not more organized than the other regardless? Maybe they're more geared, or perhaps they simply have more skilled players. There's a clear winner and loser most of the time; very rarely do matches end in draws.
It's not as if the opposing teams are incapable of being organized, they choose not to be. They'd rather squabble amongst one another than actually formulate a plan to win. They don't care about winning, or calling out important infomation vital to the match. They're taught that it's okay to play mindlessly; why would they need to actually talk with, and work with their teammates in order to win when the game will be dumbed down to their level regardless.
Telling players that enjoy playing with like-minded people that they'll have to queue for rated battlegrounds or play war games instead is ridiculous. Rated battlegrounds do not offer the same environment that standard battlegrounds do - as admitted by one of your blue poster colleagues awhile back during another discussion about premades (cross-realm ones in particular, I believe) stating that they were more akin to rated arenas and were by no means intended as a replacement.
Group composition matters way too much in rated play(balance issues), on top of strict item rules, having modified maps (EotS comes to mind), having the dynamics of maps changed (10 players in AB instead of 15), not having the full roster of maps available(No AV or IoC, for example), and low participation(also plaguing the 5v5 queue by the way). With all of that in mind how is it okay to tell players that enjoy regular battlegrounds to go play rateds instead if they'd like to play using their brain?
It's arguable that the very same situation occurs in rated battlegrounds. You complain that one team is advantageous over another and that simply is unfair - and yet you have no problems pitting a 1200 MMR battleground team against a 2700 MMR battleground team. Is that not similar to putting players willing to organize against player not willing to organize? Your standard queue already tries to match grouped players against other grouped players where possible - just as your rated queue tries to match you with a similarly ranked team before finally pairing you with one way out of your league. Double standards, I suppose.
As far as you mentioning "rage quits," this is a term more coined in the context of multiboxing than premades. The author of the add-on you're referring to is a multiboxer, and he has definitely imparted some of that culture into his work. It's a term coined within the same context as "rage whispers," those very polite private messages that multiboxers often receive. I don't particularly think that what amounts to an add-on author's flavour text is basis for an argument against premades.
I guess what really has me confused is the timing. Why now, and why so inconsistently? If this is your philosophy for how players should be matched then why isn't matchmaking more stringent, and why is it not applied to all aspects of PvP? It's not as if it was difficult to disable the functionality of the add-ons in question, I've mentioned several times before that all it would take is protecting a few functions in the API - so why did it take so long to flip a couple switches if this was something that your team has never been "particularly fond of"? PAV has been around for a very long time, and you started limiting group queues to 5 at the end of WotLK (I believe?).
You say that premades drive players away from PvP as they instantly give up when encountering one - but this is the way you've conditioned players to act. It's not just premades that will cause players to give up - but also if the opposing team has 1 more healer than theirs - or if they have slightly undergeared players on their team. The list goes on, and it's a long list of reasons why people give up, even before the match starts. Why should they care when they're being rewarded win or lose. I see "just let them win, it's faster honour per hour" regardless the state of the match more than I have ever seen people complaining that they were facing a premade. I wonder how many people even look at the roster and understand that they're facing one.
This just seems like a rushed PR stunt more than anything else to me. You seem to be trying to instill the notion of "Hey! Look! We're doing something!" and attacking what really amounts to a non-issue to try and take some of the spotlight away from the real problem at hand, which is all of the bots plaguing battlegrounds.
It's hard to take any of what has been said at face value when you haven't fixed the actual "problem," that being the way your queue operates. Instead you "break" a convenience and try to limit a great social tool for the game.
What exactly was accomplished with this? The people who want to run premades are still going to do them just with a slightly different method of queuing, more upset and frustrated at the game, and more likely to flat-out stop paying to play all together.
That sounds pretty lose-lose to me, but then again what do I know.
(I'm not even going to start on war games for fear of hitting the character limit - but if Skirmishes weren't used enough to warrant their return to the game then I have trouble seeing why war games weren't given the same treatment.)
wow, I tip my hat to you, thank you, thank you so much!