Well, there are no 2 ways around it, and it's not really an opinion type of thing. It's quite simple math.
You have a resource a.k.a. "the ride" which can consume a certain number of consumables. Lets say it can take 100 an hour (that's very low, but we will use it for demonstration). How you provide the consumables makes no difference to the number that can be consumed. You have 2 tracks which feed the resource (track A and track B - a.k.a. "Standby and FP+"). If there are 100 consumables in track A and 0 in track B, the amount of time before the resource can consume all of the consumables in track A is one hour. If you have 100 in Track A and add consumables in track B at a pace of 50/hour, then the amount of time before the resource can consume all the available consumables in track A is 1.5 hours.
That is not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of fact. The only way you can alter that equation is to increase the resource.
There is a definite difference for a consumable in Track B as it has not spent as much time waiting in the Track. There is also a definite difference for the consumable in Track A which has waited 1.5 times longer.
In addition, if the consumable in track A includes sensors for motion and has thought (like a human), the person in Track A will perceive that they have a better experience if Track B is closed because not only have they not waited as long, but they are in constant motion rather than start / stop, start / stop, start / stop.
Think about it like driving your car. Would you rather be driving at 5 miles an hour or would you rather stop, then drive 10 miles an hour for a few feet,, then stop, then drive 10 miles an hour for a few feet? MOST people would rather be going at a steady 5 miles an hour. It's less frustrating and feels like you are constantly making progress even if the time in wait is the same.
Having a track B is good for the consumables (people) in Track B (FP+). However, it will ALWAYS have a negative effect on Track A consumables.