Same Faction Rated Battlegrounds Testing

Battlegrounds
Prev 1 17 18 19 22 Next
Sweet!

Now I can play against guildies...

>.>
this is garbage...i dont like this one bit
Time to go horde...
War ranks rewarded for killing members of your own faction? really?


04/03/2011 07:24 PMPosted by Fizie
I will become a Warlord by killing many horde!


Friendly fire happens yo!

EDIT: fixed quote
03/31/2011 03:54 PMPosted by Luxiria
If this succeeds any chance of also introducing it in normal non-rated battlegrounds?
NO! battlegrounds have 2 sides. this isnt civil war
If this goes into regular battleground you can surely count on losing 1 subscription. I shouldn't come on the forums just reminds me of how downhill this game is going...
Once again, it's players who enjoy story and flavor vs. those who don't.

There's very little left in this game that's horde vs. alliance. Why remove yet another?
From a 2500+ RBG perspective, this doesn't help. The queue times, at peak hours, for Horde are ~10-20 minutes, while Alliance times are ~2-3 minutes for Rated Battlegrounds. I would argue that these queue times are not ideal, but not terrible. If anything it is incentive to join the Alliance for PvP.

Here's a thought: Free faction changes. Let supply and demand fix it.

I just don't feel like this is a queue time problem as much as it is a popularity problem. Make RBGs more desirable, and the queue times will drop.
From a 2500+ RBG perspective, this doesn't help. The queue times, at peak hours, for Horde are ~10-20 minutes, while Alliance times are ~2-3 minutes for Rated Battlegrounds. I would argue that these queue times are not ideal, but not terrible. If anything it is incentive to join the Alliance for PvP.

Here's a thought: Free faction changes. Let supply and demand fix it.

I just don't feel like this is a queue time problem as much as it is a popularity problem. Make RBGs more desirable, and the queue times will drop.


Make RBGs more doable. The hardest part about them, for me, is getting 10 people together outside of raid times, especially if going for a guild group.

Go ahead and let us queue for a random. Pick a player at random from the queue (or the first player?), find 9 allies and 10 opponents who fall within 50, 75, 100, whatever points of that player. (Maybe start at 50 and every 5 minutes up the range by 10 points?) Hell, you could even have some sort of requirement for it, say, at least 346 ilvl and (at least) a modest 2k resilience. Or, maybe not. Maybe there's no harm in rated battlegrounds having a bunch of poorly-geared players and bots playing each other in the 200 rating bracket.

If you can get a team together, great. You'll probably dominate. If not, you'll at least get to play, and as with arenas, in a few matches you'll quickly be playing with and against players of a similar skill level.
Well, here is a nice suggestion. If you have 2 teams of the same faction duking it out in a battleground, lets say for instance Arathi Basin, why not implement a tabard-like system for both sides and when they take a base, their tabard is displayed as the flag instead of the faction flag itself. :)
If your making same faction battle grounds, why not make integrated battle grounds?

So you can do battle grounds teamed with the opposite faction, i mean if we are going to fight against each other, might as well fight with each other?
They should do this for the XP-Off queues as well.
04/07/2011 02:59 AMPosted by Azreluna
Make RBGs more doable. The hardest part about them, for me, is getting 10 people together outside of raid times, especially if going for a guild group.


I agree, they seem to need an easier entry level. I face 0 rated teams all the time and its no good for everyone. We automatically win, get 0 points for winning, and they lose and have no idea what just happened. It's a lose-lose for new teams queued up against very experienced 2k+ teams.


Go ahead and let us queue for a random. Pick a player at random from the queue (or the first player?), find 9 allies and 10 opponents who fall within 50, 75, 100, whatever points of that player. (Maybe start at 50 and every 5 minutes up the range by 10 points?) Hell, you could even have some sort of requirement for it, say, at least 346 ilvl and (at least) a modest 2k resilience. Or, maybe not. Maybe there's no harm in rated battlegrounds having a bunch of poorly-geared players and bots playing each other in the 200 rating bracket.

If you can get a team together, great. You'll probably dominate. If not, you'll at least get to play, and as with arenas, in a few matches you'll quickly be playing with and against players of a similar skill level.


Unfortunately, random RBG queues are not the way to solve this problem. It would be disastrous. If random teams are queued up against premades, it will be the same issue we had before since v1.5. If random teams are put aside and only queued up against random teams, then we have the current regular battleground system rewarding epics? Just wait until next season for that.


Fixing RBGs is a player-side issue to a majority of the degree. It requires more organization than a lot of players are willing to put forth, especially people in raiding guilds. On top of that, no one is sharing strategies. New teams have to spend just as much time figuring it out as the experienced ones, its just harder because they have to face good teams more often.

I have a lot more opinions on the current RBG situation, but I will leave them for another day and a more relevant post.
Sounds very weird....
04/04/2011 04:39 PMPosted by Deathrind
This will hasten the rest of the players on Ally side to transfer...


Randoms =/= rateds.

So question.

Why even bother calling them battlegrounds anymore? Why should they apply to the achievements that are "for the alliance, in service to the alliance, HERO OF THE ALLIANCE, etc." When they aren't at all a faction vs faction type event anymore.

If you want to kill the flavor of battlegrounds for the sake of gameplay, at least be thorough about it, go through and change the titles, the achievements and the names of the battlegrounds themselves. You're taking half the fun out of it already, why not just be thorough about it and stop pretending that they're still battlegrounds at all?

Second question.

Can you at least give the playerbase an option on whether or not we WANT to play against same faction teams? That shouldn't be too hard to implement, and if we choose to have longer queue times for the sake of fun we should be allowed to do that.


Final question.

How exactly do you expect same faction teams to NOT have a negative overall effect on the MMR system in place? How do you expect to work around teams that are constantly changing members after losses.

How do you expect to clamp down on the obvious win trading that's going to result from this? How do you expect to clamp down on it when there's no record of what team plays against what team?


Do you guys really realize the amount of trouble this change is going to cause? Is it really worth it?


+1
I like the concept but I wonder how all this will fit in with the battlegrounds we currently have except for Sota, the theme of all of the rest of the zones appear to be Horde vs Alliance and I very much like the theme of the game.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum