4.2 Conquest change

General Discussion
Prev 1 2 3 4 26 Next
Rated bg rewards vs 2v2 were 100 percent fubar period. Something had to give. Whether this is the right action is debatable. What is not debatable is justifying people running 2v2 cheesing their cap in 30 minutes each week and getting top tier gear.
I think its also note worthy that 4 healers healing one tank is not skill either i was stocked about rbgs when i first heard about them. To be honest i was let down i thought hte rating system would rank ppl based on there performance in bgs(kills,damage,healing,objectives). Only to que and attack a invincible tank for 30minutes
05/12/2011 09:20 PMPosted by Sabrinakyle
What is not debatable is justifying people running 2v2 cheesing their cap in 30 minutes each week and getting top tier gear.


Why? Who cares? You'll still get full gear from doing it. Now it'll just take another week or 2.

Make all gear accessible without rating. Whine about player base getting full gear.
05/12/2011 09:18 PMPosted by Tracknoobs
"We want to waste your time and grind endlessly on 4 healers + 1 tank. Thanks for your money!"

And I forget to mention the wonders of ques
What if there was a rated BG bracket that *required* solo queue (HEAR ME OUT) where if you win your team stays together and keeps playing for MORE POINTS and if you lose you go back into the queue. Sorta like a lotto rated BG. 10 wins in a row awards XXXX amount of points etc.

And there is no longer a requirement to “grind” unrated BGs for Honor each season, so the real time investment isn't changing as much as some players are perceiving it to be ... We do feel this change is necessary to keep the time investment vs. high-quality item accumulation in check.


Very respectfully Zarhym, I have to say that this statement leads me to wonder if many in Blizz do not understand why we pvp. We do not pvp for gear or progression to the next instance. I feel that is a PVE perspective being thrown onto PVP. We play pvp because we enjoy the battles, the matches ... We enjoy PVP. period.

Battles are most fun for us when both sides are equally geared. The thrill is in using your skills and abilities to their fullest and giving it everything you have while the other side is doing the same making the match or battle close and exciting.

We would not quit battling or pvping once geared. Our point to gearing is simply so we can battle. We love playing the same battles over and over and over. We really do. We don't need progression. Progression is a PVE perspective.

We would love to play battles, arenas, and RBG's. RBG's are simply extremely difficult to form on some servers and in some factions.

This is what PVPers desire: gear us all - both sides - then let us battle using our skill, abilities, and strategy. We would play forever that way.

We realize our veiwpoint is incomprehensible to some due to these changes and due to statements such as the quote at the beginning. We also do understand there is a problem then that PVE'ers may gear up for PVE using PVP gear (although, really, PVE gear is better for PVE than PVP gear.)

We want to earn our gear; however, we don't PVP to gear; we gear to PVP. You can't use PVE ideology in designing PVP and have it be successful.

Pleasing us is simple: gear both sides, let us battle, get our Q's to pop, and fix the glitches. Once every few years or so, add a new battleground. Try to get more world pvp into the game. That's about it. Then, we will happily battle on forever.
05/12/2011 08:29 PMPosted by Zarhym
On top of that, the frank reality is that the total time investment required in season 9 to get all your points has been much, much too low, as you could do that from a few 2v2 Arena games each week completed in less than an hour’s time. It shows that Rated Battlegrounds are currently sub-par in terms of the rate at which points can be accumulated


The more I read this paragraph in particular, the more upset I become.

Previously, Arena wins were changed so that instead of awarding 20% of your cap per win, they awarded 135 points. This increased the amount of wins you need to cap (drastically depending on your rating), thus increasing the time requirement. Then, you hotfixed it to award 180 per win, so it stands to reason that you thought the time investment at 135 was too much and 180 is just right. That makes this change baffling.

And the last sentence is what really angers me. It states that RBGs are sub-par in terms of the rate at which you acquire points. So why not increase their rate of accumulation instead of decreasing ours? The term sub-par indicates that their rate isn't fine, so you change it. It's been the standard procedure since the dawn of time in MMORPGs. If something is underperforming, you make it better. You don't make everything else worse.
You aren't required to do RBGs. You'll just get fewer Conquest points.
Zarhym, I think you don't understand.

Rated Battle Grounds are simply not fun for most spec's.
Rated Battle grounds are just Arena with Larger teams and Objectives.
A lot of specs are left out simply because they aren't just as effective as others. There are Comps in rated battle grounds... certain classes are always more needed to others.

I feel that rated Battle Grounds need to be more like the old school battle grounds system.
But with a real system which not only counts win but all the things that you can do in battle grounds..... Capping flags, defending them. Killing Blows, Kills and Healing!

Honestly having two forms of high end pvp that require good class make up is not funn at all.


Yeah...what the heck are you talking about, mate?

Anyone that is honestly GOOD at BG's doesn't care about damage done or healing done. That scoreboard is useless for all intents and purposes. If you suddenly started giving points of some kind to most damage or most healed people would just start going around spamming aoe heals and damage trying to get the maximum amount of points, regardless of a victory. Even if you gave points for capping flags you'd just have a bunch of idiots standing in the middle of EOTS waiting for their turn to ignore everyone around them and get a chance to score points.

The system you're suggesting doesn't work. If it did, believe me Blizz would have implemented it in some way.

And sorry that you don't like the fact that there are best ways to do things in this game, but there are. Just like arena and rated bg's have best/ideal comps, PVE encounters have best ways to defeat scripted content. There will ALWAYS be a best way to do things, and because of that there will ALWAYS be a best comp in competitive PVP. Not every spec needs to be viable, or even should be viable.
Very respectfully Zarhym, I have to say that this statement leads me to wonder if many in Blizz do not understand why we pvp. We do not pvp for gear or progression to the next instance. I feel that is a PVE perspective being thrown onto PVP. We play pvp because we enjoy the battles, the matches ... We enjoy PVP. period.


I'll call BS right now lol. You are complaining about the rewards... if all you cared about was the PvP itself you would be PvPing right now and not be worried about the changes to rewards.
I just don't understand why Blizzard keeps trying to raise player participation in something that the community simply has little to no desire to do. It's not fun. People aren't going to do things that aren't fun.

It was one thing when the rewards kept growing. Throwing out more and more points, as well as specific titles and achievements, is one thing. But bribing players didn't work, so now they're "forcing" people to do them in order to cap their weekly allotment. That's kinda crazy.

Blizzard has shown it's willing to scrap great ideas when they just don't work. It's why 40 man raids, the dance studio, and Path of the Titans aren't in the game. Yet they keep wasting time trying to pimp out RBGs and other junk like Archaeology, another new Cata implementation that just isn't fun. They're not working.
05/12/2011 08:29 PMPosted by Zarhym
So, as many of you are interpreting this change, it is to encourage more participation in Rated Battlegrounds.


Anything that encourages more Rated Battleground groups is fine with me!
We want to earn our gear; however, we don't PVP to gear; we gear to PVP. You can't use PVE ideology in designing PVP and have it be successful.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum