More BG's pl0x

Prev 1 12 13 14 16 Next
07/22/2011 12:43 PMPosted by Brammiust
I swear to god if you add requirements for Bgs.... Thats the whole reason i avoid PvE. Elitest's that require you to have perfect gear and to have already done the dungeon. It sickens me. I like pvp. Easy to get into and addicting. You dont have lockouts and if you die its your fault.


07/22/2011 11:37 AMPosted by Aldanis
The sad part of Isle of Conquest though is that it's in the random rotation, meaning we have to endure it or afk and go read a book until deserter debuff wears off.


07/23/2011 08:45 AMPosted by Saphila
I think both SotA and IoC are excelent BGs. SotA is VERY different from all the other BGs. If you dont like dispelling, giving cover for others and you always want to top the meters and boards AND still win, then obviously SotA isnt for you. God forbid some team work and selfless behavior win something. Go farm mid in WSG and (of course) get !@#$%ed at for it. IoC is also a very interesting BG IMO. It has vehicles and smash mouth PvP in it. I love it. Horde hardly ever wins it in my battlegroup, but thats a different problem all together.

Alot of people find the notion of attacking vehicles kind of boring. Warsong gulch and AB have all that you like without the need to break down walls with vehicles. People can be just as retarded when it comes to farming kills in Sota as any other bg.
Make a BG like a Counter-Strike match IMO. You need to escort and plant a bomb on a critical horde/alliance weapons cache. Players can kill the bomb holder to delay the other team and camp it, or if the enemy deploys the bomb you can disarm it. It would be like an AB flag, planting it in the destruction zone would require a cast time, and so would disarming it. Give both teams a set amount of resources so that it won't have to be time limit based.
Alright, I understand the mechanics for making Battlegrounds are more complicated than PvE instances. Fine. They should be. However, if you're going to have PvP as a part of the game, it should receive the same amount of attention that PvE gets. Hell, right now I'd settle for HALF as many BGs as there are instances, set up on a rotation to keep them fresh, but not dilute the PvP population down to 2 hr queue times.

If creative input is what's lacking, you need look no farther than your own forums. I along with MANY others have submitted well thought out BG concepts to you FREE OF CHARGE. If you want my GOOD ideas, you know, the ones I spend more than 20 minutes throwing together, it'll cost ya.
They should be more creative, they have plenty of money and time to do something like that.

We’d like to. We certainly haven't forgotten about the PvP community at all and we do a lot of PvP oriented behind the scenes work right now. While not very much of that effort is channeled into creating new maps at the moment, we would definitely like to increase the variety of Battleground and Arena maps that are available in the future. That's where things get sticky, though. One might think that creating a Battleground is a pretty simple process (they look simple, right?), but it's not.

Part of the reason is that Battlegrounds are like ducks. A duck looks like it effortlessly glides across the water, but their little feet are actually working madly beneath the surface to make it happen. Battlegrounds are the same way. They may look simple -- even static -- to a casual observer, but in reality there's an incredible number of very complicated processes going on behind the scenes. Part of the reason for this is due to a lot of technical hurdles that need to be jumped to make them perform as seamlessly as they do, battle after battle. As a result, it's actually extremely difficult to design Battlegrounds, partially due to the technical limitations that are currently in place.

The other part of the reason is that Battlegrounds (and Arena maps, for that matter) require a higher degree of polish than a PvE map does. If a bit of geometry causes you to hang up, or blocks line of sight in a dungeon or raid, then in the majority of circumstances you can probably just work around it until it's fixed. If the same flaw exists in a bg or arena map, then that imperfection might be exploited for an unfair advantage, which runs contrary to the spirit of fair competition we want in that kind of PvP. We know that a lot of the PvP community is ultimately more interested in having perfectly balanced and bug-free maps to play on, than they necessarily are in having new maps to play on.

The other thing to keep in mind is that, while boss mechanics might differ from raid to raid, broadly speaking all dungeons and raids have the same rule set (that is, they have raid locks and you have to run back to the portal when you wipe and so on). BGs and Arenas tend to have highly individual rule sets. The result is that, in addition to the factors I’ve already mentioned, we also have to craft every BG essentially by hand every time. We’d like to develop a tool to create PvP maps in the same way we have a tool we can use to create bosses or a tool we can use to create items. Such a tool would let us create BGs and other PvP-oriented maps more readily. That's something that we're working toward now, but it's time consuming and exacting work, and still quite a ways off.

Still, ultimately we think all this effort will pay off, and we're confident that you'll feel the same way. In the meantime, there are still plenty of players of the opposing faction to send back to the Spirit Healer, and we hope you can continue to have fun making red dead wherever you find it.

IMHO I would settle for LESS maps right now, removing Isle from the rotation considering it is completely horribly designed. Join isle at any given time and you will have a large amount of people testifying how much they LOATHE the bg. AV bosses need to be buffed to force pvp in the bg. Eye of the storm flag capping mechanic is broken, we lost an RBG because of it not capping when we run over the point. Just fix what we have and I propose putting a seperate queue in for the 40 man bgs, maybe award more honor for them even if people want to do those bgs. Personally I prefer the small tight knit team oriented and balanced maps like WSG, Twin Peaks, and AB, to a lesser extent Eye of the Storm(knockback mechanics still are OP as hell in mid and almost every tower+bridge). Battle for Gil needs tweaking for the graveyards or just have 2 starting GYs that you always rez at, I hate when I sometimes get rez'd at WW or LH and other times even when we are controlling the node I get sent back to mines when I am fighting right on the flags.
Either way all I am saying is there are too many flaws in the current battlegrounds, finish and polish the maps before releasing them to rated bgs, as for random bgs ill let it slide considering it isn't such a serious part of gameplay. Also I saw a comment saying to design more CTF maps that doesn't seem like much to ask either BUT please fix what we have now, only warsong and ab have been perfected and the blinking on bridges in ab still pisses me off btw but after 5 years I've lost all hope that it would be completely fixed.
Just wanted to vent a little as well as share some of the experiences I have acquired over the last 5 years of playing this game and pvp being the one thing in this game that I love unconditionally.
i like the sillithus idea.. i would love to see horde and alliance battleing there again.. really would inspire alot of people to pvp again
World pvp sucks atm because all of the guards hit to hard and have to many hitpoints imo
no more pve bg's please. SoTA, IoC, and AV can suck it
07/20/2011 10:59 AMPosted by Daxxarri
Battlegrounds are like ducks

Wait, what?
DAxxari if you do anything helpful for us players, tell Blizz to abandon siege warfare. its so freakin dumb.
I have a good idea for a new BG.
Take Stormwind and add a flag in each district. Close up all buildings.
It would basically be an alliance defense.

Horde would start at Harbor with the boat pull up like in SotA.
Alliance would start just outside the main gates a little ways to make distance to the battle field fair.
Same mechanics as AB.

Or take SW and have it be like a IoC where horde enters from both gates and tries to kill King Varian. The you reverse it and have alliance do the same for Orgrimmar. The alliance entering from the North and West gates and try to kill the Warchief. And there would only be closed gates at entrance for the attacking team and no siege engines. So it wont go on forever a 15 minute timer.

And all you do is slightly redesign the cities and add the objectives.

Leave siege engines and other vehicles out of it.
Large flat map, preferably something arid, desert sand perhaps? Like the old area bellow thousand needles. That long white map? That and thirty alliance/horde. Having a massive slaughter fest.

But you only get 1 life.
It would be nice if the new PvP maps weren't a variation of capture the flag. Might even be nice to see a simple map for BG's where the entire focus was just an epic battle between players with the winning side is the one with the most kills at the end of say 10 mins. No capture the flag, collect resources, or any goal other than face planting the enemy for 10 mins.

There are tons of ideas out there that can be simple, fun and easily balanced.

It's mind boggling they haven't had a pure fight it out bg yet.

People want to fight.

Not cap.


Not ride a 2 button tank.


Not run a flag.
Hey, steal Rift's idea and have a keep-away type map.
No more BGs.
Personally, I like the BGs that came out with Cata. Due to the fact that they have exact mechanics of the old school bgs, but a little bit "simpler" i guess, in terms of Battle of Gilneas only has 3 flags, whereas AB has 5. Twin Peaks is almost just a remake of WSG, which I have no problem with. I'm a huge fan of old school bg's.

One of my only problems is the spawning issue I've been seing lately in Battle of Gilneas. There were many instances where I'd be defending WW or LH while we had it under our control, and when I'd die and respawn, it'd spawn me back on our starting spawn or Mines gy. In the end, we lose that node.
However, the BGs that came with WoTLK are just simply fail.
While the concept of IoC sounds fun in theory, that's as far as it goes. The poor mechanics, large population requirement for a bg and OP siege/Glaives really drag it down. The "boss" fight seems very limited thinking. Tank and Spank. Oh ya, they have an aoe that almost kills everybody. And it can't be avoided.'s ok. IF I had to choose one of these evils, whether it be IoC or SoTA, i guess i'd have to say SoTA, only due to the fact that there's a good chance that it will be over sooner, unlike the "latest re-creation/design" that is AV and IoC, which seem to drag on and on.
WoTLK bgs were a huge fail imo. Personally, I'd like to see these 2 bgs removed, or at least removed from the "random" rotation, and the spawning issue in BoG fixed. I personally dread it when I get either of these 2 bgs.
Is there some sort of track record that would show which bgs are played the most during their weekened?
Like for example, during WSG weekened, do more players single q for WSG specifically, as compared to say an IoC weekened which we had recently?
Is there a record that can compare which bgs are q'd for most during the said bg weekened?
Because during IoC and SoTA weekened, I just q'd for a random and hoped I never got any of those bgs during their weekeneds.
Or either of the 2 at all when I q for pvp, which is quite a lot.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum