Skip to Content
3-08-2011 @ 8:16AM
I, like you, was personally a bit disappointed with the way rated battlegrounds turned out. Being a late entry to WoW, coming in shortly after Wrath dropped, I never had the opportunity to earn one of the battleground PvP titles. I was overjoyed when I heard they were coming back, but the system we've been handed has rained on my parade to say the least.I concur with your assessment that allowing rating to be affected by any old random battleground could cannonball the rating of good players, but I suggest that there would be ways to mitigate this. Have the rating stem from your actions in the battleground, rather than from the win/loss. You cap a flag? Points. You kill 20 players in a row without dying? Points (possibly with streak multiplier..) And so on.Because of the 15 man, 10 man requirement you either have to rely on a guild group - very difficult when you're in a small guild, like the one I keep most of my alts in for social reasons - or you have to PuG. Tried Pugging for one of those? We run into the PvP equivalent of "Link ach for inv" - "What's your rating?". If you have a low rating, through not having managed to build one up, or worse yet have not managed to compete at all yet, then good luck to you - it's not going to be easy.Simply put, if you're not in a large guild or one that is oriented toward PvP, then many people will find this section of the game locked to them. Far more so, I would argue, than with raiding.
3-08-2011 @ 8:45AM
My issue with these ways to get personal ratings from PUGs (flag caps, # of kills, etc) is that in proper run BG's, one player may have been the most valuable player on the map and not use any of your "requirements" to get any points. These types of incentives discourage playing defense (you get more kills on offense rather than standing by this graveyard for 3 min while it caps) you get fights over who carries the flag, who gets to "assault" a base, etc. Having personal rating come from things YOU did in the BG overall discourages team play, which is the OPPOSITE of what BG's are about and what they need.I've not gotten to play many Rated BG's myself because I find it hard to find groups, I hate that... but the alternative, while nice on the surface, when you break it down goes against the BG grain... I like how it is now, there is accountability within the group (you screw up, the group knows, and won't invite you back for another BG) and you get just as much credit for the win standing guard at Fel Reaver as the guy who captured 14 flags.. which in a good BG group both jobs are equally important.
3-08-2011 @ 8:51AM
For anyone not following my previous post, let me give an example:I have a REALLY nice GFX Card, so in BG's like EoTS and AB, I can stand at a node playing defense and see pretty much every node ( given terrain issues like AB, its hard to see enemy players at the mines when you're at the lumber mill). But I can stand here at my one node playing D and never have an enemy player come attack... Throw this in with my ability to see basically the entire field and I can call out enemy movement to my team. I may just be the MVP of my team for my contribution, but the game would barely be able to determine the diff between me and a bot.The gray areas are why the system exists as it does today.
3-08-2011 @ 9:11AM
Blizzard screwed up, IMO.They should have been done exactly like the Dungeon Finder Groups - YOu queue up for a Rated Battleground, either a specific one or a random one and let the "Rated Battleground Finder" put you into a group automatically -OR- you can join as a group with a pre-made team.Instead, Blizzard made it so you HAVE to start a pre-made group BEFORE you enter a Rated Battleground, and thus, ruined what could have been some good Battlegroudn action.It sucks now. It's too small too - boring 10v10 or 15v15 or whatever stupid garbage Blizard dreamed up.------Let us run AV as a Rated Battleground with randomly created 40 v. 40 teams-----Otherwise, GTFO off my monitor because it's just another wasted idea by Blizzard to shrink the idea of a "Massively" Multiplayer game./rant over
3-08-2011 @ 9:51AM
Netherscourge, the purpose of Rated BGs was to provide an entirely new approach to BGs, one that would almost require working together and strategizing....much like Raiding.What you're asking for is just Battlegrounds 2.0. It functionally wouldn't be any different and would instead reward Conquest Points.Tell me...if Rated BGs were exactly like BGs, except with better rewards, then who do you think would queue for normal BGs? Absolutely nobody. Blizzard would then be left with the decision of scrapping Rated BGs entirely.
3-08-2011 @ 10:30AM
Tell me...if Rated BGs were exactly like BGs, except with better rewards, then who do you think would queue for normal BGs? Absolutely nobody. Blizzard would then be left with the decision of scrapping Rated BGs entirely.^This.
3-08-2011 @ 10:37AM
I have to agree with loop_not_defined. Netherscourge, isn't what you said the exact same thing as the Battleground Finder we've got now - except it's conquest points?
3-08-2011 @ 1:42PM
I should be able to pug rated BG's cause I pay 15 dollars a month and want my conquest points to buy epics. I don't wanna put the effort to find a group and practice with them cause I pay 15 dollars a month and I want my points. herp a derp.
First time? A confirmation email will be sent to you after submitting.
Members enter your username and password.
Enter your AOL or AIM screenname and password.
Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments.
When you enter your name and email address, you'll be sent a link to confirm your comment, and a password. To leave another comment, just use that password.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.