Legion Battlegounds!

[Dristereau]

Need to fix existing ones first,

1) WSG Graveyard needs a protective bubble, teams should not be able to attack each other in this (Obviously Flag can't be taken in)
2) AV Bosses need to be scaled/buffed based on gear, plus an increase in Resource Limit to 1000
3) Graveyard Protection also for AB and EotS entry points, plus Graveyards in TP and DWG.
4) Redesign SSM as it is one of the crappest design maps in terms of balance I've ever seen.
5) Add flags to EotS Bases, similar to the Rated Version
6) Better scale the Defense Turrets in SotA, so they're viable

On top of this, I would also like to see,

1) Tol'Barad, Ashran and Wintergrasp added to the PVP Que
2) New AV Version with 3000 Resources and much stronger bosses for a longer game
3) New IoC Version with increased Keep durability and slight revamp for longer games
4) New IoC, New AV, Tol'Barad, Wintergrasp and Ashran classed as Large Scale Warfare as an option for separate que
5) WSG, AB, EotS, SotA, TP, SSM, DWG and ToK classed as Small Scale Warefare as an option for separate que
6) All current Battlegrounds listed as a Classic option que (WSG, AB, AV, EotS, SotA, IoC, TP, SSM, ToK and DWG
7) All Large Scale, Small Scale and AV/IoC classed as Call to Arms/Random que

Pretty much a revamp of current que options, to give players a choice in what to play into Classic/Current, Large Scale, Small Scale and Random. Let's players choose their favourite style of PVP based on Team size and game duration, with an option to still blacklist a Map of that current pick.

On top of this, I'd also want to see visual updates to WSG, AB, AV and EotS.

[ComputerNerd]

I'm not sure it's really relevant to be talking about this subject in such a way 7 years after it was added. They have added a lot of new BG's since then. I think Isle of Conquest is probably the only one I don't like. Twin Peaks is my favourite.

It is when that isn't a problem isolated to battlegrounds, nor to 7 years ago.
It was just a good example in the context of the current discussion.

[Cynical Person]

Any of the overwatch map types would be fun to play in wow.

[Toppy]

They said this same shit at the start of WoD.

I doubt they intend on adding any new BG maps. They'lll just keep repeating themselves until people get tired of hearing it, then cart out a new excuse.

[Caolela]

I call them psychologically manipulative and as someone who works in an area that assists recovering gambling addicts I find this skinner box bullshit offensive.

Absolutely. It's not lazy or stupid of Blizz, it's actually the best way for them to make greatest profit while spending the least overhead cost. They couldn't give a rat's ass if the customers like it or not, because they know they have a core base that will continue to be addicted, and/or have a lot of money & time into the game that they have to justify by staying in. It's only when they've pushed their luck to the max and people start leaving that Blizz starts to back off.

If anyone thinks a $4+ billion dollar corporation doesn't have some pretty sharp accountants/bean-counters crunching the numbers on these things daily, with 11.5 years of data and behavioral analysis to use, then they're sadly mistaken.

-----

On separating the large BGs as others have brought up -- I remember seeing threads on the official forums during MoP a couple of years ago that Blizz had mentioned perhaps taking AV, TB, WG, SotA, and IoC and putting them into a new format they called 'War Campaigns'. The idea seemed to get a lot of support on the forums but then suddenly - it slipped into the twisting nether and wasn't heard from again.

If I'm not mistaken, that was when GC was trotted out with the totally believable explanation that maps like AV needed serious overhauls and that AV itself, for example, was held together with 'baling wire and band-aids" etc., that they wouldn't know where to begin and blah blah...like it would be some enormous undertaking.

Apparently that was yet another of Blizz's cost-benefit analyses, where they decided it wouldn't make them enough return profit for the effort and overhead they might put in. But they rarely will say that. Instead, you'll get more shitty xpacs, more dumb grinds, less features and content, and get told that it's good.

[Toppy]

Does anyone actually want any new BG? So long as Holinka works at blizzard it would promise to be a terribly designed thing.

[Rawfury]

IOC first, then strands, then WSG...i mean feral/rogue bg

[Cynical Person]

Does anyone actually want any new BG? So long as Holinka works at blizzard it would promise to be a terribly designed thing.

There wouldn't be a thread or a discussion if the community didn't want new bgs... Thanks for contributing..

[Toppy]

There wouldn't be a thread or a discussion if the community didn't want new bgs... Thanks for contributing..

Thanks for being quiet dismissive. But this is a thread about BG's and what an addition of them would mean. It originally was just about how BG would cycle around, but your own second post derailed it into talking about what a new BG would be.

Technically Ashran is being added as its own sort of BG, and Ashran is a product of Holinka. Should we ever get a new BG, well, Ashran is a good example of what we can expect: untested, unbalanced, poorly made. Likewise, Holinka has overseen the addition of a MOBA BG which he stated was a failure in prior interviews.

[Cynical Person]

Thanks for being quiet dismissive.

It's my post tho

[Zafire]

A lot of hate for the vehicle BG's. Strand of the Ancients is the most "fair" BG there is. Each side has to deal with the same exact advantages and disadvantages.

My vote was for Gilneas and Twin Peaks.

Gilneas is the most boring BG there is to me. I always keep it blacklisted. There isn't any other variable to it besides "own two bases", and once you have two it's just run between point A and point B depending on where they decide to attack. It gets even more dull if the other side has a tank or two.

Twin Peaks is just another WSG. It's literally a copy in every way except the map is different. Same number of players, same objective, etc. Horde have a small advantage here due to the alliance base being at the top of the hill (Levitate or slowfall with the flag = lol).

I'm all for some diversity. I don't like things that are played the same as other things.

[Pvp guy]

@ Zafire, one could also make the case alli have the advantage because they can slowfall, levitate or glider( in randoms anyway) to the middle bridge and get halfway across the map well before horde can.

On topic tho, I'd be happy if they allowed a 3rd bg to blacklist rather than cram a new likely shitty designed bg down our throats

[Klingers]

Apparently that was yet another of Blizz's cost-benefit analyses, where they decided it wouldn't make them enough return profit for the effort and overhead they might put in. But they rarely will say that. Instead, you'll get more shitty xpacs, more dumb grinds, less features and content, and get told that it's good.

...Which basically sums up WoD to a tee, right? More expensive box price, 2 raid tiers, no new battlegrounds or arenas, no new profession, no new race or class, very poor post-launch support. Plus Apexis.

[kappas]

Why there is no "None" option?

[Caolela]

...Which basically sums up WoD to a tee, right? More expensive box price, 2 raid tiers, no new battlegrounds or arenas, no new profession, no new race or class, very poor post-launch support. Plus Apexis.

Yes, and since they already have the 'WoD model' and players are acclimated to it now, they'll keep doubling down on it.

That's why they introduced the idea of RBG boxes for PvP...but started with only one BiS item being exclusively RNG at first, (Accolade trinket), or the lucky gem slot items because it would be too much of a shock all at once not to have vendors too. It's obvious that they had fully planned to eventually go whole hog with RNG after MoP, no matter what players liked. Same for ability prune.

Anything that drags out time in game with little reward, while producing very little or no new content = max $$ return for Blizz, for the least amount invested.

If people feel like they're getting screwed, that's because they are.

[ParanoiD84]

Strand is the most boring one.

[Aleax]

I just read an article stating they are working on new battlegrounds but they might cycle old ones out.

Which BG would you want cycled out?

Which BG format would you like added in Legion?

Nothing shoud be cycled out.

They should add new bgs, and depending of the day of the week, we will be allowed to queue for some of them, not all at once. No need to cycle out bgs that way, there will always be people to play with or against in the few bgs of the day.

Also making Tol Barad, Wintergrasp, and probably soon Ash'ran, monthly events is spot on (as devs are thinking about this right now).

Making old bgs a monthly event might work too.

[Cynical Person]

Why there is no "None" option?

Just because the blizzard post I read stated if they were to implement more BGs they would likely cycle a few old ones out.

[ItachiZaku]

AB and WSG. I black list them as soon as I can. I play a lot of lowbie PVP (while unsubbed), so those just get useless after level 19. Plus, already battlemaster like most of the rest of you, so no real point aside from farming mid then GY and sitting at BS for 50-60 near afk kills.

[gaz770]

Strand of the Ancients.
Make the doors attackable by player but really low like 90% damage reduction from players.
Wouldn't be that bad.

Or only the first door then you have to use bombs and tank.

Really hate this BG urhgh.