Why not add a new BG everytime you add a new Raid?

[looopy]

So wow seems to only add bg's only with the new expansions but it seems silly because they add raids every few months. Are bgs really that hard to make? Why can't they release a new one every patch? Doing the same three warzones is gonna get old fast in ToR, why dont they adopt this one warzone a patch method?

[Haggers]

Who says they won't release warzones more frequently than wow adds BGs?

Game hasn't even gone live yet and you're complaining... I blame your parents for not beating you enough and trying to make you feel like a special little snowflake.

[DaGhostDS]

wait for release for things like that..

[looopy]

Who says they won't release warzones more frequently than wow adds BGs?

Game hasn't even gone live yet and you're complaining... I blame your parents for not beating you enough and trying to make you feel like a special little snowflake.

I may have phrased my thread wrong, but im not complaining, im more asking the question -- do bg's take alot of development time? they seem pretty straight forward to me but i could be wrong. I'm not saying tor will follow wows model necessarily.

[Smitzelplix]

If they were to add a bg every patch I highly expect them to have to repeat certain aspects from their previous bgs. Look at WoW, Cata had an AB and WSG clone. If Bioware did a bg every patch they would probably hit the rehash zone much quicker.

That does leave the question of what pvp type matches would people even want to see?

[Karteli]

So wow seems to only add bg's only with the new expansions but it seems silly because they add raids every few months. Are bgs really that hard to make? Why can't they release a new one every patch? Doing the same three warzones is gonna get old fast in ToR, why dont they adopt this one warzone a patch method?

erm .. Warzones

They were really fun, I did alot of em during the weekend. It would be great though to have a nice big selection to have available though.

Create your own Warzone to submit for review would be such a tremendous hit.

[nazrakin]

If they were to add a bg every patch I highly expect them to have to repeat certain aspects from their previous bgs. Look at WoW, Cata had an AB and WSG clone. If Bioware did a bg every patch they would probably hit the rehash zone much quicker.

That does leave the question of what pvp type matches would people even want to see?

I've never understood why Blizz always had to have different game types. A lot of the new games were overly complex and boring, and as a result no body plays them. Having different maps for the same tried and true game types is a better method IMO. Thats how almost all the other big multiplayer games work.

[Eec003]

So wow seems to only add bg's only with the new expansions but it seems silly because they add raids every few months. Are bgs really that hard to make? Why can't they release a new one every patch? Doing the same three warzones is gonna get old fast in ToR, why dont they adopt this one warzone a patch method?

dont worry man, evidently a new model takes thousands of dollars to create for well of eternity and yet blizzard can't seem to find it in themselves to hire a few extra people....lol.

in response to the people saying wait, it's been 7 years....and we only have a few new ones.

[Zequill]

A raid replace a other one. BG don't remplace other BG. Or you might want the new BG to give good pvp gear?

[ohnoto]

I'm not a huge PvP'er, but I do occasionally like to go into them. I'm not sure if a new BG is needed with every raid patch, but getting one around half way to an expansion would be good. I would also like to see a 16 or 32 man warzone. (since they like to do thing divisible by 4)

[Merendel]

Also remember the more BG's/Warzones there are the greater the population spread becomes. Raids become obsolete as the tiers progress effectively meaning there is no reason to take large numbers of people back to them at a time focusing all raiders into the most recent raids. a BG does not obsolete over time so each one is as valid a destination as the others. While some may prefer one over another the spread of players will be relatively even assuming all BG's are equally enjoyable and balanced.

However as the number of BG's goes up the number of players in each goes down. Where with only 3 BG's your server may have the numbers to field 3 of each battle at once when they put in a total of 9 BG's there are only enough for 1 battle of each. Any more BG's added means at least 1 will be empty, possibly more of folks are waiting for queues in separate BG's as several queues do not have the numbers to start. Cross server BG's alleviate this a bit but then you loose the sense of fighting against a consistent set of foes and it becomes the faceless masses wow BG's have become.

There are also only so many ways to lay out a combat scenario in a balanced manner needed for an MMO. Eventually you have to repeat the scenario with slightly different backgrounds. Variety may be the spice of life but the devs need to balance variety with the detrimental effects of rehashing the same thing and over defusing the population.

[Roose]

More does not mean better.

Quality over quantity any day. Do not make new warzones until all current warzones are balanced.

No player-controlled vehicles either, please.

[Karteli]

Also remember the more BG's/Warzones there are the greater the population spread becomes. Raids become obsolete as the tiers progress effectively meaning there is no reason to take large numbers of people back to them at a time focusing all raiders into the most recent raids. a BG does not obsolete over time so each one is as valid a destination as the others. While some may prefer one over another the spread of players will be relatively even assuming all BG's are equally enjoyable and balanced.

However as the number of BG's goes up the number of players in each goes down. Where with only 3 BG's your server may have the numbers to field 3 of each battle at once when they put in a total of 9 BG's there are only enough for 1 battle of each. Any more BG's added means at least 1 will be empty, possibly more of folks are waiting for queues in separate BG's as several queues do not have the numbers to start. Cross server BG's alleviate this a bit but then you loose the sense of fighting against a consistent set of foes and it becomes the faceless masses wow BG's have become.

There are also only so many ways to lay out a combat scenario in a balanced manner needed for an MMO. Eventually you have to repeat the scenario with slightly different backgrounds. Variety may be the spice of life but the devs need to balance variety with the detrimental effects of rehashing the same thing and over defusing the population.

With the level bracket being humungous, I don't see this as a problem, especially when random warzones are formed, and thus players don't queue for individual warzones, but chunks of 20 (10 each side etc) are collected and put together on a random map. So whether there are 3 warzones or 300, it wouldn't spread the population, only decrease the chance of everyone getting into a specific warzone.

I'm strongly against cross-realm in any event.

[Xeones]

I've never understood threads like this. You want a dozen AB's that just have slightly varying maps? Really? PvP content simply doesn't age at the same rate PvE content does.

[Merendel]

With the level bracket being humungous, I don't see this as a problem, especially when random warzones are formed, and thus players don't queue for individual warzones, but chunks of 20 (10 each side etc) are collected and put together on a random map. So whether there are 3 warzones or 300, it wouldn't spread the population, only decrease the chance of everyone getting into a specific warzone.

I'm strongly against cross-realm in any event.

True its more of an issue with wow but it can still crop up. Some people may prefer specific warzones and not being able to get them consistently would still become an issue with too many rehashes of the same scenario.

[vizzle]

I really couldn't care less if there were 5 BGs or 50. It's all going to get old after a while. What they need to do is have GW2-esque pvp tournaments so that content won't get stale.

[Deleted]

So wow seems to only add bg's only with the new expansions but it seems silly because they add raids every few months. Are bgs really that hard to make? Why can't they release a new one every patch? Doing the same three warzones is gonna get old fast in ToR, why dont they adopt this one warzone a patch method?

I'm not sure the warzones will wear off fast. (I never tired of Warsong for instance). A couple of maps for the same kind of pvp challenge could be nice though. Might happen too, who knows what the future holds.

[Loaf Lord]

I don't know about EVERY raid patch, but I would like them released more frequently than wow, and not the same objective but different zone.

[vizzle]

Silly, when someone bad gets noticed lots of people say "wait til release, you dont know what happens", but all the time all celebrate the game without even being released....strange

But the responses to PvP in swtor is generally not good. Weekend testers could not test it, that is why no one really knowsa how it will be beside these peple who can test the whole time.

Oh really? The responses to pvp are generally not good? Thanks for letting us know, because I've been seeing the opposite.

[Deleted]

Silly, when someone bad gets noticed lots of people say "wait til release, you dont know what happens", but all the time all celebrate the game without even being released....strange

But the responses to PvP in swtor is generally not good. Weekend testers could not test it, that is why no one really knowsa how it will be beside these peple who can test the whole time.

This is odd, I played last week end and could test the pvp.
My response was good.
Besides, people who celebrate the game may have ... say, tested the beta and were impressed by what they tested ?
How is it silly to imagine something may or may not happen ? No new battlegrounds won't mean less enjoyable pvp; a few more couldn't hurt.