Battlegrounds - Duration vs Reward

[Nurvus]

It has always irked me a little how reward works in Battlegrounds.

The current system favors unbalanced match-ups - the ones that are very fast due to a huge difference in team efficiency.
In turn, balanced games are BAD because they'll last much longer without giving appropriately bigger reward.
Some Battlegrounds amplify the negative aspects of this, as they last exponentially longer the more tightly matched teams are.

Arena matches are pretty much the same. Reward does not change whether the game lasted 40 minutes or 5.

How battlegrounds work:

Strand of the Ancients
Scenario #1 - One team is much better, and starts as attacker
- Probably a quick match since you'll most likely zerg them, and then they need to be even faster than you. If you take 3 minutes, the match will last 6 minutes tops.
Scenario #2 - Teams are evenly matched
- If teams play offensive, it's reasonably okay.
- If teams play defensive, it can be worse than Scenario #3, as each Round could last 10 minutes.
Scenario #3 - One team is much better, and starts as defender
- Unless the better team lets them zerg and then beats the crap out of them on the 2nd round (and risks failing), the match is likely to take 10 minutes on round 1.

Warsong Gulch & Twin Peaks
- Fast if a team is much better
- Decent if teams are evenly matched and play for the objective
- Awful if teams just want to gank and don't protect flag carrier

Battle for Gilneas & Arathi Basin
- Fast BG overall. Only bad if teams constantly ping-pong the capture points.

Alterac Valley & Isle of Conquest
- Fast farm if both teams zerg boss.
- Decent if both teams are
- Awful if teams are full of gankers who constantly let the opposing team foil their objectives (because they're too busy ganking).
---

Anyone feels the reward system should be changed to somehow take into account time spent in the BG, and make evenly matched games fun instead of frustrating?

[kombucha]

... correct me if I'm wrong but even matches should be by their very nature fun. Anyone who gages the enjoyment of an activity on the swiftness of their success is playing for the wrong reasons.

also, no, I think the idea of rewards being proportional to time spent is unnecessary and potentially exploitable.

[Nurvus]

That is a little naive.
Ofcourse players play for fun, but that doesn't stop certain factors from being detrimental to that fun.

I didn't say the rewards should be proportional to time spent.
I said the rewards should take into account the time spent.

Proportional to time spent = time & reward grow at the same rate. 10 minutes = X. 20 minutes = 2 times X.
Take into account the time spent = grow at a rate that will make long matches feel less punitive.

[Deleted]

One of the problems with BG's, is that (as you stated) they can be very unbalanced both skill, gear and setup wise. Add to that, you have the people who only join to boost their HK's, to farm KB's or to simply just leech. What I find most annoying, is when you have a BG like AB that can actually take a while, if the teams are about even. Then at the end your team fucks up because people decide to push for an extra base and end up loosing it all together. Well, spending 20+ mins just to loose, after doing your best at winning, just to be rewarded with 130 HP is rather fail imo.

Basically, I check the people on my team (unless it's IoC or AV) and if too many of them have crap gear, I just leave. It's not worth spending 10+ mins loosing, when the "reward" for loosing is so low. Then I might as well soak the debuff, log an alt or do something else for 15 mins.

So yeah, I agree that the time spend should be taken into consideration when talking about rewards. The only problem with this, is that it will also reward bots and afk'ers, making it viable for them to actually just leech even more. So maybe a system, where reward was more based on individual effort. Probably not going to happen though and ofc it would be hard to implement, since defending a base that isn't being attacked, makes you "inactive".

But hopefully the BG's will get a revamp in MoP. Specially IoC and AV, those 2 are just terrible tbh.

[PizzaSHARK]

I'll usually leave a game if it looks like it's gonna take a while without being interesting. I had a WSG a couple days ago where we won 2-1 by grabbing their flag and playing keep-away for the last six minutes of the game, but I had fun the entire time because both teams were evenly matched and playing properly.

I've also had games where we lost 2-0 and never really had a chance; we were good enough to stop them from getting that last flag (usually due to me and one or two other tryhards who refused to simply sit in GY and wait for them to cap out), but there was never a real chance of actually winning. I tend to leave those games and go back to breaking rocks with my face.

I'd really prefer it if rewards for winning and losing BGs (in terms of bonus honor awarded at the end, not for honor gained from completing objectives) were equal. Yes, I know that'd encourage botting, but it really doesn't seem like Blizzard's doing anything significant about it to begin with, and it's ridiculous to spend 30 minutes in a BG busting your ass to try and win and walk out with 50 honor when the other team is walking out with 200.

[Deleted]

Support this entirely.

[bandet]

I thought they mentioned they were working on an improved queing system similarly to LFD's, so the bg will have a certain number of healers, at least.

That by itself would do more than anything to improve bgs.

[Deleted]

I think one of the problems with BG's is the current ratio of honour gain from the random BG win/loss honour. It outweighs the honour from objectives and HK's by far too much. It's meant to be a reward to encourage people to queue random, but the relative gain from running random means it is now a case in masochism to try for honour by queueing for the BG's you like, instead of merely being less than optimal.

[NPEC]

I belive the reward i get for entering in a bg is, in average, good.

Now the thing is for me reward is not only points but also the fun i get for playing the bg, so even when the game drags and i get less points per minute i will almost ever get more fun per minute making the bg very rewarding.

Ofc this is not always the case but what happens in the majority of cases.

[smokii]

I thought they mentioned they were working on an improved queing system similarly to LFD's, so the bg will have a certain number of healers, at least.

That by itself would do more than anything to improve bgs.

i think that, coupled with the idea i saw the other day for CTF type bg's where instead of a damage taken debuff flag carriers get a healing debuff instead.

[Mikael123]

To the OP:
I don't read any reasons as to why the system should be changed.
Why are long duration BG's a bad thing? Long BG durations means the teams are evenly matched. To me that makes the BG fun.
You claim evenly matched games are frustrating. Why do you feel that way? Do you play only for the honor / valor reward?
You want to take time spent into account when determining rewards. And yet in a reply you say rewards should not be proportional to time spent. I think you're contradicting yourself there.
BG's are already giving more rewards the longer time you spend in them. More time spent normally means more HK's which equals more honor.

[Deleted]

Sooo, 2 flag caps in WSG, farm GY until 1 min is left and turn in last flag for maximum honour? Did I miss something?

[bandet]

i think that, coupled with the idea i saw the other day for CTF type bg's where instead of a damage taken debuff flag carriers get a healing debuff instead.

It would have to be -% healing and -% to absorbs as someone else pointed out, to prevent disc priests from becoming dominant.

Even still, wouldn't be hard.

[bandet]

The first part of your statement is like saying "if you like the color red you are wrong in your likes". You don't get to decide that for anyone else. If you play a game that is competitive by nature and the object is to win and you get some type of reward for the victory you might find the victory is what makes it fun.

Monty python begs to differ.

Saying anything but blue banishes you into oblivion.

[ophion1990]

What would that reward be? The problem is alot of people don't give a fuck about HP right now and just want more HKs, and how can you blame them... HP are useless once you're geared up since the trade goods you can buy are sold at an all time low at this part in the xpack. And most BGs are annoying when teams are evenly matched, AB/BfG are fun, but TP/WSG/Strands with evenly matched/geared teams is just stupid, especially if there are 2 or more healers around (this is true for RBG TP/WSG aswell), you just wait for 4+ debuffs or you can't even scratch the other team, especially not since there is so little coordinated CC in random BGs.

Sooo, 2 flag caps in WSG, farm GY until 1 min is left and turn in last flag for maximum honour? Did I miss something?

People always just cap because "it's faster honor and they can que for another BG fast", I don't get it either.

[enphestid]

Don't really play bgs for a reward. Just to kill people and sometimes the objective of the map , 50/50. If they do increase or introduce something like gold or whatever , wont really matter to me at all. Just queue for fun , unless its one of those first week of opening xpac pvp seasons , then its a grind =p.

[Count Zero]

Best thing they could do for BGs would be to introduce a new BG with no objectives -- most HKs wins, but the win/loss bonuses are substantially lower than battlegrounds with objectives. That way people who want to farm HKs or just fight other players aren't screwing up games for people who want to complete objectives / farm honor.

[Raugnaut]

If my memory isnt failing me, back when BGs where first introduced, with the 3 day-long AVs, the 3 hour long WSG matchs that were common, ect, the reward was generally 3 Medals of Honor if you won, and NONE if you lost (I could be wrong there, could be you get 1 for losses). Anyway, matches are now FAR shorter then they ever have been- AV is really the only one that can take the possible longest, a max of 600 kills if no towers/generals are downed for whichever reason, and that rarely happens.

If you compare it to PvE time/reward, the fastest that a BG can complete can be a few minutes if the skill ratio is way out of balance (5 capping/holding pretty close to the beggining of AB can have a match that lasts for about 2 mins- 1 minute to get everything capped, and another to go from 0 to 1600.) If you look at PvE, the minimum time you can run a dungeon in, with your average pugs, is about 20-30 mins. If you get in a super group, may be able to make 15 mins, while if you get in a sucky group, you are either out in 2 mins, with a 15 min debuff, or you wipe for hours.

PvP is FAR more better in terms of duration vs rewards when compared to PvE- A skilled/lucky BG group can get a BG done in under 5 minutes, while a failing bg can only take, at max, 25 minutes to loose. You get rewards for failing, AND you get far greater rewards for winning- in PvE, you MAY get rewards for winning- at max, lots new shiny gear+VP, at min, only VP. You get NOTHING for failing, and actually loose- loose gold, time, ect.

Finally, in PvP, you acquire HP throughout a battle- points for kills, objectives,ect.

If you want quick matches, drop BGs, and get into pure dps Arena/RBGs.

[count dante]

I think the rewards for the BGs are fine. As mentioned above, thankfully the marathon WSG and AV's (that is no stretch to see them for days) are gone and you get honor for just getting in there win or lose. So at least if you are in garbage gear, put in enough time and you will see something even if it is not as fast.

Nowadays, I only queue for AB, EotS, Gil (my favorite), and the occasional flag run. The 40's are just not very fun anyway and Gil is fun even when the PuG youa re on gets beat.

[bandet]

I want old AV back. Give me my 3 day long battlegrounds.


I don't care if you don't like long BGS. Don't que up for it, and remove it from random. Problem solved, whiners.