Are RBGs ruined?

[Sicarius87]

Please keep this thread civil and on topic. Id like to have a well thought out discussion regarding the current standing of RBGs.

With that being said, do you thinking earning conquest for losses is a good thing or a bad thing? Do you think it has ruined RBG's because of this system? I personally think that it has as it has brought too many YOLO groups into OQ and trade chat and introduced people that dont know what they are doing and allowing people to gear characters for losing. Gone seem to be the groups where people use voice, coordinate and actually try to win and push rating.

Why should people who lose a battle be granted a prize?

I realize people are going to come in here and say "why not run with a guild or friends". The answer to that might be because since we are at the end of an expansion people are finding the game dull and boring and have unsubbed and moved on to something else more fun until WoD is released. Things like OQ to pug RBGs is very useful to have but if people are going to treat the system seriously, that doesnt leave many options for people that actually WANT to advance.

What are you thorughts? Please vote and tell me why you voted the way you have.

[Gumboy]

Conquest for losses did not ruin RBGS, rbgs were always awful. People have cheated/glitched/ddos'ed at high mmr for there entire existence. The MC-Run person to special spot on twin peaks is STILL in the game, insta dc. That was there the first day I did twin peaks RBG. When it first came out.

[Sicarius87]

It's even worse off now though since that there are next to no groups for rbgs in OQ outside of yolo. Once they implemented conq for losses and your character scaling conquest cap to catch up, it pretty much made it dead in the water. IMO

[Malgru]

conquest for losses isnt what killed rbgs; ddos is

there are people that rbg for conquest and people that rbg for rating. i used to rbg for rating until everyone started mass ddosing. most people above 2k do it for rating and rating only. 2k+ is dead. everything else is still fine. the queues are no longer than 5 minutes below that point. conquest for losses... has... nothing to do with the shithole that RBGs are.

[dwightyo39]

What does ddos mean? I don't do rbgs and have no idea what people are talking about.

Edit: So I looked for info on google and I gather the ddos in wow is to make your enemy disconnect from the game?

[Saberstrike]

RBGs were a failed concept that had a good thought behind them (separate big premade groups from puggies + reward them accordingly), but the fact they tried to force them by providing extra rewards through them and them alone just to get people to play proves how bad they were. Conquest for losses is just another bandaid that basically screams "HEY! HEY! RBGS ARE A THING! PLAY US PLEASE! " -- it's in the same category of bad as LFR. Raiding isn't for everyone, neither are BGs. Forcing it with promise of extra shinies won't make people love them, it'll just make them endure the drudgery for extra goodies.

So no, conquest for losses didn't ruin RBGs. RBGs being RBGs ruined themselves.

[quitefrankly]

conq for loss may have affected the 1300 bracket...Is that so important? Being at 1300 means you only do RBGs for cap anyway.

[Cirayne24]

conq for loss may have affected the 1300 bracket...Is that so important? Being at 1300 means you only do RBGs for cap anyway.

Pretty much this. Anything below 1200 is just for points anyways. Blame Blizzard for forcing players to achieve cap via RBGs now (unless higher cap from Arena).

[Redpanda]

imo its granted for the work involved. but people find a work around. If I remember right it was for the higher ranked teams back when the ques where bad. What turned me off to rbgs as a whole was when I did them it was fun and I got to 2k then the ddosing happened then class stacking happened and my class wasnt the "wanted" classes, then after a certain rating you have to be chummy with a few select people if you want to go over a certain rating.

[Arbs]

BGs just aren't as fun as they use to be.

[Skarssen]

RBGs are much more fun than being left 1vs1 against a MW or rdruid and spending 10 minutes chasing the bastard around a pillar. That plus the overwhelming presence of mongoloid warriors anything sub 1800 makes arena far, far worse than RBGs in my opinion.

But what do I know, I'm just a ~1800 scrub.

[cFortyfive]

rbgs were shit with or without conquest for losses.

[Faenskap]

Well, my hatred for arena burns with the radiance of a thousand suns whereas I like bgs, and rbgs then are just perfect.

There are 2 problems however - the mmr being fucked up for ageeeees. You play against a team with similar mmr, you win and get 10 rating. You lose to a team with similar mmr and wave bye to 11 points. And it does become very frustrating and exhausting to play rbgs for many hours and end up with a gain of 20-50 rating or whatever.

My other problem is you have to be this or that spec. I'm playing lock, as a main, I guess, but just destro. But people want affli because they get turned on by how much damage you deal. My feelings for affli are the same like arena - hatred. i've tried affli and I absolutely hate it and I feel if people Im playing with tell me affli or go home I'll stop with rbgs, as that would be the end of my enjoyment.

But outside those, yes, I love rbgs <3

Except when we face germans.

[apepi]

Rbgs are fine, while I do not excatly like arena, I know some people really love it and it is just not my thing. RbG is not your thing, but it does not mean it is ruined. Is pve ruined because you don't like it?

[Baracuda]

Cheaters ruin RBGs, YOLOers don't. RBG will never be popular before you can solo queue for it though, or just a few.

[Matt0193]

Never used to do RBGs because it always felt like Wizardcleave or gtfo in Casterclysm. Not touched them in MoP because some of the maps just don't work and are horrendous or simply need more players. The fact most of the people I know would rather not fully cap below 1750 rating in any arena bracket (As 1750 rating marks the full 2200 rating from Arenas alone) is enough for me to still consider them poor. Would just prefer it if you didn't get an absurd conquest cap from doing RBGs compared to Arena. 1.7k in RBGs is like 2500 CP cap while it doesn't even fully cap a 1700 Arena player.

I would actually solo queue RBGs if I could, the fact that I have to find 10 people before I can even queue up is shit.

[Vokal]

They were never good to begin with. They'd have to have been good to be ruined.

Infact they're atleast tolerable now that you get 100-399 for close call games 3-2 or 2000-1900 scores and can cap without blowing your head off.

[apepi]

Cheaters ruin RBGs, YOLOers don't. RBG will never be popular before you can solo queue for it though, or just a few.

Do they need to be popular though?

[Rgthreex]

Well, my hatred for arena burns with the radiance of a thousand suns whereas I like bgs, and rbgs then are just perfect.

There are 2 problems however - the mmr being fucked up for ageeeees. You play against a team with similar mmr, you win and get 10 rating. You lose to a team with similar mmr and wave bye to 11 points. And it does become very frustrating and exhausting to play rbgs for many hours and end up with a gain of 20-50 rating or whatever.

My other problem is you have to be this or that spec. I'm playing lock, as a main, I guess, but just destro. But people want affli because they get turned on by how much damage you deal. My feelings for affli are the same like arena - hatred. i've tried affli and I absolutely hate it and I feel if people Im playing with tell me affli or go home I'll stop with rbgs, as that would be the end of my enjoyment.

But outside those, yes, I love rbgs <3

Except when we face germans.

Depends on comp tbh aff is great damage but more importantly dispelling UA hits like a truck I can't tell you how many healers I've killed just from them dispelling UA at low health

[Deleted]

RBGs were shit always since they were flawed by the initial class design and only 2 real team comps.