Tenacity in Battlegrounds

[Accuser.]

Simple concept. Example: 1 stack for every 3 less people on your team than on theirs in WSG/Strand/EoTS... 1 stack for every 8 less people in AV. Obviously, maximum of 4 stacks in any BG (2 stacks in WSG).

I'm sick and tired as a horde of walking into a Strand match that's 6 v 12, with only half of us being DPS to take out their 4 demolishers that are rolling right through the gates.

Comments and opinions from others on the topic at: http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/th...80005593&sid=1

[Eversor]

Seems like a good idea to me, and it shouldn't be too hard to implement either, seeing how they have done it well before. This would surely solve the battleground issues on some battlegroups.

4 vs 12 EotS... *shiver*

[Sting]

Tenacity sucks ass all in all, I'd rather have Blizzard look at what's causing the problem (matchmaking).

[Callsign Grunge]

Oh god please no.

[Fenrir The Phantom]

ill quit pvp all together if they did this its lame enough in WG i never wanna see it bgs EVER

[Accuser.]

ill quit pvp all together if they did this its lame enough in WG i never wanna see it bgs EVER

So you'd rather be on the screwed over side of a 5v15 EoTS, than have one or two stacks of tenacity (that's +15-30% health, not 90,000 health)?

Seriously, how could ONE or TWO stacks of tenacity hurt your BG experience as described, if it's a 5v15 anyway?

[Baygon]

i'm rarely outnumbered in my BG's but i think it's an ok idea

[HighestOfFives]

No thank you, it's bad enough as it is in WG.

[Knight Gil]

i'm rarely outnumbered in my BG's but i think it's an ok idea

Same.

And to those who disagree, BGs are about team work, not 1v1.

[Teneal]

Rarely outmatched. Reason why I support this.

[Cerelli]

So you'd rather be on the screwed over side of a 5v15 EoTS, than have one or two stacks of tenacity (that's +15-30% health, not 90,000 health)?

Seriously, how could ONE or TWO stacks of tenacity hurt your BG experience as described, if it's a 5v15 anyway?

if i'm going to lose, i'd much rather it be a quick loss. Your idea would draw the battles out even longer. What would you rather have: 3 - 30 minute long losses, or 6 - 15 minute long loses.

[Quinny]

The second you add just 1 point of tenacity, class balance (what little there is) goes out the window. I hate tenacity. I'd rather be pet and gearless than fight an unholy DK, loladin or warlock with more than 1 tenacity.

[Relina]

I'd rather they just fix the fucking matchmaking system, right now its just free marks and honor for the side that is dominant.

[Maleficents]

Tenacity wouldn't work properly in battlegrounds such as AV and Isle of Conquest. If there are NPC objectives, tenacity would be OP against them.

[Accuser.]

Tenacity wouldn't work properly in battlegrounds such as AV and Isle of Conquest. If there are NPC objectives, tenacity would be OP against them.

Good point! This may not work well in AV or Isle for that reason!

Though atm, the only reason I've said that this is a bad idea is that you'd rather be outnumbered and lose fast. The idea is to bolster your team TEMPORARILY, until you get a full BG. You may have 1-2 stacks of tenacity maximum, for a few minutes, until the sides even up. This is most needed in Strand, where the team that starts with demos (always alliance atm) has a huge advantage in an underpopulated match. For those that cant figure that out, 5 DPSers on defense VS 4 demolishers on offense makes for a short round 1.

[Wani]

The problem comes mainly from having people queuing for several bg in the same time, why would you go for a solution like tenacity when there is one readily available?