Can we please get some BG innovation?

[Warwithin]

Anyone else notice that EVERY Battleground is either "Capture this flag", "Capture these bases", or some fusion of the two with a couple toys thrown in? What happened to innovation in the realm of BG creation? I'd like to see something new rather than have Blizzard hire whoever re-skinned all the gear, items, and mounts to re-skin BGs, too.

[Witch king]

Ye, notcied it when they luanched this expansion, Blizz's dev are runing out of idea's.

[Lolsteak]

What they really need to introduce is a king of the hill gametype

[seam]

What they really need to introduce is a king of the hill gametype

Like Tol Barad?

[Lolsteak]

Like Tol Barad?

No, tol barad is domination basicly..

King of the Hill, each team receives points per 1-5 seconds per player while they stand within a predefined area on the map, highest points wins

I always love straight up head to head pvp...

[Deleted]

I suspect a lot of people will disagree with me on this one but it would be kind of fun if Battlegrounds actually became larger-scale warzones where you're more likely to be fighting a hostile NPC than another player (not that they wouldn't be there, just that in a 16 v 16 game there would be 50-100 hostile NPCs to fight off as well, sure they'd just get slaughtered easily but it would add to the feeling of there being a real battle going on).

Of course, I'm also in favor of more world PvP where the outcome of the world PvP actually has an impact on the game world (imagine if it was possible to capture zones or even entire cities from the other side, and when I write zones and cities I don't mean "three buildings in the middle of a zone", I mean the entire zone or a real city). Alliance capturing Undercity should be hard and require a lot of players, keeping it should be pretty hard as well (to make sure that one side can't just capture every city).

I doubt it'll ever happen though. The current state of PvP seems to be "good enough" for a lot of people.

[Lolsteak]

I suspect a lot of people will disagree with me on this one but it would be kind of fun if Battlegrounds actually became larger-scale warzones where you're more likely to be fighting a hostile NPC than another player (not that they wouldn't be there, just that in a 16 v 16 game there would be 50-100 hostile NPCs to fight off as well, sure they'd just get slaughtered easily but it would add to the feeling of there being a real battle going on).

Of course, I'm also in favor of more world PvP where the outcome of the world PvP actually has an impact on the game world (imagine if it was possible to capture zones or even entire cities from the other side, and when I write zones and cities I don't mean "three buildings in the middle of a zone", I mean the entire zone or a real city). Alliance capturing Undercity should be hard and require a lot of players, keeping it should be pretty hard as well (to make sure that one side can't just capture every city).

I doubt it'll ever happen though. The current state of PvP seems to be "good enough" for a lot of people.

It's not so much the current state of pvp being "good enough" for people. If you could capture zones / cities in the open world servers with faction imbalances would become unplayable, rendering the smaller faction obsolete.

[PheelPheal]

First team to get, let's say 30-50 killing blows wins, i would move in and LIVE in that battleground<33

[Deleted]

It's not so much the current state of pvp being "good enough" for people. If you could capture zones / cities in the open world servers with faction imbalances would become unplayable, rendering the smaller faction obsolete.

I'm pretty sure you (read: Blizzard) could compensate for that, the stronger one faction is the more effort should be required to capture and hold a hostile city (more and stronger NPCs when attacking it, fewer and weaker NPCs when defending a captured city). I'm pretty sure you could even create a fairly simple algorithm that "learns" from the last few days or weeks of data how strong each side's NPCs need to be in each situtation to balance the situation out.

[Naoto]

Give us TDM, one big map, 15 people on either side, no objectives or anything just one thing to do: kill.

Let's be honest, how many want to defend flags? how many want to grab the flag, hold it for 20 minutes while 9 farm midfield and cap? doing objectives is fun at times but sometimes people just want to kill shit, not do objectives, plain and simply kill shit.

Give us a TDM map so we can get into it, kill shit and get out, that way we won't lose because alliance don't know west from east and all of that.

[Deleted]

We also could need an artifact BG like mourkain temple (warhammer) or black garden (rift) they r cool too

[Deleted]

What they really need to introduce is a king of the hill gametype

= "nerf knockback"

[Deleted]

Alterac Valley should be the battleground where you go and just kill stuff, not the boring PvE zergfest it so often seems to become.

[vandamme]

= "nerf knockback"

Does not need to be a literal hill, a la TF2 or Halo.

[Torne]

A good old-fashioned death match would be so awesome.
Sometimes, I don´t want to stay around flags...I JUST WANT TO MASH FACES.

[Gahouf!]

What we need is the old AV back. My God, that felt like a real battle - just grinding on for hours on end at the bridge into the Alliance base then finally getting the push through. I'd earn over 2,000 HKs per battle!

[Mic_128]

Bring in a Dota style map. Each team has their base, and 3 passages to it where Grunts and Soldiers make their way along. You can collect pieces from fallen enemy players and npcs to upgrade your npcs or 'hire' waves (Aka, what you could do in AV)

Unlike in other BG's you don't destroy a tower by capping it, but simply by doing damage to them. Every tower you destroy gives a buff to everything on your side. To prevent rogues/druids stealthing ahead of everything and soloing towers, they're invulnerable until some of your npc's are "near" the tower.

[AetherMcLoud]

I suspect a lot of people will disagree with me on this one but it would be kind of fun if Battlegrounds actually became larger-scale warzones where you're more likely to be fighting a hostile NPC than another player (not that they wouldn't be there, just that in a 16 v 16 game there would be 50-100 hostile NPCs to fight off as well, sure they'd just get slaughtered easily but it would add to the feeling of there being a real battle going on).

Of course, I'm also in favor of more world PvP where the outcome of the world PvP actually has an impact on the game world (imagine if it was possible to capture zones or even entire cities from the other side, and when I write zones and cities I don't mean "three buildings in the middle of a zone", I mean the entire zone or a real city). Alliance capturing Undercity should be hard and require a lot of players, keeping it should be pretty hard as well (to make sure that one side can't just capture every city).

I doubt it'll ever happen though. The current state of PvP seems to be "good enough" for a lot of people.

Indeed. Give back the old vanilla alterac. Best BG ever.

[Brett Skullcrack]

It's much cheaper to take an existing idea like WSG or AB and just slap on a new map than it is to come up with an innovative new idea, develop it and test it. Why should Blizzard put in that extra money when you'll pay your monthly fee anyway?

[Feel The Power]

I'd like to know how blizz's designers agreed it was a good for Catalcysm when the idea was brought of "hey guys, for a new bg we have to capture a couple of resource nodes, including a mine...and for another bg we place opposing bases at opposite ends of a map, and we capture a flag and run it back to our own teams base 3 times". The two new bg's were a damn slap to the face...it's basically like these remakes of movies that Hollywood has been doing the last few years. Most of them are a new spin on an old idea, and almost always a fail.