1. #1
    Titan
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    America's Hat
    Posts
    14,128

    Should RBG's be limited to just 10 players?

    I haven't done a lot of rated BG's, but even in normals, I find the larger maps with more players are far more fun and more strategic, no one really knows how to effectively win Isle of Conquest it seems, however it and AV are more fun because there is more to do. If Blizzard developed more 40vs40 BG maps, would a 40 man RBG team be viable? Or does it just not seem feasible to efficiently run and deal with 40 people much like the reasons behind the elimination of 40 man raids.

  2. #2
    I guess you are talking about random battlegrounds and not rated. Well, I like the 40 man battlegrounds and it would be a shame to take them out, even if it only was for the random.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Rennadrel View Post
    I haven't done a lot of rated BG's, but even in normals, I find the larger maps with more players are far more fun and more strategic, no one really knows how to effectively win Isle of Conquest it seems, however it and AV are more fun because there is more to do. If Blizzard developed more 40vs40 BG maps, would a 40 man RBG team be viable? Or does it just not seem feasible to efficiently run and deal with 40 people much like the reasons behind the elimination of 40 man raids.
    For a whole lot of servers this is completely impractical to expect. On my old server (Detheroc), you will spend weeks and weeks trying to form a 40 man group for anything pvp. (one that will do anything worth mentioning anyway)...and I was on horde side (horde side SEVERELY outweighed alliance side population)

  4. #4
    Titan
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    America's Hat
    Posts
    14,128
    No, I am talking about rated BG's as well as more 40 mans in order to create a BG cycle for rated teams. Seeing as how there are only two 40 man BG's, you can't effectively run them on a cycle, meanwhile you have several other maps for 10 man teams.

  5. #5
    Originally, the concept for Rated Battlegrounds called for 10 player RBGs (like we have now), 15 player RBGs (which lasted about a month), and 25 player RBGs (Isle of Conquest and Alterac Valley).

    Unfortunately, Blizzard decided that 25 man RBGs were not feasible for Cataclysm's launch and shortly after launch, they also trashed 15 man RBGs because they didn't feel that it was fair for 10 player guilds to be left out of RBGs every other week. Blizzard decided to ignore the fact that 15s were far more interesting and provided for more varied comps and also chose not to allow 15s and 10s to be run at the same time every week. Instead, they decided to cater to the 10 man guilds in PvP just like they had in PvE and gave us the 3 lousy Rated Battlegrounds we had last season, 2 CTFs, Warsong Gulch (when it was working, it was actually missing for a good chunk of the season)/Twin Peaks, and Battle for Gilneas (3 Capture point AB). When they realized that those games weren't going to be enough variation, they added in 10 player AB (lol wat) and 10 player EoTS (ruining one of their best BGs).

    I wish that Blizzard had taken their original approach or just scrapped Random Battlegrounds until they were ready to go. If they were going to go with 10s only, fine, whatever, at least vary the game types and maps a bit. Instead we got a complete mess of a PvP system that requires "bring the class, not the player" to get high ratings.

  6. #6
    No. It's hard enough to get a 10-man running. Imagine how often you will have 1 person who needs to go or needs a 15 min AFK in a 40-man group.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •