- Some Random PvP Ideas -

[ComputerNerd]

And that's why the rewards discussed are based on performance. Even with these suggestions, if your team loses by 1600 against 200 or 3 against 0 flags captured, you'd get nothing. But if you lose by 1600 against 1200, you'd get 20 Conquest. If you lose 2 against to flags captured (because the enemy captured their flag last), you'd get 15 Conquest.

This system would encourage people to keep trying even when a BG will end in a loss, instead of sitting on their asses complaining or just rage quiting.

And these are small rewards. The greatest prize for participating as suggested would be just 25 Conquest, but most often people would get something around 5 to 15 Conquest. Very small rewards, but a lot better than getting nothing.



You're using backwards logic. If losses hurt that much, then the only ones who are encouraged to play are those who don't care about wasting their times (i.e. bots and farmers). I've seen many players trying BGs and giving up after wasting a lot of time to get nothing because they constantly end up in bad teams.

I myself have sometimes spend over an hour un BGs and got no Conquest for it. Worst of all, is when you lose despite putting a lot of effort, say losing by a score of 1600 against 1598 (it happened last week actually) and getting nothing for it.

Really, why should I even queue for BGs with my Hunter, who is full Honor already, if I can get 10 times more Conquest by finding a random partner and doing 2x2 arenas for an hour?

Incentive should be always towards making people to keep trying. So they need to get something for their efforts. if they are really trying.

If you really want to get rid of bots, then Blizzard should stop giving Honor for kills, and instead the whole prize is given at the end, based on team score.

I should clarify more.
I didn't mean to hint that losses shouldn't get anything.

The honorable defender buff is how I think the reward system should be approached.
Make meaningful kills, those actually near an objective be rewarding, but mindless ganking in the middle of nowhere not be.
Put an aura around each objective, be it stationary or mobile like a player with a flag.
Don't give honor to players who run into the middle of the field miles away from the flag, but only to those who are killing opposing players near the flag.

Kills should remain attractive where they are relevant.

[DeicideUH]

I should clarify more.
I didn't mean to hint that losses shouldn't get anything.

The honorable defender buff is how I think the reward system should be approached.
Make meaningful kills, those actually near an objective be rewarding, but mindless ganking in the middle of nowhere not be.
Put an aura around each objective, be it stationary or mobile like a player with a flag.
Don't give honor to players who run into the middle of the field miles away from the flag, but only to those who are killing opposing players near the flag.

Kills should remain attractive where they are relevant.

I understand the sentiment, problem is that it's difficult, from a computer programing perspective, to exactly define what's a contributing behavior to a team's victory. Once you set a rigid parameter, like "Kills within a base's radius", people will exploit it, like bots staying all near flags and don't leaving there.

The opposite may also occur: for instance, sometimes in BGs, when I'm alone traversing the field and I see a bunch of enemies chasing me, I'll stop and engage them away from any strategic points, because to me, as long as I distract 3+ enemies alone, I give my team tactical advantage somewhere else since there'll be less enemies for them to fight. But that behavior would be hard to code.

[Beefkow]

I thumbs up on every single idea you put out there, instead of doing mindless pvp, you be rewarded for something great such as miscellaneous stuff such as mounts, pets, flasks, etc instead of winning honor and a little conquest only..

Well typed up thread, hopefully blizzard gets a glimpse at your post.

[apepi]

I think they should add more battleground type zones to the zones that we have, like halaa, march and etc. But these zones will scale down your level and your gear making it awesome for world pvp. It would be awesome for world pvp, anybody could go there, people would not be able to get ganked in the zone and it could introduce pvp fairly, giving it good experience would not be bad either. I can not really think of this being a bad idea and do not understand why blizzard has not tried to do it yet. I think they have the technology to do this kind of thing.

[Matt0193]

Yes, the weapon upgrades would eventually become obligatory, but current form is actually worse. Right now, once you are 3500 Conquest away from the minimum cap of 7250, you stop using Conquest and start hoarding it for 2 weeks. If you don't do it, your weapoin falls behind on the ilvl race by 28 ilvls.

In the upgrade model, the final cost of the weapon would be the same, but if you choose to not upgrade your weapon on a week, you fall behind by just 4 ilvl, and you can easily catch up the following week.

Also, in the upgrade model, even if you feel forced to do the upgrade every week, you still have enough Conquest left to spend on other items. You could still, for instance, buy a 2,250 Conquest set piece every two weeks, or cheaper pieces every week.

See? It doesn't change the fact that getting the weapon, in it's current implementation, upgraded as much as possible is mandatory. Especially for Melee/Huters who rely on upgraded weapon damage if they decide to move the PvP power gain off the weapon. And falling behind on ilvl early on in the season doesn't really matter since the discrepancy is not too large. Even if you only do the minimum maximum of 1800 a week, you get it this week if you just queue into an RBG and let them win straight away. That means you'd have bought Shoulders and a Trinket (or Shoulders/Trinket and Head/Chest if you fully RBG cap one week prior or also this week), saved for the Weapon leaving you with 350 or 150 CP currently (7350-1750-1750-3500 or 7650-1750-2250-3500). If you don't get the Head/Chest this week, you get it next week.

[Tulkus]

I like all of your ideas apart from the item level upgrade on Conquest gear and the upgrade stones for Honor gear. Increasing your item level via a limited currency didn't work as well in PvP as it did in PvE, that's what it was scrapped.

Why was this? I personally really enjoyed using conquest points to upgrade my gear. I think paying 750 conquest for a 4 ilvl upgrade is reasonable. I think it would be best if each upgrade gave 2 ilvls, that way it doesn't give a HUGE boost. It gives you a reason to spend excess conquest once you get all your pieces and if you keep it small it doesn't give a huge gear gap.

On topic: I came in here expecting suggestions like "Balance PvP better". Was pleasantly surprised. Great thread, I really like all the ideas. As for the weapon upgrades, I like the idea of staggering them. It doesn't always have to be a choice between weapon and gear though (because I agree with other posters in that weapon will always take priority. No point giving a choice if the choice is always going to be one way.) but you could make each 'upgrade stone' available for purchase at differing points in the season, maybe an upgrade stone for every 2 weeks of the season? That way you still will be buying other pieces of gear in between, but it isn't a dramatic change like going from 522->550.

I like the idea of quests, keeps thing fresh and interesting. I personally really like objectives. I don't see any of this changing any high end pvp like someone said, but it does make the gearing up process a hell of a lot more interesting. I agree with your sentiment that giving small rewards even for losses promotes people actually playing and not botting, as even losing doesn't seem like the worst thing in the world.

Overall, I really like the ideas and would love to see them implemented! For whatever reason I have my doubts. One thing I would like to see a little more of is some incentive for filthy PvEers to start PvPing. You had mentioned reward bags which works, but a little more might be required!

[DeicideUH]

See? It doesn't change the fact that getting the weapon, in it's current implementation, upgraded as much as possible is mandatory.

Not really. Upgrades would mean only four ilvls. You could, for instance, choose one week to upgrade your chest or headpiece because you deem the boost better than just a +4 ilvl to your weapon. Then the following week you decide to catch up and spend two upgrades.

Being vehind 4 ilvl is not as bad as being behind 28 ilvl.

- - - Updated - - -

On topic: I came in here expecting suggestions like "Balance PvP better". Was pleasantly surprised. Great thread, I really like all the ideas.

Thanks!

[gestapo]

Agree with Blitheqt. All except ilvl upgrade (pretty much guaranteed to not happen given Blizzard's stance on it) are good ideas. Hope to see some of these implemented in the future.