Call to Arms being removed

[Slone]

thats a bummer

[steveyboy]

Make it so Horde vs Horde maps actually happen, then I might actually consider joining AV....... Lol joke, the person who starts on the Alliance side would still win the match and the first team get to docks would win IOC now.

IOC needs a complete rebalance and AV needs various changes like the towers for one, Horde towers have less NPCS and you can los them to start with.

[ringpriest]

Blacklist needs to go too. The problems mentioned in the post didn't exist prior to its addition (I don't remember queue times ever being a problem before, actually).

Ditching blacklist wouldn't be a fix for the most unbalanced BGs though. You'd just see more angry players, trying to either lose quickly, or getting pissed that they're now stuck in a hated BG or risking an AFK boot. Another way to look at it is that blacklisting is much easier for Blizz than actually fixing the damned BGs (which could be quite difficult, to be fair).

- - - Updated - - -

Make it so Horde vs Horde maps actually happen, then I might actually consider joining AV....... Lol joke, the person who starts on the Alliance side would still win the match and the first team get to docks would win IOC now.

IOC needs a complete rebalance and AV needs various changes like the towers for one, Horde towers have less NPCS and you can los them to start with.

And don't forget that while the Aid Station flag is right at the edge of DB-South (and has lots of NPCs nearby), the Relief Hut flag is well out of FW towers range, and has no nearby NPCs.

[4umtroll]

So you follow the group all the way to the end and then stand there complaining.

Perhaps you should actually try doing something to help your team win. Organize a small group and capture Stonehearth bunker. Defend it against the Alliance backcap team. Backcap Iceblood tower, or Tower Point. You know, the exact same thing you would do in AB, BfG, DWG, etc. You don't HAVE to run to the end and stand around waiting to attack Vann. There is plenty of PVP in these BGs, and it is your own fault if you are a sheep and just follow the other honor-farming PVE heroes who queue into the 40mans.

That's just laughable, organizing anyone in a random bg is like herding cats, you get a small group to back cap and you'll be zerged. Those BGs are nothing but a pve fest and deserve to be blacklisted.

[Reveries1]

I am glad CTA is being removed. You could always tell as horde when it was AV/IoC just by the 20 minute wait times for random BG's if they were black listed.

I am a fan of the blacklist feature but that is just because there are a few BG's I cant stand to play. 40 Man BG's really screw up the queue when you have one faction specific queuing it. IMO they should reduce the 40 man BG's to 10-15 and then it wouldnt matter nearly as much.

[JustRasz]

Cant break my heart any more than when they removed the call to arms quests D:

[Bodarini]

I am sad about this

[draganid]

i didnt use it tht much but they better not touch blacklisting. as others have said make it 3 blacklistable! have ioc and av bled already and would love to add eots as well, i hate that place

[Osmeric]

Pretty sad, removing features because they're too lazy to fix AV and IoC imbalance.

This is how they are trying to address that imbalance, at least in part. The specific designs of those BGs have nothing to do with the current imbalanced outcomes, you must realize.

[ringpriest]

This is how they are trying to address that imbalance, at least in part. The specific designs of those BGs have nothing to do with the current imbalanced outcomes, you must realize.

I disagree, to a degree. While the imbalance is strongly affected by a number of things other than BG design, the differences do contribute, particularly in AV.

[Osmeric]

I disagree, to a degree. While the imbalance is strongly affected by a number of things other than BG design, the differences do contribute, particularly in AV.

No, they really don't in any way except to provide an rationalization for the horde side to give up. Objectively they make essentially zero difference.

[ringpriest]

No, they really don't in any way except to provide an rationalization for the horde side to give up. Objectively they make essentially zero difference.

The respective coverage of base graveyard flags by NPCs and archers is quite different. The fact that you can cap a horde tower simply by running past the archers to the flag, while in alliance bunkers you must deal with any archers that have LoS on you (the case in at least 2 bunkers, iirc). The fact that when preventing a recap on horde towers, the alliance defenders can cluster and spam AoE, virtually immune to ranged attacks thanks to LoS + knockback, while being largely immune to knockback themselves. The potential for the DB bridge to be a superior chokepoint once players could do knockback.

These inequalities themselves are not gamebreaking, but I think its clear that they have contributed to the positive feedback cycle of Horde losses in AV. (The differences in IoC are comparatively minor - time from start to Glaives/Airship is the only particularly obvious one.)

[Mormolyce]

It's only going to make the situation with blacklisting worse. Sigh.

When blacklist goes, I go.

Blacklist is the only thing that makes bgs playable.

This is the problem, blacklists are extremely popular but they massively warp the win rates.

They should never have been invented.

[ringpriest]

It's only going to make the situation with blacklisting worse. Sigh.



This is the problem, blacklists are extremely popular but they massively warp the win rates.

They should never have been invented.

This isn't just in BGs, it's the fundamental dysfunction with much of post-BC WoW "development". It follows a very obvious pattern. First, there's a 'problem' (talent trees aren't working well, PvP not balancing properly, flying mounts alter the game, etc.) in game. Second, rather than develop and implement an elegant solution (which likely would not be swift, easy, or cheap), Blizzard eventually slaps on some sort of less than fully thought-out 'fix' (nuke talent trees, implement PvP gear and stats, ban flying for some period of time). Finally, the changes end up having multiple negative effects on the game, arguably worse than the original problem was in the first place. (Sometimes, Blizzard throws in the extra step of completely removing whatever they irreparably broke.) In the end, the game is in worse shape than it was before they started fucking with it. (The problem is compounded by Blizzard development apparently suffering from a massive case of "not invented here" syndrome.)

[Osmeric]

This isn't just in BGs, it's the fundamental dysfunction with much of post-BC WoW "development".

I've quipped that Blizzard's design philosophy is "if it's not broken, fix it until it is."

That's not really fair, but it feels that way sometimes.

[ringpriest]

I've quipped that Blizzard's design philosophy is "if it's not broken, fix it until it is."

That's not really fair, but it feels that way sometimes.

It sometimes seem to me, looking in from the outside, that when it comes to post-BC WoW, Blizzard has ditched its traditional 'steal and polish until it gleams' approach (which they have historically been very, very good at), and replaced it with an endless series of ego-driven "look at my cool new idea" implementations. (Plus an obvious amount of bean-counting supervision. )