Page 1 of 3
1
2
3
LastLast
  1. #1

    New BGs would be pointless?

    So earlier there was a bit of an exchange between me and another forum goer that sparked my curiosity. I had made mention that if you were a serious PvPer that perhaps it was time to find a game that catered to you better. Simply because PvPers hadn't received a new BG since MoP and it felt like Blizz had stopped developing for PvPers in my mind.

    Granted I am a casual PvPer now. Haven't been serious about since vanilla. Even then it's not like I hit High Warlord, I did not. Anyhow the response I got to my state was this.

    "Who says PvP needs anything new? Oh that's right, the casual player or PvEr that doesn't actually do any PvP. PvP is about the player vs player interaction not "new things". Sports are the same thing every year, i don't see athletes and fans quitting because they don't get "new things".

    So out of curiosity I wanted to ask the PvPers here if new BGs are important to you at all and if so how important?

  2. #2
    I mean hes right. It doesnt really matter because the sport wont change whether you add in a new bg or not. If were talking about personally though I would love new BGs, but I dont mind what we have now. It doesnt even have to be new BGs, just something new that adds to the casual pvp scene but is an option for hardcore pvpers as well. Either way Id say hes right, doesnt really matter if we get new shit or not, pvp scene stays the same.

    I would definitely like something new though, could be anything in terms of BGs, or something like the Tarren mill vs southshore event. Anything thats new, as long as it works, would be cool, but it isnt exactly necessary this time around since they completely revamped the pvp system in Legion.

  3. #3
    Deleted
    The only part I'm sad about is not getting the Aszhara MOBA style bg, that seemed like a pretty cool concept but got scraped. Appart from that I'd say the existing rotation is more than fine for my horde bashing needs. It's not like any of them fall out of favour like raids and dungeons, they're actually being maintained.

  4. #4
    I kind of agree. Unless they come up with a cool idea, I personally don't want any more new BGs.
    A lot of the BGs they've implemented past Eye of the Storm have been extreme misses to me. I do like Twin Peaks and BFG because they're innovations instead of attempts at new game modes and I would appreciate more like that, but overall I kind of want them to avoid putting new ideas into BGs unless they are pretty sure it will fit the format. I'm going to risk speaking for a demographic right now but I feel like BG players generally don't really care for controlling cannons and siege engines and crap, they just want to fight other players and control their characters.
    Laying siege to a giant fortress sounds cool until you come to the realization that it has to be packed into a 15-20 min battleground and can't take long or else people will end up despising it. And if it's too short, people will end up despising it too.

  5. #5
    I wouldn't mind them adding more variations of BGs on the same play style. i.e. more CTF maps etc. I also really do wish there was a TDM map separate in it's own queue from everything else. Then you'd be able to easily isolate away randoms who just wanna kill and don't wanna bother with objectives, or do it myself if I just wanted to kill things. But Blizzard would never do that, at least not permanently.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Irian View Post
    I kind of agree. Unless they come up with a cool idea, I personally don't want any more new BGs.
    A lot of the BGs they've implemented past Eye of the Storm have been extreme misses to me. I do like Twin Peaks and BFG because they're innovations instead of attempts at new game modes and I would appreciate more like that, but overall I kind of want them to avoid putting new ideas into BGs unless they are pretty sure it will fit the format. I'm going to risk speaking for a demographic right now but I feel like BG players generally don't really care for controlling cannons and siege engines and crap, they just want to fight other players and control their characters.
    Laying siege to a giant fortress sounds cool until you come to the realization that it has to be packed into a 15-20 min battleground and can't take long or else people will end up despising it. And if it's too short, people will end up despising it too.
    I don't think you know what innovate means. WSG 2.0 isn't innovative.

    The problem with long BGs isn't that they are long, it's that they are pointless when they are long. If you actually got rewarded for slugging it out for an extended period of time I have a feeling people would actually enjoy that. But it's pointless. There is little to no reward (it actually seems punishing) for a drawn out conflict.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by EyelessCrow View Post
    I don't think you know what innovate means. WSG 2.0 isn't innovative.

    The problem with long BGs isn't that they are long, it's that they are pointless when they are long. If you actually got rewarded for slugging it out for an extended period of time I have a feeling people would actually enjoy that. But it's pointless. There is little to no reward (it actually seems punishing) for a drawn out conflict.
    Yeah, innovative wasn't exactly the word I was going for there, I type too fast and fucked up words. I meant essentially the opposite of innovative; I think innovation only works when it's something that is on the same level as WSG or AB in design. If they're going to innovate I'd rather it be actual PvP instead of convoluted siege, a mishmash of existing concepts or something of the like. If not I would simply rather see cool new takes on BGs I already like. I personally enjoy TP much more than WSG and that says a lot, it just has a better layout in my eyes so I get excited when I play either one.

    I think in general, the BG system is kind of messed. They mentioned long ago, in WotLK if I remember right, that their eventual goal was to create different queues for different gameplay. Resource-based, flag-based, siege-based for example. If they did this then they could properly actually scale the rewards proportional to the time it takes. BGs like Isle of Conquest and Alterac Valley are awesome when they take a while but I agree that even though I find AV extremely fun right now, I groan when I get it because I know it's probably going to be a 30m-1hr endeavor as opposed to just leaving taking deserter and getting a WSG queue and finishing in 15 minutes.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Hexxidecimal View Post
    "Sports are the same thing every year, i don't see athletes and fans quitting because they don't get "new things".
    Well. That's obviously something that only a person who lives in front of their computer would say.

  9. #9
    i've not really enjoyed any of the maps they've produced since eots.. and with us only being able to blacklist 2 maps at a time i'd prefer it if they didn't make any new ones.. in fact i'd be happy if they took some away.

  10. #10
    Banned sheggaro's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    you wish you knew
    Posts
    1,164
    Some of them need graphical overhauls.

    Badly.

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by EyelessCrow View Post
    I don't think you know what innovate means. WSG 2.0 isn't innovative.

    The problem with long BGs isn't that they are long, it's that they are pointless when they are long. If you actually got rewarded for slugging it out for an extended period of time I have a feeling people would actually enjoy that. But it's pointless. There is little to no reward (it actually seems punishing) for a drawn out conflict.
    The new reward system if anything makes that the worse it has ever been.
    For those in a losing position there is going to be a huge incentive to simply abandon it early, due to there being no reliably participation reward.
    Win or get very little.
    There should absolutely be a a reward for an effort from the losing team.
    Instead it is just a greater "chance" if you come close.
    That is simply not good enough.

    An on innovation in battleground formats, that didn't work out too well.
    Blizzard did innovate, bringing up multiple new formats.
    Yet AV remained hugely popular due to how rewarding it was.
    What players say they want, and what they actually want are not always the same thing.
    Quote Originally Posted by DeadmanWalking View Post
    Your forgot to include the part where we blame casuals for everything because blizzard is catering to casuals when casuals got jack squat for new content the entire expansion, like new dungeons and scenarios.
    Quote Originally Posted by Reinaerd View Post
    T'is good to see there are still people valiantly putting the "Ass" in assumption.

  12. #12
    Deleted
    There are so many BGs right now that adding more will hardly do a difference since you're only gonna end up playing in the new ones for 10% of the time.

    Personally I would prefer if they had just stuck with Arathi Basin and Warsong Gulch, although the Cata ones are very good as well (Battle for Gilneas and Twin Peaks are almost as good), even considering how imbalanced Twin Peaks is). Dislike the MoP ones and Strand of the Ancients, and Eye of the Storm is fine, but in general more of a mess.

    I would love AV if they buffed all the NPCs (like the current version) and removed reinforcements. The same goes for Isle of Conquest (I think holding the bases should reward more than just wall damage though).

  13. #13
    If there were no restrictions on how many battlegrounds you could have blocked, there would only ever be 4 that i would play. That's the best way i can put it.

    I want a battleground that has hazards that chip away your HP by about 25% every second and the environment is forever changing and adjusting, so your strategy has to change on the fly, like a lower area that every now and then lava flows through it, meaning you need to get out of that area. That would be kind of cool, not sure how a battleground would work with these sorts of features though.
    Last edited by JoshuaNLG; 2016-08-09 at 10:40 PM.

  14. #14
    They should add at least one new BG per expansion. And they should get creative with objectives. I'd like to see small scale versions of the Warcraft RTS series. But nothing like Ashran, that could've been cool, but all the side events felt like silly distractions.
    Author of the Realm Bounty Hunter addon.

  15. #15
    Still hope they add different seasons for the bg's, like snow in AB so you can just walk on the lake, small stuff like that.

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by ParanoiD84 View Post
    Still hope they add different seasons for the bg's, like snow in AB so you can just walk on the lake, small stuff like that.
    that would be better than new ones.

  17. #17
    Deleted
    I rather have Blizzard finally get rid of bots in PvP and encourage actual teamplay in one way or another.

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by ParanoiD84 View Post
    Still hope they add different seasons for the bg's, like snow in AB so you can just walk on the lake, small stuff like that.
    I think that would be the best compromise honestly. New skins I feel would breathe some fresh air into the likes of AB and WSG which I have been playing for the last 12 years or whatever.

  19. #19
    I'd agree that we don't really need new BG's.... they need to go back and fix the old ones and make em better and more fun to play. Only reason for a new BG would be a radically new and different game type from what we have (like capture the flag, territories, ect)..... or a big zone with various objectives like AV or Ashran (if it was done right).

  20. #20
    I would like new bgs that are actually new and not just reskinned (twin peaks ~_~). As others have said the MOBA style bg sounds really cool but would probably be hard to pull of technically.

Posting Permissions

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