WoW PvP Suggestion post, read it :)

I have made some suggestion to the PvP forum, based on a discussion with Opathu on another thread. Read it and show some support if you agree with it. Hoping to get a blue post, or atleast make it so big that Blizzard notices

http://forums.wow-europe.com/thread.html?topicId=9446194841&sid=1

Whohoo!

Guess what! I've gotten my first Forum ban! Why? Because of this thread here - Guess they dont like how the thread has gotten more than 3000 views, and nearing 9 pages of good discussing and debating.

What duchbags they are - "You have been temorary Banned for Trolling and spamming" (Me bumping the thread now and then).

Phew! I did manage to find the right guild forums!

I've been reading your mate, and I honestly think that we're both on the same sort of wavelength when it comes to PvP. I would reply to the directly, but I haven't been playing WoW lately and my account has been frozen, so I can't (which is knida stupid I think. Why make people pay just to reply on a forum?)

Anyways, I would like to talk to you about some of my ideas and how they relate to yours in depth, but how we go about that is up to you. Just reply to this topic if you're interested, I'll keep an eye on it

Well, "my mate" if your refering to Fendoor, is actually me - i have alot of character and -this- one is the dude i have set as guildmaster.

Nice to see that you have read the post/thread - and too bad you cant post on it as if you bothered with finding the right "Noctem" wow guild to get in touch, im impressed. So, fire away with whatever ideas and suggestions you may have buddy

Well, it wasn't that difficult to find the guild forums. I just had to find which realm you were on and it narrowed the search down (thank god for the Armory pages!).

WARNING! INCOMING WALL OF TEXT!

In your original post, you talk mostly about PvP gear being centred around Arena gear. I have to agree with you completely on that, as most of my current PvP gear is Arena gear (very OLD arena gear mind you, going back as far as Seasons 1 and 2) interspersed with current BG PvP gear. While it gives me the damage, it just doesn't give me the protection I need during a large BG fight.

Also during this post, you touch lightly on how the BGs don't make you foucus on team work and that they need to be changed to better refelct this. This is where my ideas come into play.

I recently looked at Blizzards new upcoming BG, the Ilse of Conquest. I first thought to myself, 'This seems like a good idea... and an airbase? Does this mean we finally get some air siege weapons! Great!' However, I then went to check if anyone had made First Look vidoes on YouTube to see what the BG looked like... and my opinion made a sudden U-turn, becoming, 'This BG looks... bad... and the air base stuff is the biggest cop-out Blizzard have done since Eye of the Storm'

Basically, the way the BGs have been designed, they don't promote team work in any way what so ever. In fact, it does the complete oppisit. It encourages people to zerg rush, which I know becomes a topic of converstation in later posts.

My ideas revolve around changing the way all BGs function, thereby inforcing teamwork, and also making the suggestions you made possible.

WSG, AB and EotS
I've put all these BGs under one heading, because they all suffer from the same problem:

They're too big!

(All the BGs out currently suffer this problem, but these three suffer from it the most. How often do you have to mount up in order to get anywhere?)

For the number of players that these BGs have to accomodate for, they're far too spread out. This means getting to objectives becomes very difficult. I think this is why you have so many people wondering off and doing there own thing, such as trying to solo cap a flag in WSG, or capping a point in AB or EotS, then running off to after another capture point.

If they were closer together and the travel distance was reduced, people would have more insentive to stay next a point once they captured it, mostly due to the fact that the other team would get to that same point just as quickly. Plus, in smaller spaces, if you're alone, you'll be seen more easily and taken out. With these changes, Blizzard wouldn't have to introduce the measures they want to implement in the next patch i.e. WSG timer and reduced total points on AB and EotS.

AV
This BG was one that I remember came up in your original post. This should be a classic example of people having to use teamwork in order to win, but it doesn't... at least not anymore. I was never able to see AV in its glory days, but dispite what many want to believe, we will never see those again. However, this opens the door to something new.

My idea is to make AV a Territory Control. The map is split into 7 or 9 territories, each side having 3 or 4 between them, with a neutral point in the middle (which should be in the Field of Strife).

I have written down a full idea for this BG, but I'll keep ot brief here. The main goal is still killing the General at the factions main base, but they cannot be harmed until all of the other factions points have been captured. To keep the fighting foucused, until the nearest enemy point has been captured, all other points behind that are locked and cannot be captured (anyone who has played Team Fortress 2 will probably know what I'm talking about). I'll explain things in greater detail in a later post if you want, but that's the basics for now.

In other words, with the number of objectives reduced and the fighting foucused, people are more likely going to work together, rather than running off and doing there own thing.

SotA
This BG has all the problems of the last two sections combined.

It's too big and has too many objectives.

It would probably be better suited to being a linear fight, with the objective being to destory or defend one gate at a time, rather than two. The defenders have the biggest disadvantage here, mostly because they have no idea which gate the attackers will aim for. Even if they do choose the right gate to defend, who is gaurding the other one? Another problem this brings up is the number of people per side. Whilst it's ok for the attackers, the defenders have too few people to defend effectively.

WG and 'Ilse of Conquest'
This is going to be quick, as these BGs are complex and may require a lot of indepth discussion. In short, they offer too many objectives for one or both teams to foucus on at once.

The Ilse of Conquest should be made into more of a single round attack/defend style match, whereas WG should involve taking down the towers as part of attacking the keep.

Overall, all the BGs at current and ones for future content need to be smaller and have clearer objectives. That way, people will be more willing to work as a team in order to complete these objectives, rather than trying to run solo all the time.

Essay style rant over

Just as an added thought, I have come up with an idea to really get Blizzard's attention on both our views. Rather than relying on the formus and possibly getting no response what so ever, we should put all our thoughts and ideas into a document and send it to them directly. That way, it's in front of them. No way they can avoid reading what we have to say then! If you need me to explain anything is further detail, just ask.

Now, as this smilely has been waving at me the whole time I've been writting this, I'll finish by putting it right.... HERE! --------->

PVP sure needs remake... but not really sure about objective based honor gain... might end up with something really similar to PVP rank system we had before TBC, and it was good only for HC PVPers.
I'd say Blizz should remake gear... like BG gear and arena gear, and they'd be pretty even... OH yeah and a "bit" rethink on PVE gear
Then again... not really sure... lately haven't really followed WOW lore... but wasn't horde and alliance starting to work together? if that's the case BG's are just a lore braking stuff, and might as well be removed from game at all at some point.

Tyrant, nice post indeed.

Few quick replies to some of your points:

BGs being too big - well yes and no. If the BGs actually got their max limit of players inside i think we can agree on that stuff is usually pretty hectic then. Only one i can think of which gives "room to breath" every now and then is AB, which in the end wont be a big one, as everyone tries to capture some bases in some orderly fashion. But having it bit shorter probably wouldnt hurt and make it more intensive.

Dear old WSG - i actually have few quarrels with that BG. Its pretty short, simple and straight on - which is probably why most i know love WSG above any other BG. Problem here are more the players, who dont want to play together and just HK farm, which leaves us who fight to win in a not favored position. Which mostly is that we're 2-3 people defending our FC on our say, roof. The rest of our team has no plans of going after the EFC, which leaves us in the position to either forfit the flag to punish the others, or do a heroic stride back up to the alliance base, get our flag back, then doubletime it back to score without them getting the flag again, and hope and pray that the 50% debuff havent come into play yet. But as said, im actually pretty happy with WSG:

Im so lucky i experienced AV in the good old Vanilla days and early TBC, where Horde dominated it massivly. The statistics were reveresed for the most part, as horde won AV in some 90% of the cases. It was however not a natural thing as it is now after all the patching, but because Horde were an evovling playermass. I remember quite nice tactics and players focused on objectives and winning, as there was little else to gain, and most the stuff, if not all that could be gained in BG pvp everyone had. So the fights were even, hard and brutal - but fun as hell. We had the dreaded shamans back then, which the alliance didnt have. And they had paladins, which had a totally different way of working. But it worked. We even looked like two factions at war.

And in here a small reply to Darnocles, nice to see you again btw

Vanilla was set after WC3 - our two factions were starting to recover after the war of the burning legion. Which in turn made us remember -why- we were at war. Suiting really, as this world we play in, is a rather war-strifed universe. We're not officially at open war with each other, but we certainly didnt like each other, nor did we mind if someone killed someone from the other side when people werent looking. TBC became where we bonded even further, as we desided to bring the war back to the burning legion - now we're pretty tightly knit, tho the same applies here - as long as no one saw that orc die by my swrod - did the orc die? groupings inside each faction still waged war on each other and such. See the catapults and cannons of Hellfire peninsula, Thrallmar vs Honor Hold. We're fighting a common enemy, allies, but certainly not friends on the ground level of things.

And with the latest video of Ulduar, and the events taking place of the wrathgate, siege of UC and following lore - our two factions are more or less again at open war with each other. Something that wise Thrall is heavily annoyed with, understanding again, that the new enemy will have a feast with your two factions as long as we dont stay united. Anyways, lore can wait - just a quick recapp of what i remember on the top of my head.

Back to AV.

Your idea sounds very familiar from something i wrote in my original post on the forum, about sectioning up AV. Much in the way you suggested, but with defencive walls, which -must- be breached before gaining access to the opposite factions general. Breaching a wall = X ammount of objectives completed in that "section". Which will lead our forces to attack with aim and intent, aswell for the defensive force to -really- put their backs into the defence.

SoTA, well - cant say i have done too much research about it. They made it better than the other BGs in one sence, that there are obsticles in need to be overcome to be able to in the end win the game. Obsticles other players atleast. Defenders and attackers, dont know who's got the upper edge. Only thing making the defenders have a slight disadvantage is the distance they have to cover to get from one gate to another from the beach, and how little the so called fortified walls take to break down. Abit more hitpoint on the walls, or shorter distances between the gates might improve the gameplay abit i think.

I have not yet had a look at Isle, im at summer hollidays so my activity is rather lowish if not on at all. I am however thrilled about the part in next patch where you can gain XP from BGs, and the option to turn off XP gain. If something can restore old AV to its former glory, it will be facing other lvl 60 players who will/might be gathering at that bracket. Also it will be fun to go lvl 60 raiding, with actuall 60's

Anyways, im bugging my GF writing this as she tries to sleep now, so i better quit it. Like your idea about sending them a written e-mail or even a letter about this. However, im not sure that they give up the developers work adress. And even then i doubt they will be the first to read it. Most likely a letter will be opened by the "fan-mail" readers, and at that instance have a high chance of being discarded. But hey, what do you know without trying

Anyways, good night for now

You were able to write all that at nearly midnight? You must be really focused! I feel my post started to weaken towards the end, mostly because my brain had turned to mush by then

Let me just go into further details on some of the points I made. When I was looking at all these BGs, WSG, AB and EotS in particular, I thought to myself 'Where does most of the fighting take place?' With these three BGs in mind, I came up with:

WSG: The middle of the field (more or less), the entrances to the ramps of each base and the flag room
AB: The capture points
EotS: The capture points and the flag

So, if you cut out most of the space inbetween these areas, the fighting becomes more centralised, and it should also solve the problem that alot of people claim to have with BGs; that they're a grind fest and not much fun. However, this brings up the problem with an issue I think you covered in your original post, the problem with HK farming. It might be an idea if Blizzard made the honor you gain from HKs less than that of the honor you gain from objectives e.g. 30% of the total honor you gain in one BG is from HKs, whilst the other 70% is from objectives. That way, teams who want to just HK farm will get next to no honor, whilst those who work as a team will get substantually more.

Moving now onto the idea you had about AV.

I'm assuming that the objectives in an area are under the control of each faction? If so, this causes one major flaw: What is stopping both sides from just ignoring defence and eachother and just going and capturing these objectives? I would highly dought either side would favour a defensive style if they have the option to attack now. In other words, it would be just like AV is atm; one big zerg rush.

However, if these objectives are all neutral when the battle starts, it could work. One side would have to capture most of these points in order to advance, but this could also lead to people just capping one point, then running off to capture the next, similar to what happens in AB and EotS.

There is also one other flaw with this idea. Lets just say for example that the Horde capture the required number of objectives, and breach the Alliance's wall. How do the Alliance fight back from this? Their objective is behind a wall of very angry looking Horde players. In short, how do the defenders fight back? Even if they do, they still have the problem of having a wall with a very large hole in it, so what is stopping the original attackers from just slipping on through and capturing the objectives in the next area?

This is why I cam up with the idea for both sides going after a single capture point or a point that is behind th enemy. It forces the two sides to face eachother, and this is what I think of when I picture the ideal AV; both sides clashing, large scale fights, one side advancing, then losing ground... it's not classic AV, but I'd say it's pretty damn close! I'm not saying my idea is perfect (in fact, feel free to pick holes in it. I'd be glad to hear any faults this has), but it follows the thought of 'Rather than trying to get people to do what I WANT them to do, MAKE them do it' Sure, this does reduce their choices, but haven't we as players been given enough choices in other areas of the game?

I'd say that is enough for now, but just a quick thing on sending this directly to Blizzard. Even if we don't get a response or they give a fairly standard reply, it still works in our favour. We can then go to all the WoW community sites (like WoW Insider, MMO Champion and WoW Radio) and tell them that Blizzard clearly don't care what the players have to say, even when we go to them directly

On the smaller BGs, i have to disagree abit. Removing some of the distances will also ruin the game abit as there is really no challange to run the flag across - would be daft to play WSG and it only took one rogue sprint or one boot to get across. WSG is about the fight to get in, Fight to get the flag, and fight to survive all the way home - atleast the offencive aspects of WSG. The only thing that actually puts all the minds and hearts together for a joint teamworking effort is the sight of a lone FC coming across midfield with a zerg of alliance on his back. Even HK farmers break off to help in most cases.

Anyways, to AV.

When sectioned up, i have a vision of say 5 sections. 2 are owned by each side, and the 5th would be like the field of strife. Yes, both sides can deside to take a nap behind their walls and not fight to win - but the same applies to all BGs. Why doesnt it happen? Because people want to atleast fight. So even if this came to play i dont think it would be any problems. People do BGs to fight in most cases, not camp behind walls.

When the walls are breached, they are ruined - just like real walls. It means that the enemy now can progress towards the second wall, one step closer to your general. So they would indeed defend even harder.

When it comes to the objectives, i havent really given it much thought on what they particularly should be, but here is an idea. Take what i've said so far, and then put a neutral "workshop" thing in the middle. It works just like flags in BGs, the faction with most players there gets a tick in their direction. Once the meter is full, its theirs and they can now build ladders, rams, siege towers ect...but they need to hold it to build it. The other side can still come and try overrun it. This will ensure that there is massive PvP in the beginning to get workshop. "Why would they do anything else but kill each other then?" you say? Well, can be solved in many ways here are some:

1 - time limit on the BG, if no one wins within say 30 mins, everyone get 50% reduced honor. Should give people an initiative to win before time runs out and keep the battle raging.

2 - In the field of strife, everyone gains only 30% of honor from all sources - only when the first wall has been breached do they gain 100% honor. Add that with the time limit and you got game.

I dont like your idea of neutral zones in the start, because as the game is now Horde faces alliance with an ratio of like 10 horde vs 40 alliance. It would be very much like it is today where Alliance just zeregs past everything and wins within like 10 mins.

Anyways, many ideas and stuff - keep em coming. However, would be nice to see them on wow Forum aswell. As mostly only guildies read this website

I'm not 100% sure when I will be back to playing WoW, so my post on the WoW forums could be a long time coming. At least for now, I can talk to you, the original poster, directly. However, if you wnat to mention any of the points I've made here in your future posts, then feel free to

There is one thing I noticed in the last post you made. Isn't putting a neutral siege workshop in the field of strife almost the same as my idea with a neutral starting zone? If you had the 10 Horde vs 40 Alliance situation, and Alliance can cap it quicker than the Horde, wouldn't it be another zerg rush? Sure, the Alliance would have a wall to contend with, but they would be able to breach it with little trouble, as the Horde numbers wouldn't be enough to hold them off till more arrive...

I think what we've done is discover another problem with PvP.

The queuing system is broken

I'm not really sure how the current system works, but this is something I've come up with. It seems as though a BG will start when only one side has enough players, or there is the correct number of total players. This is probably what is causing fights to be unbalanced. What should be going on is that, a BG shouldn't start until both sides have the required minimum number of players, and then adding more to this fight as more people sign up and then start adding people to already exsisting BGs, rather than just adding you to a BG the minute a spot is avalible.

With neutral Zones alliance would most likely capture 4 of the say 5 zones before horde could be renforced.

With 5 zones with walls that has to be breached after considerable work from the offending side, a few defenderes would be able to hold alliance off for a while till more join in.

However, what im making a scematic of is a BG how its supposed to work, with aims on teamwork and objectives to complete.

You are completely correct that the real issue at hand with outnumbering in BGs, has to do with the que system. Here, i'll quote something i wrote on PvP forums for SSL conserning reasons why PvP worsend after the merge.

Fendoor wrote:

Lets say im in que for 3 BGs - AV, WSG and AB.

AV pops, and i enter - Im now PvPing while holding my place in line for the other queues. WSG pops, i ignore it and keep on playing AV. After a min it goes away, and my spot is going to the next one on the list for WSG...the WSG game has most likely already started, and Horde being one short due to me holding up the spot for as long as i did. Now think that the next on in line does the same - He joined AB instead, but now holds up another place in both WSG and AV, as i did in WSG and AB.

Now think that every player does this - and you get the resoults we have here now - BGs that are more or less over before people enter, if they even do that.

One really easy and simple fix to this tho is that once you enter a BG, your booted from any other que you might be in.

This will:

#1: Ensure that players who joined a certain BG, stay there for the whole fight - as leaving it prematurely will give them deserter status for 10 mins. Also, no other BG will pop till they are in que once more(meaning they would have to win/lose and requeue). They then wont be able to jump between BGs as they please, deserting one to risk jumping in on another deserted BG.

#2: Que spots will be vaccant faster, as once you enter a BG, your booted from all others, letting other people jump in - and BGs will fill up faster.

If the queue system was made so that you will be kicked from all other queues once you enter a BG, the BGs would fill up really quick, no one would leave because they cant without getting a deserter status, which would motivate most to see a battle through in the end.

Add alot of the ideas, mine and alot of the others that have been following the thread on PvP Forums, with this queueing system, and i think we will see major improvements to how people presieve and experience the PvP of WoW - and i think it would be for the better. And as said in the original thread, i think most players will gladly forfit the posebility to jump between BGs as it can be now, to have full and fun BGs in the future

I've read what you've posted so far and what I can say is that I like this (keep it going).

I never got to do AV in its prime days where you had the objectives and so on, what about putting such objectives as well into the territory "stuff"?

For example if this is the "map"

---- A's main base -----

----A's second def wall-----

----A's first def wall ------

---- Neutral strategic point-----

---- H's first def wall ----

----H's second def wall----

----H's main base----


The objectives or co-tasks (isn't required to do, but it benefits your faction's team) . They're usually at the main base area and could involve some travelling (you get more co-tasks avaible the further your faction gets behind the enemy lines, like breaching their first wall = 1 more task and so on).

For example you do that quest an X amount of times and you can call in some badass "riders" - Just like the quests in the current AV... Just that they should actually be worth calling in...

That's it for now I suppose. And about hat lvl 60 bracket thingie - If something like that happens I'm in, always dreamt about being a 60 badass warrior in a full warlord set

Been having a think on the ideas regarding AV. I tried to combine the two of our ideas into one, but I think I did a pretty good job.

Each side owns 3 territories, 2 pieces of the map and their base. The middle section (The Field of Strife) is neutral. These 'normal' pieces have a number of objectives that need to be captured. When they capture enough, they control that area which allows the team access to the next area. Rather than having a section of the wall destroyed, there is a gate that opens instead, so the attackers can advance, but if they get pushed back and lose the area, the gate closes and the gate to their area opens. In order to win the BG, instead of killing the General, you capture a single point at the base.

I made changes regarding how to get past the walls and winning the macth, becuase one of the topics I was reading alot of people were complaining about siege weapons and PvE elements in a BG. Other than that, how does this sound?

Remember that its more or less Medieval times we're speaking of. If we want to get through to the enemy, we're not opening his gates, we're crushing them down. After they are crushed down, they wont simply close again should we be pushed back out. Feel we need to keep on par with the "technology" of the "era" that world of warcraft is played in.

That is true, but if you don't have any siege weaponary to knock the wall down with, how are you going to get past it? If there's a gate, then getting some guys to release the opening mechanism is the only way forward. Then, of course, if you get pushed back, the enemy would close the gate behind them.
The reason I think a gate would be a better idea is because of the following reasons:

• Lets say, for example, the Horde breach the Alliance's wall and go on the offensive, but they get pushed back. The Alliance then manage to breach the Horde's wall, but the Alliance wall still has a hole in it. So, what is stopping the Horde from ignoring the Alliance advance and just rushing throuhg the gap they created and capturing the next area? That is unless, there is something that's stopping the Horde from doing that unless they hold the Field of Strife (i.e. Locking Capture points that are not the current objective)
  

• This topic is an official Blue post about the up coming Ilse of Conquest:
  
  Alot of people have been complaining in this how they don't like siege weapons, they don't want PvE elements in PvP and call this BG AV 2.0, so anything reguarding siege weaponary is probably a big no no

Link above didn't work, so here it is again:

Hmm... guess I can't post hyperlinks then

Sorry for the triple post >.<