The Need for Cross-Server Battlegrounds

[MongoJerry]

It would be nice for a BG battle to be a requirement for completing a lvl 10 quest with a nice reward.  This would introduce people to the PvP aspect of the game, and hopefully it would induce them to pursue it more.

That's a nice idea. Maybe not at level 10, because people are still just getting used to the controls and how things work and they don't have many skills to use. But maybe have some level 20 quests that lead them to a battleground. One shouldn't make it a requirement (the game should stay a "choose your own adventure" format), but there could be quest-givers who point people to a battleground and give healthy quest experience and item rewards for completing the quests.

[kandrathe]

That's a nice idea.  Maybe not at level 10, because people are still just getting used to the controls and how things work and they don't have many skills to use.  But maybe have some level 20 quests that lead them to a battleground.  One shouldn't make it a requirement (the game should stay a "choose your own adventure" format), but there could be quest-givers who point people to a battleground and give healthy quest experience and item rewards for completing the quests.
[right][snapback]85843[/snapback][/right]

I was thinking about it in relation to another game I play, Guild Wars. There is PvE in the game which is a way to level and acquire better equipment, but there is a clear emphasis and early (lvl 3 or 4) in a toons career on PvP. That games intent is to marry the popularity of team oriented combat games like Counterstrike to a role playing adventure genre. I like the "choose your own adventure" format, but I'm just suggesting more of a nudge to help people overcome their reservations. Warsong Gulch is available for 21-30 group, but at 21 you would probably get slaughtered by the oppositions 10 level 30's. I see alot of dueling outside the inn in Ellwyn, which indicates to me that there are lots of people interested in PvP much earlier than level 20.

I contemplated taking my Level 40 shadow priest into WSG, but I had so many level 40 goals (farming for mount money, Artisan in primary and secondary skills, getting my lvl 40 faction quests done) that by the time I had attained them I found myself at level 41, and again at a huge disadvantage in the battlegrounds. Maybe I'll try it again in 6-8 levels.

[savaughn]

I don't think you have a real handle on the problem, Savaughn.  The problems with the queues are due to low population problems.  The most obvious example is when there is not enough players of one faction queuing up to start a game.  In this case, one has to wait an infinite amount of time to get in a a game.  But even if a game is going on, what happens when the teams are evenly matched?  People can be waiting for hours for spaces to become available, because such a game doesn't end in a timely fashion.
[right][snapback]85814[/snapback][/right]

No, Mongo. That is just one of the problems. If you play for the Horde, that is the problem. The much much larger issue is that if you play alliance, there are vastly more players trying to get in than there will ever be slots available. When virtually every server in the game has a 1.5:1 or greater alliance to horde ratio, there will never be a reasonable queue length.

You start with one server. There are more alliance on that server than there are horde players. When you get enough horde players together, an AV spawns and a section of alliance gets to play.

Now, lets add another server. We will add a couple of horde players (increasing the rate at which AV's spawn) but we will add even MORE alliance players who will be waiting in line. AV spawn rate goes up, but the number of alliance waiting to play goes up even faster.

Now we multiply this concept by several hundred servers and end up with an AV environment for the alliance that unless you're in the queue by 3:30 you never get to play.

While implementing this kind of solution would be absolutely lovely for the horde since your wait for an AV spawn will be radically reduced, you have solved nothing for the alliance - the limited number of spaces available to play end up getting stretched even thinner. And since the majority of Blizzard's customers play alliance characters, this does not seem to be a final solution. Thus the reason I called it a band-aid.

[Quark]

You start with one server.  There are more alliance on that server than there are horde players.  When you get enough horde players together, an AV spawns and a section of alliance gets to play.

Now, lets add another server.  We will add a couple of horde players (increasing the rate at which AV's spawn) but we will add even MORE alliance players who will be waiting in line.  AV spawn rate goes up, but the number of alliance waiting to play goes up even faster.

Now we multiply this concept by several hundred servers and end up with an AV environment for the alliance that unless you're in the queue by 3:30 you never get to play.

Ratios, this is a simply mathematical principle of ratios. Right now the way Warsong Gulch typically plays out on my server, there's one or two groups of Horde playing at any given time, while the Alliance has plenty of groups and has a typical queue of an hour or so (am I right on this, Leeah?).

Let's add in another server exactly like ours, with linked WSG. Now there's three or four horde groups typically running around, and about double the Alliance. Queue time for the Alliance? One hour. The queue time became no worse for the alliance, and the simple fact is now the WSG would be up more often.

Servers that have very even ratios of Alliance and Horde PvPing will have longer queue times. Those servers, however, are in the minority. Everyone else will either be the same or better.

[Brother Laz]

Someone here doesn't know math. ;)

I believe the point is that if on two servers there are 40 alliance and 20 horde waiting in line, with as many joining as there are leaving, nothing will ever happen on either server. Merge them, you have 80 alliance and 40 horde, of which 40 alliance are kicked into the queue and the other 40 alliance and the 40 horde can play.

Ratios be damned, the more players there are on both sides and the more BGs are up at a given time, the less chance that a given player of the underpopulated side (Horde) ends up in the 'overflow' queue. Eg. if there are 61 players on the Horde side, with loads more Alliance, 40 can play and 21 are waiting in queue - 34%. If there are 6100 players, 6080 can play and 20 are waiting in queue - 0.33%.

It would also help Alliance. A BG that isn't starting due to not enough Horde is a BG the Alliance doesn't get to play. Once servers are merged, the number of Alliance in the queue is equal to the number of extra players on the Alliance side. It won't go any lower than this, but it's still much better than not getting to play at all unless the Horde cooperates, right?

*goes back to lurking*

[lemekim]

You start with one server.  There are more alliance on that server than there are horde players.  When you get enough horde players together, an AV spawns and a section of alliance gets to play.

Yes, lets say there is 40 horde and 80 alliance waiting to get in. So there is still 1/2 alliance waiting to get in after an AV goes up. Lets say the average time a spot opens in a single AV is 10 minutes, so the 40th member will get in after waiting 6 hours 40 minutes.

Now, lets add another server.  We will add a couple of horde players (increasing the rate at which AV's spawn) but we will add even MORE alliance players who will be waiting in line.  AV spawn rate goes up, but the number of alliance waiting to play goes up even faster.

So adding similar server. We now have 80 horde and 160 alliance. That's enough people for 2 AV games, and half alliance (80 people) are in line again. So now we have 2x AV, and 2x Alliance waiting to get in. The number of alliance waiting to get in increases proportinally, not faster. Also, since there are 2 AVs up, we now have new spots every 5 minutes (or rather, 2x spots every 10 minutes), so while there is more alliance waiting to get in, they are also moving in faster, so the 80th member will need to wait 6 hours 40 minutes again.

Now we multiply this concept by several hundred servers and end up with an AV environment for the alliance that unless you're in the queue by 3:30 you never get to play.

Because the number increases proportionally, the picture will not change whether you have 2 servers or 200 servers.

While implementing this kind of solution would be absolutely lovely for the horde since your wait for an AV spawn will be radically reduced, you have solved nothing for the alliance - the limited number of spaces available to play end up getting stretched even thinner.  And since the majority of Blizzard's customers play alliance characters, this does not seem to be a final solution.  Thus the reason I called it a band-aid.
[right][snapback]85866[/snapback][/right]

Individual players who join public groups at the same rate (if they use the "join first available" option). Groups might get in slightly faster, in large because of the stupid way the queue is implemented (think of getting stuck behind an old lady in a single-checkout store versus just going to a different register in a supermarket. Not quite accurate, but gets the point across).

[lemekim]

Someone here doesn't know math. ;)

I believe the point is that if on two servers there are 40 alliance and 20 horde waiting in line, with as many joining as there are leaving, nothing will ever happen on either server. Merge them, you have 80 alliance and 40 horde, of which 40 alliance are kicked into the queue and the other 40 alliance and the 40 horde can play.

Ratios be damned, the more players there are on both sides and the more BGs are up at a given time, the less chance that a given player of the underpopulated side (Horde) ends up in the 'overflow' queue. Eg. if there are 61 players on the Horde side, with loads more Alliance, 40 can play and 21 are waiting in queue - 34%. If there are 6100 players, 6080 can play and 20 are waiting in queue - 0.33%.

It would also help Alliance. A BG that isn't starting due to not enough Horde is a BG the Alliance doesn't get to play. Once servers are merged, the number of Alliance in the queue is equal to the number of extra players on the Alliance side. It won't go any lower than this, but it's still much better than not getting to play at all unless the Horde cooperates, right?

*goes back to lurking*
[right][snapback]85869[/snapback][/right]

Exactly =) Especially when the "overflow" is above Zero. (only 21 horde willing to play AV). In those cases, the waiting time decreases from infinity to something that one can actually get in =)

[Brista]

MJ's post is very much admired by EU players:

http://forums-en.wow-europe.com/thread.asp...mp=1#post116430

[Metrocube]

I would absolutely hate playing with people I did not know. Being able to enter with my usual PVP group would help some, but what we'd be missing then is any hint of rivalry vs. a known enemy. I love getting my ass handed to me by the Horde's top team/player one game, and then having the opportunity to avenge my many deaths a few hours later.

There are so many teams across so many servers, that I doubt I'd get a similar experience in a cross-server PVP matching service.

It's a little bit like our Onyxia encounters. How good did it feel when we brought her down? That was our what, 12th try? Would we have felt the same sense of achievement if, instead of Onyxia, it was some random monster with a random made up name in there each time?

[lfd]

You know, I can't actually think of a (non-implementation) reason why you couldn't have alliance vs. alliance or horde vs. horde in warsong gulch. Would be a bit earthbindy in the case of horde vs. horde, but it'd solve the problem of having to wait for the other side.

The contribution points system would need a rethink to stop deliberate farming, I suppose, but since the whole thing is completely unbalanced anyway, and since such farming could also be done with cross-faction organisation anyway, I don't see it being too much of an issue.

[kandrathe]

You know, I can't actually think of a (non-implementation) reason why you couldn't have alliance vs. alliance or horde vs. horde in warsong gulch.  Would be a bit earthbindy in the case of horde vs. horde, but it'd solve the problem of having to wait for the other side.

The contribution points system would need a rethink to stop deliberate farming, I suppose, but since the whole thing is completely unbalanced anyway, and since such farming could also be done with cross-faction organisation anyway, I don't see it being too much of an issue.
[right][snapback]86342[/snapback][/right]

Like "Training Grounds" where it's Red vs Blue war games. Maybe rather than kills, the result is like a duel victory with a player submitting and then out until the next round. Make it a good practice area for the *real* battlegrounds. I could see that it would also help to encourage players into PvP, and you would need to make the rewards minimal for team victory.

[JustAGuy]

So, returning to this topic, lets see what Blizzard has done INSTEAD of cross-server queues.

1. Removed the "join as group" option from Alterac Valley.

2. Put the 60's in their own group, and adjusted all other brackets (meaning level 20's get to play now! whee)

3. Introduced Arathi Basin, thereby gimping Warsong Gulch.


The first item on the list was a hack. Rather than implement something that will actually accomodate those guilds that want to do guild vs guild action, while simultaneously allowing more people to play AV, they remove that option all together. Much easier to disable a button than to implement a cross-server queue.

The second item on the list was necessary, and in my opinion, late arriving. This should have been in place ages ago, but sadly, it effectively kills the 50-59 bracket. So instead of just the formerly 31-40 bracket being empty, the 50-59 bracket is empty, because characters are powering to 60. Previously, it was near impossible to get a WSG game going in the 31-40 bracket, because everyone was out farming for mounts. Actually, all the brackets are dead, because of the third point...

Arathi Basin; destroyer of WSG. They added this as what seemed to be simply a point of sale. Something for Blizzard to announce at BlizzCon, something for the checklist to say, "yep, it's done! We've got so many things in WoW we can sell!".

On my PvP Server, Ursin, there are no WSG games going. Well, every once in a while you might see a 20-29 game going, but it's rare. Never anything higher. WSG is more fun for me, because it's a tried, tested and true version of PvP. Capture the flag is as core as it gets, aside from a free for all deathmatch. It's just one of those standard things.

The stand-offs and crappy pugs were always irritating to say the least, but I still miss it. The honor reward was higher in WSG as well, not to mention that you could totally shut-out the opposition if you team was good enough. In the patch, they made it so you get a "ribbon of sacrifice" if you lose (so your time isn't completely wasted when you get shut-out), something I've yet to see, due to Arathi Basin. No more shutouts, no more WSG, period. Since the patch, I've yet to see a WSG game, aside from that one 20-29 game.

You know, it's kind of ironic; I spent my time getting to 40 so I could be more effective in WSG, and then tried to get Honored in WSG so I could use the field rations and such. Then, in the patch, they moved field rations to friendly so I could use them, but then took WSG away.

WSG is hardcore compared to AB. If you face any competition at all in AB, there's no shutout. Practically guaranteed honor, a de facto time limit for games, and more players per game -- it's clearly the game of choice for these soft PvPers. Everyone wins! There's a whole new set of cheap tactics to employ, a whole new set of imbalances to complain about, and another set of crappy faction rewards.

I miss my WSG. At least I still have AV...

EDIT: Typo

[Quark]

I miss my WSG. At least I still have AV...

I don't like WSG, so I don't miss it. We, on the other hand, got an entire 1 AV up during the whole holiday bonus.

[Artega]

I don't like WSG, so I don't miss it.  We, on the other hand, got an entire 1 AV up during the whole holiday bonus.
[right][snapback]91052[/snapback][/right]

Better than us. We haven't seen an AV since the patch, despite repeated efforts to get one going via IRC and the official Blizzard forums.

[JustAGuy]

Better than us.  We haven't seen an AV since the patch, despite repeated efforts to get one going via IRC and the official Blizzard forums.
[right][snapback]91236[/snapback][/right]

Well, I guess I should be happy -- over the AV holiday, there were, by my count, at least 5 AVs played, one of which I participated in.

The one I got into was a 5 hour game, and it started at, oddly enough, 5 am eastern time (I'm on a western server, but still...). I stayed for the whole thing and lost a whole day of work. Sure was fun, though. We (the horde) won that game; right after we took the middle graveyards, we released our God and the wolfriders at the same time, and it ended relatively shortly after that. I think there was a windrider on our front-lines too, while their griffon just sorta flew around, having a chat with Korrak.

OH! Another thing -- almost as if to spite me, a group of 60's got together and played a WSG game mere minutes after I posted my original message. So, that's TWO WSG games I've seen played since the patch came out...