Battlegrounds: Pros and Cons of Randomizing Sides?
#76
Posted 11 December 2010 - 01:16 PM
#77
Posted 11 December 2010 - 06:59 PM
Everyone is just grinding, until most of the people gets to their leveling limit and gets bored they won't go to BG. Heck, I want KVM and when I send an alt to check no one is there so it's not worth it. Randomizing makes it worse.
#78
Posted 11 December 2010 - 09:03 PM
Edited by GuardianTK, 11 December 2010 - 09:04 PM.
#79
Posted 11 December 2010 - 09:42 PM
Check ROPD's level graph and see if you still think that.Everyone is just grinding
Most of us are looking for something *besides* grind to do, and BGs, when they're actual battles, can be that.
#80
Posted 12 December 2010 - 10:25 AM
In that case I do agree... as long as the teams are randomized.Oh yeah it still has to be random team selection, but the idea is you dont need to spend hours getting that "last person" to get the match going since the match could start anytime you have 10-20 people sitting in the chat room ready to go
#81
Posted 12 December 2010 - 11:12 AM
How about my party "ques" in battleground together, then gets paired up vs other teams that also "qued"
People who que by themselves get thrown in together to fill spots on either team.
This would also fix the "lets stack that side with alts to win" problem.
And the farming problem.
Solved.
Couldn't someone then just "que" up a party full of alts then? Or am I not understanding your suggestion correctly?
#82
Posted 12 December 2010 - 12:46 PM
They could, but it would be placed on a random team.Couldn't someone then just "que" up a party full of alts then? Or am I not understanding your suggestion correctly?
For example
Team 1-controls team 2 alts, in an attempt to fight them for a free win
Team 2
Team 3
Team 4
Team 1 v Team 3
Team 2 v Team 4
Edited by Kokotewa, 12 December 2010 - 12:57 PM.
#83
Posted 12 December 2010 - 01:56 PM
#84
Posted 12 December 2010 - 02:37 PM
Oh yeah... every time this happens the farmers come along and bug/help the other side win. Why are we even questioning randomized teams? With Gravity's lax banning habits its absolutely necessary.
#85
Posted 12 December 2010 - 03:34 PM
#86
Posted 12 December 2010 - 03:56 PM
#87
Posted 16 December 2010 - 01:38 PM
#88
Posted 16 December 2010 - 01:51 PM
I hear from a certain source that it'll be an "event" kind of thing in the near future. I'm guessing this is to test the system and see if it works.It appears the community is overwhelmingly in favor of this. Any chance we can get it implemented?
#89
Posted 16 December 2010 - 04:14 PM
kvm does need to lose the 5min delay and randoming side in kvm would be a good idea
but as for bg i dont agree with randoming sides, prerenewal most of the late night games were only possible because each player would drop an alt on one side and 24 players is alot worse when half are getting upset about losing...
#90
Posted 16 December 2010 - 04:18 PM
am correct to assume the guards are just as weak as the woe guards, prerenewal you basicly had to wall the guards and range them todeath but now renewal has hit im sure its possable to drop the guard while tanking them
kvm does need to lose the 5min delay and randoming side in kvm would be a good idea
but as for bg i dont agree with randoming sides, prerenewal most of the late night games were only possible because each player would drop an alt on one side and 24 players is alot worse when half are getting upset about losing...
This is desirable. It means that it's not just the side with the Wizards that automatically 'wins'. Just so long as the are not dropping in ten seconds.
I agree with the rest.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users