Most of the players who play this game are casuals, this include those who queue for Random Battlegrounds. While premades may make up a sizeable chunk of PVP players present in battlegrounds at any given time, they are hardly the majority. Typically what happens in an imbalanced premade vs "randoms" match, is at least half of the "randoms" will get replaced, sometimes several times over depending on the length of the battleground and the severity of its one-sidedness. Also, it hardly takes a full premade to cause severe imbalance in battlegrounds. I have seen Warsong Gulch dominated by two-man DPS+Healer combos. There is little doubt that a team composed of merely 30-50% premade will hold a significant advantage over a team of random players.
But as you pointed out, this is exactly why premades are formed --- to gain an advantage over other players. From the point of view of most casual player, this is extremely unfair, and if they were able to form quality premades, they wouldn't be considered casuals in the first place. Forming premades requires a lot of work and is time consuming. That is why there are PVP guilds dedicated to such activities.
There is a difference between changes to game mechanics (or class balance) versus quality of life improvements (conveniences). Most people who come here to play 3.3.5a are willing to put up with the latter but not the former. Let's stay focused and address the issue at hand. This thread is about battleground imbalance caused by premades.
-
Member
-
Member
So let me get this straight casuals only play solo? What they are not capable of creating a party? Or what if casuals create parties they can't win battlegrounds vs non-casuals? BS i'm a casual and i rearely join bgs without a group of 3-4 guys. There is no point of view from casual prospective ... on what grounds you are calling yourself more casual then me? Isn't a casual player someone that plays the game less time then a non-casual. Isn't commitment to said thing a mark for casual?
I'm also a casual and i'm not a bis geared pvper and in no way i would stand and watch how bunch of "casual" but wanna be elitist players are trying to restrict the abilities of parties to join bgs.
-
Member
They don't have to be restricted. Let premades only face other premades. For example, if you queue with 3 friends, you will end up in a battleground that is mostly made up of similar sized elements on both teams.
-
Member
This is exactly the restriction i was talking about, so what force me to meet the same people just because each group decided to play as a group? You amaze me you don't want to restrict groups but you kinda do suggesting it should be only playing versus other groups and that pretty much sounds as a restriction as it doesn't add anything to a group queue only takes away.
-
Member
Yes. Fight someone your own size. That is what most would consider to be fair.
-
Member
Oh so now its about fair, well back to you buddy, we are fighting someone our own size aren't we. What, isn't the opposite team the exact same number of players . Or because we are party it magically gives us more people then the foes? There is no magic it boils down to either skill, gear, team play sometimes all are at factor. It is called Random BG as you get random foes, might be 10 solo, might be 10 party might be 10 people from your own faction due to merc mode. Random as in you get random surprise !
-
Member
That's pretty flawed, and on top of it more custom bull****.
It would never work and would punish any sort of premade. There wouldn't ever be enough people to pop bgs like that.
-
Member
Well, I'll help you (and maybe others) out by pointing out the irony here. You run a premade that doesn't want to face other premades, yet you don't like the fact that random players don't want to face any premades. It is not that hard to figure out, and I am 100% sure that you understand the problem very well.
-
Member
No i'm not sure you understand what i'm saying, i don't mind facing anything as long as its random not defined to only other parties. Its not called "join fair group queue" you got "join battle" or join as a party. Suits me, i am not the one suggesting restrictions and changes to this matter
-
Member
If what Keymouse said is true, we wouldn't have to worry about it. Players already form these small groups, and I tend to agree. Just put them all in queue and let them fight each other.
If you don't mind it, then what do you care? Let those who care about it decide then. Many are fed up with this situation.Edited: February 25, 2021
-
Member
Well i tend to start care when you start forcing restrictions on me
-
Member
For what it's worth, the old queue system had a bias for pitting premade groups against premade groups. This by no means need to be a clear cut 100% thing. If they simply dial up that bias the situation will immediately improve.
It is obvious why you worry about such restrictions. Like other premades, you want your chance to stomp randoms, too.Edited: February 25, 2021
-
Member
Hell yeah, because being a 5.8 unholy dk really with ~GS party really gives me the opportunity to stomp my 6.4 opponents. No actually being a premade in my situation is the only thing giving me a fighting chance, but hey who am i to judge. Make me only face lets say kenzz / i hate you ****er, but salute / party or some other full bis party so you can't get those parties. Let me be constantly stomped so you get more victories, yes it does sound great. I fully agree with your idea. Fair
I think i did good at speaking rant, might help you understand meEdited: February 25, 2021
-
Forum Veteran
if you don't want to face teams go find a solo player game to play.
-
Member
I like it when people comment without reading half of what was being said.
The problem aren't premades themself, the problem is the bracket system that once you hit a certain point have constantly to bother with them which was not the case before. I used to see premades maybe once a day, often not for a week and now it's more seeing premades than anything else because the pool of players is a lot smaller in highest bracket.
Something that worked fine previously had no reason to get changed.
Quote
