Actually game feels pretty much the same for me, noobs will be noobs, zergz will be zergz, ranters will rant, Role players role play. I dont know what you consider blizzlike experience but for me thats the working Arthas versus Illidian infront ICC quest, it being able to play in the fishing extravaganza.
What you want are handicaps. :D
Handicap, in sports and games, method of offsetting the varying abilities or characteristics of competitors in order to equalize their chances of winning
-
Member
Edited: March 8, 2021
-
Member
Many will disagree.
There are always trade-offs and compromises. Like I said, the devil is in the detail.
-
Member
That's what's called a bug free game that works as intended, not a blizzlike experience per se. In fact, between all the servers, there are several things that aren't blizzlike, like the x7 xp rates, the increased pve difficulty, transmog, arena NPCs that offer services like replays etc. And yet we are all fine with them because while they make the game a little less blizzlike they modify it for the better.
That said, yes, handicaps is the way you fix stuff. That's what patches do in gaming. For instance if you notice an ability that is broken, you introduce an ability handicap (I believe we call it a nerf) and restore balance. if you notice a game mechanic that isn't bugged and yet the players found a way to abuse/exploit, you introduce a handicap by changing how that mechanic works effectively taking away the player's ability to abuse/exploit it.
Handicaps are not inherently bad.Edited: March 9, 2021 Reason: typo & clarification
-
Member
Its obvious we have different understanding about things. And this is how it should be. But Handicaps are not nerfs.
If you took the time to read thru the topic, they are not only suggesting handicaps that will only benefit them, while restrict a big portion of players.
Surrender options in battleground, no premades in queues. Those are not nerfs, nerf is introduced to take unintended advantage by design. I think its safe to say that doing premades (parties), is a core game mechanic.
Elaborate with me what is blizzlike experience then. Let us get clear of the terms first, then we can have meaningful conversation.Edited: March 9, 2021
-
Member
I did take the time, read through it all, I have even posted two or three times. I know what's being suggested. Some suggestions make sense, some less so. I'm of the opinion to not apply the 15 min debuff to someone who leaves when he soloqued and ended up against a premade (and only then). That way, premades que times would be unaffected, you would still get your victory against a revolving door BG, but the players who think those games are cancerous could que again hoping to end up against another, truly random BG.
The way I see it (and the people I play with), blizzlike means "the game is a) mostly bug free and b) played the way it used to be played back in the day", including the meta (up to a point).
An example of what isn't blizzlike would be the state of dungeons and AV in classic. Spell cleaving a dungeon (a group of 5 mages) should not only be slower than the intended schema of 1 tank, 3 dps, 1 healer) but it should lead to a guaranteed wipe. This player choice has nothing to do with bugs (which by your definition would be a blizzlike game) and everything to do with players exploiting a new discovery that goes against the design philosophy of how dungeons were intended to work. (which by my definition isn't a blizzlike experience).
Something like this is going on on AV. Back in the day, rushing to the boss while ignoring all the other objectives and enemy players wasn't a real thing. But in 2020 the players figured out that this is yielding the most honor per hour so the meta was like "screw how this BG is supposed to be played by Blizzard."Edited: March 9, 2021 Reason: typos
-
Member
So we agree on one thing blizzlike means mostly bug-free. I can't comment on B) because honestly i'm playing the same way i've been playing back then, I'm doing pretty much the same things i've been doing back then.
Honestly everything seems pretty much the same with one little thing people tend to forget. Back then everything was new to everyone. I remember playing on TBC Pre-patch and how all those new abilities and tallent changes were so alien to me. I remember frost dks being tanks back then, when now i've seen people go mad ape **** when i even suggest such things.
On the point of no deserter debuff here is what i'm concerned. It has been pointed out by many of the guys suggesting ideas about bg queues that one of their issues is the constant people leaving and joining. Removing the deserter buff will only enforce even more of that. It will create issues of its own.
About AV rushes, i've never in any of my AVs seen a full raid rush to their end boss just to kill it. We usually just start getting towers and from there the game starts progressing naturally. They push, we push.
And since you are referring how classic is not blizzlike, how can it not be. Since its hosted by Blizzard. I don't know what would mean more blizzlike then this.
In the end all i have been trying to say its the people that have changed. Its not the game. As you pointed out meta was the same, i stricktly remember premades rulling blizzard's bgs too. I remember joining a bg without a single healer always resulted in a loose for my team. Like i said i pretty much am experiencing the same game feeling as before.
Here is a video of mage grinding from 2009: (This might be post Vanilla/TBC - i am honestly amazed how much time has passed since wow became part of my life :D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZ89nMP-uFM
AoE grind has been always been a thing. My guild used to clear karazahn in mostly aoes when we got geared enough.
Pretty much you say 5 mages can't compare to a normal 5 man party, ofc they can't. How can a normal party with healer tank and 3 dps do as much AOE damage as 5 mages do. What about collision i remember on blizzard that people figured out how to do the headless horseman solo using the coalition. What you find non blizzlike i explain to myself with the time people had to play this game.
P.S: Here is a 2007 topic about Mage AOE dung runs:
https://www.google.bg/search?q=Mage+...31%2F2008&tbm=
Here is another example:
https://wowwiki-archive.fandom.com/w...t_AoE_grinding
If you think its not genie check the history of that wiki.
You base your understanding on whats blizzlike not on what was actually back in blizzard but on how you consider things "Should be"
Video from 2006:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16l2kJPM0D0
About AV: here is a quote about it:
.Overall Problems Post 2.0
Essentially, Alterac Valley has become just another PvE raid instance where a PuG can walk in and easily win. Side quests and other things that potentially make the fight more interesting are overlooked because they are simply unnecessary, and doing them removes players from 'the action' and potentially loose you honor points. A group can leave 15 people on defense, send 25 in on offense and easily win the match. There is no need to upgrade the armor of the NPC units, send cavalry attacks, or summon the raid boss. Battles have gone from the former multi-hour strategy matches, to footraces to the opposing base. It's simply a matter of which group of 40 people can reach the opposing base first and kill the leader, which, in itself, is painfully easy. As of patch 2.4, when Season 4 was released and Season 2 became available as Honor gear, every single Alterac Valley seems to be a massive zerg without any thought put in to the offense except "CAP THEIR BASE NOW!!!". Honestly, if I am playing Alterac Valley, I get about 5 of my friends to go back capture the towers. Bunkers/towers are rarely ever defended after the capture timer has started. The game requires many changes if it is to return to its former glory.
(From Horde perspective) As a Horde Paladin player, Alterac Valley frustrates me very much post 2.4. In Patch 2.4, the Horde's starting cave was moved back about another 30 seconds of running. This gives the Alliance a much closer starting point to the Horde's base, and the Horde ends up reaching Dun Baldar much later than the Alliance reaches Frostwolf Village. If you pay attention in Alterac Valley, you should notice that the Alliance will always start on the Relief Hut flag before Horde even reaches the Dun Baldar bunkers. This is due to the fact that Horde: A) has no defense whatsoever and B) The Alliance starts much closer and you can't get interrupted while capturing the flag at the Relief Hut.
Where i got the quote from:
https://vanilla-wow-archive.fandom.c...action=history
History of that Wikipage:
curprev 14:51, 13 October 2012 Emhilradim Message Wall contribs m 13,841 bytes 0 1 revision
curprev 17:07, 1 November 2011 Benjiboy87 contribs 13,841 bytes +13,841 →Icewing bunker
That **** was written like 9 years ago. Stuff are pretty much the same by the way you are explaining them to me. Its just new generation of players joining and getting frustrated.Edited: March 9, 2021
-
Moderator
Blizzlike, Blizzlike, Blizzlike...
Why did that become a thing in this discussion now? It's been a decade and people still can't seem to use it correctly. You know why we stopped calling ourselves that? Because of this, people creating their own personal "meaning" to the term. This is from the Cambridge dictionary:
"-like
suffix
changes a noun into an adjective meaning 'typical of or similar to'"
Similar. Not exact copy. Not 1:1. Just alike something else. Transmogrification, coins, trading, bugs... all of it, plus whatever else might come in the future? All of it is Blizz-like. The fact people play for free, with no monthly subscription, is already something that would make us different from retail, but, ironic and surprisingly, we don't get people complaining that not paying monthly "iSn'T bLiZzLiKe."
-
Member
The surrender option is not a handicap/buff/nerf to any specific group. It is not meant to address balance. It is intended to save time for all involved parties when the outcome of the match is clear and most are just going through the motions waiting for it to end. These matches can be random players vs random players, premades vs premades, or anything in between. Some premades that queue for Random Battlegrounds will also benefit from it by earning more Honor through more efficient wins.
-
Member
And yet again, not all parties agree to this suggestion. Even if i'm on the loosing team, i prefer to fight till the end then just joining another meaningless surrender battle.
Edit 1: Also having played games with surrender option, i know exactly how toxic people become when they want to start a new game and don't want to finish their current. So that's another NO for me.Edited: March 9, 2021
-
Member
You will never find solutions that everyone agrees to. If the surrender option requires a super majority, then you have nothing to worry about unless you are the only one (or few) who wants to fight. In that case, you (and the few) would just be wasting everyone else's time.
-
Member
You are right on that, i'm not looking for any solution, as i don't see any issues. What I'm doing is just giving my arguments on why those shouldn't be considered, just in case someone reads it. Preemptive measure.
-
Moderator
A "Surrender" option would just negate the point of the debuff encouraging people to not be quitters.
What would happen with such an option is at any point a group feels they can't win (which can be anything from going against a premade to losing an objective to being against randoms that just are playing better to something esoteric like "not feeling it"), they would call for a vote and peer-pressure everyone to vote for it.
Beyond that, it would either have to steal any victory rewards from the other side or be liable to be exploited to farm currency in a brand new form of facilitated "win-trading."
-
Member
I welcome anything that keeps the conversation going. The surrender option is one of those common sense solutions that I think most will find reasonable. It is not nearly as effective as OP's proposal when it comes to addressing the imbalance caused by premades in battlegrounds, but it has a few advantages: It works well in conjunction with other solutions, does not effect balance, does not target or single out any particular group, and directly addresses some of the grievances players face in battlegrounds.
-
Member
Yes, the surrender option is meant to negate the Deserter Debuff when the majority of the players have already lost the will to fight. If properly implemented, it should mostly only affect matches that have already turned into "revolving doors", or farming sessions where players AFK at graveyards.
Safeguards such as internal CDs, unavailability during the first few minutes of battleground, percentage vote requirements ... etc., can mitigate some of the undesirable effects. When it comes to peer pressure, there is nothing like the current AFK report system that gets abused regularly by premades to bully players into submission, and I have ideas about that, too, but I digress.
Win-trading will be harder to address. If win-trading becomes an issue, the surrender option can be disabled for specific battleground queues, where teams know which battleground (by ID) they are entering and can coordinate outside of the game. It is harder to see how win-trading will be prevalent in an Random Battleground setting.
-
Moderator
"Should" isn't "will." The very reason the debuff exists is because players will take the easiest way out if they don't feel they will win. That includes struggled matched as well. Just look at the complains people made about Arenas and how people getting to leave matches unpunished made it so lots of times that's what happens. That's not something isolated, that's just how people are.
I don't see mitigation as enough when the "problem" is just, essentially, players now liking to be on the losing side in an activity that isn't meant to be fair or balanced.
It happening once is enough for it to be a problem when you want to introduce something new that isn't per se necessary due to the above.
