Realms Balancing for premades when forcing cross-faction BG

[theborg9]

I understand the need of forcing cross-faction BG queueing, for example when a faction has less players queueing or the necessity to quickly finding players to fill up a team. The problem with this is that some BG maps are highly problematic (I'll explain why in a second), and forcing cross-faction means denying players of a means to avoid them, at least on some realms. In addition, those problematic BG maps have negative effects on participation and queue times, so some changes may be warranted.

For example, Alterac Valley:

There is a relatively small number of very skilled and organized players who pretty much farm AV whenever it starts, and are often able to graveyard camp the opposite team quickly, which makes the match pointless and truly a waste of time, I think everybody can honestly see that.
These players were previously playing Horde, and at some point they switched to Alliance. When they played Horde, Horde used to win AV. Since they switched to Alliance, Alliance usually wins AV. This is based on honest, direct experience.

Now, to be clear I don't really care about how those players spend their time, nor about how they play AV, but I don't think it's fair to force Alliance players, at least on Blackrock, to play on the side of Horde (forced cross-faction) against such premades, and it also has negative consequences (see the following comment).

It's worth noticing that Horde characters were previously not forced to cross-faction to Alliance when Horde used to win AV a lot. If anybody now finds himself against those premades, it would be fair to let them login their Alliance characters and not have to waste their time in there, when queueing for RBG. In fact it used to be like that, before cross-faction started being forced (for AV at least, and on Blackrock).

Proposed changes (alternative or combined):
1) stop forcing players into playing Horde against such Alliance premades/in AV, at least on Blackrock, would likely have favorable effects on participation and queue times.
2) detecting the number of premades (parties) and assigning a roughly equal number of premades/parties to the other side (or some other form of balancing) would make AV/IoC BG games not pointless, more balanced and thus more fun. In turn, this would increase RBG participation and decrease queue times.

Also if forced cross-faction is here to stay, I think it would be much more transparent to add a disclaimer to the "Opt-in to mercenary mode" settings, in order to communicate that it can be forced (on Blackrock at least).

Edit: I believe cross-faction isn't forced on Icecrown realm, so some things I said only apply to Blackrock, I updated the post to improve it and reflect that. I don't know about Lordaeron. This doesn't change the effects of the current situation, described in the following comments, and the (in my view) favorable effects some changes would have.

[theborg9]

I'll expand a bit on why the current situation is undesirable and how it would instead be if it were improved:

If a Horde player enters AV/IoC (long BGs) and is aware that their team is probably going to lose (based on previous results or after the first minutes), there's a relatively high chance that player will quit the match. About 10 players will quit? Probably, maybe even more. Let's suppose 10. (see the edit though)

That means 10 players will not play RBG for 15 minutes, because they will know that even their alliance characters will be forced to play for Horde and will probably end up in the same AV/IoC game, and obviously their other Horde characters as well, due to players leaving the game (vacant spots).
This translates to basically one WSG team going to waste (10 players) for 15 minutes.
Actually probably much more, since those players will start doing something else, and not just wait 15 minutes staring at the screen.

Result: Less players queueing RBG, less BGs starting, a frustrating experience, and longer queues for Alliance as well (since less Horde players queueing).
Long term result: less players enjoying RBG and less BGs starting.
So basically, due to premades farming AV/IoC and cross-faction being forced, there's a negative effect on queue times.
Forced cross-faction allows that specific AV/IoC match to go on (short-term fix), yes, but with the net result or worsening the overall situation.

This would be solved by either addressing the imbalance at least in those maps (e.g. some kind of balancing mechanic), and/or by not forcing cross-faction in those maps, so that other BGs can start with shorter queues by alt Alliance characters not forced to cross-faction into AV/IoC (at least on Blackrock realm).

It's worth noticing that the problem with severe imbalance is greater for AV/IoC specifically, because those are long games, so it makes way more sense to quit there, compared to BGs with shorter duration. If games on those big maps were more balanced, they would be more enjoyable and less players would quit, increasing BG activity.

Edit: A couple quick additions:

1) I entered AV, on the unlucky side (Horde) which were being GY camped, and counted 25 players left in just 5 minutes.

2) You're forced to be at respawn point so that you can be GY camped, in fact whatever you're doing (e.g. moving from one objective to another) you quickly get Inactive debuff and you have to attack an enemy (you'll probably have to go to the GY to find enemies).
I suspect there may be ongoing manipulation from the other team, meaning ALT characters concurrently playing in both teams and AFK reporting everyone in order to maximize GY camping and kicking whoever isn't being GY camped. I think a report from one player/character wouldn't cause such quick inactive debuff, so it could be several characters doing this simultaneously.
For sure this should be looked into.

[Baartleby2]

I've stopped queing RBGs as horde for this very reason. These are the same people who forced Warmane to move the WG portal, because they were literally camping the WG spot for 6+ hours at a time.

[theborg9]

I've stopped queing RBGs as horde for this very reason.

Indeed that's pretty much the only way to prevent ending up in a GY-camped AV/IoC, and has the effect of slowing all the queues, because RBG offers quicker pairing, while instead selecting 1 or 2 BG options need those specific choices to be matched with the other players (smaller pool).
One way or the other it affects everybody, but especially new players since they need the RBG honor bonus the most. I imagine that could even affect server population, as it's not very beginner friendly (that is, needing to join RBG and hoping not to be GY camped for the whole game).

[angrylol]

Make your premade and obliterate those GY campers so bad that they quit the game. GY camp them for 6 hrs. Where is the problem?

[theborg9]

Make your premade and obliterate those GY campers so bad that they quit the game. GY camp them for 6 hrs. Where is the problem?

I don't want to "obliterate" them nor to make them "quit the game", that's really not my way of thinking. Nor I would ever want to waste 6 hours of my time doing something as boring as that.

I just noticed something that I think can be improved, probably leading to a better PvP experience for a lot of players (faster queues, more challenging games, more participation). If my analysis is deemed to be correct, maybe some measure can be implemented. If that's the case, great. If not, that's also ok, I can adapt (already did), as probably many other players. One of the effects of this "adaptation" is, I believe, increased queue times and other things I considered in the other comments.

[angrylol]

We had balancing mechanic: better racial+longer que time vs worse racial+instant que time. This was sacrificed in favor for alliance. Obviously such a thing as "balance" in not on the agenda. More "changes" will just lead further down the rabbit hole. So players must use their potential and fix it themselves. Create environment where GY camping is a taboo and players are punished by players.

[theborg9]

We had balancing mechanic: better racial+longer que time vs worse racial+instant que time. This was sacrificed in favor for alliance.

I believe this wouldn't improve the specific situation I described.

Obviously such a thing as "balance" in not on the agenda.

My position on balance is pretty nuanced, you can understand that if you read the comments. This suggestion is not about perfect balance or balance everywhere, is about lessening imbalance, in certain maps especially. Thanks for letting me clarify that.
Your previous sentence also reflects the fact that the staff is sometimes willing to try solutions to potentially improve PvP, which is nice.

More "changes" will just lead further down the rabbit hole.

Not really sure what this means. If you really have to comment, please stay on this topic (of this specific suggestion).

So players must use their potential and fix it themselves.

If you read the post, you'll notice that I never said this can't theoretically be "fixed" by other players. I didn't say that players cannot, in theory, coordinate and lessen the imbalance themselves, making games more enjoyable and improving queue times.
Why do I say "in theory", you might ask? Because in practice, it didn't happen. And probably won't happen, unless some players were to be enlightened by this post and coordinate accordingly (I doubt it).

[Shred]

If you read the post, you'll notice that I never said this can't theoretically be "fixed" by other players. I didn't say that players cannot, in theory, coordinate and lessen the imbalance themselves, making games more enjoyable and improving queue times.
Why do I say "in theory", you might ask? Because in practice, it didn't happen. And probably won't happen, unless some players were to be enlightened by this post and coordinate accordingly (I doubt it).

When you have a raid of 40 and everybody agrees not to touch the flags, that's coordination. You may not like the result, though...

[theborg9]

When you have a raid of 40 and everybody agrees not to touch the flags, that's coordination. You may not like the result, though...

Actually, I witnessed players of one of those premades actively discouraging teammates from capping the GY flag, insulting who attempts to, and proceeding to AFK report the player so that he would be kicked from the game.
Also it's not about liking or not liking the result, it's about facts and their effects.

[Shred]

That may also be - in any case if you have 39 people wanting to do something and 1 person wanting to do something else, you tell me who's being disruptive.

In any case, this is the result of forced mercenary mode, so don't blame the players.

[theborg9]

That may also be - in any case if you have 39 people wanting to do something and 1 person wanting to do something else, you tell me who's being disruptive.

This is not about who's right and who's wrong, it's about what's happening and how it could be improved (this is a suggestion section).

In any case, this is the result of forced mercenary mode, so don't blame the players.

Did you read the post (and comments)? That's literally the point of it. Nowhere in it there's any blame attributed to the players, I think I made that exceedingly clear.

[angrylol]

Well, there you have it. Forced mercenary mode does what it was designed to do. Your suggestion would directly oppose it, they might as well take the whole merc stuff and trash it.

What I can think of implementing seasonal rewards/renown for BG wins, so part of people who farm HKs would devise strategies for quick wins. This would lead to some form of innovation, there would be less bored people camping GY, watching HK number go up and enjoying endless crying on forums.

[theborg9]

Your suggestion would directly oppose it, they might as well take the whole merc stuff and trash it.

I disagree, this suggestion is not about removing merc mode (especially, not widely), and I'm also not opposed to it.

What I can think of implementing seasonal rewards/renown for BG wins, so part of people who farm HKs would devise strategies for quick wins. This would lead to some form of innovation, there would be less bored people camping GY, watching HK number go up and enjoying endless crying on forums.

It's an interesting idea, the problem is that it depends too much on what players decide to do (especially those who are more interested in HKs), and it's hard to predict. I also don't see how it would lessen imbalance on the big BG maps and the effects of it, though it could make some games quicker. It's worth noticing that a reward for RBG wins already exists, it's the honor bonus.

[angrylol]

But the result will be the same, GY camping and players leaving will happen, doesn't matter if it's alliance vs alliance or alliance vs horde. Problem is horde people are getting camped, because balancing mechanism(long ques) were removed from alliance at the cost of nearly complete annihilation of horde pvp players. So I thought you somehow want to get horde back on track, for more balanced, challenging, etc BGs.