Why do BG's give less AP than PvKeep faction Zerging?

Prince_of_all_Pugs

Zos, I dont think its ethical that a player who just follows zergs around and pvkeeps all day gets to gain 4-10 times more AP than a player who ques for BG's. What is the point of doing BG's than other than to avoid the faction stacked , lag proliferating zergs of Cyrodiil? Even the $#!tty loot/cheves/titles you get from BG's are nothing compared to what you can get in cyrodiil from just faction zerging all day (emperor, slightly better loot, waaaaay more ap, etc). Im not saying that the rewards from cyrodiil should be nerfedat all (never), all Im saying is that the rewards from solo queing in a bg should be Buffed to be slightly better than cyrodiil, This will also get more people to que up to bgs, which should shortened up que timers. This will be a win-win in my opinion.

DaveMoeDee

Why are you talking about ethics? Why the inflated importance of something so trivial?

VaranisArano

ZOS already buffed AP from Battlegrounds. You get the option to have increased exp from a Daily Random BG, different set rewards, and style pages. I dont particularly care if they add better rewards, but they keep adding rewards already, and its apparently not solving your problem.

Yes, if you move quickly with a decent group in Cyrodiil, you can make a lot of AP taking keeps and killing players. That's what Cyrodiil is designed for. Unsurprisingly, that's how you make AP.

Battlegrounds is designed for small group fighting, no zergs, No CP. If you win, you can make plenty of AP.

If your problem is that you are waiting too long to queue for BGs whereas a player in Cyrodiil can be constantly making AP, that's a different problem. Fixing that is going to take dealing with the bad MMR, fixing the queue bugs, persuading ZOS that they don't want to break BGs with proc sets every single update, and possibly increasing rewards for BGs (again). But increasing rewards alone is not going to fix the problem.

Prince_of_all_Pugs

DaveMoeDee wrote: »

Why are you talking about ethics? Why the inflated importance of something so trivial?

More people queing into bgs cause the rewards are great is not trivial. Its Awsome.

Prince_of_all_Pugs

VaranisArano wrote: »

ZOS already buffed AP from Battlegrounds. You get the option to have increased exp from a Daily Random BG, different set rewards, and style pages. I dont particularly care if they add better rewards, but they keep adding rewards already, and its apparently not solving your problem.

Yes, if you move quickly with a decent group in Cyrodiil, you can make a lot of AP taking keeps and killing players. That's what Cyrodiil is designed for. Unsurprisingly, that's how you make AP.

Battlegrounds is designed for small group fighting, no zergs, No CP. If you win, you can make plenty of AP.

If your problem is that you are waiting too long to queue for BGs whereas a player in Cyrodiil can be constantly making AP, that's a different problem. Fixing that is going to take dealing with the bad MMR, fixing the queue bugs, persuading ZOS that they don't want to break BGs with proc sets every single update, and possibly increasing rewards for BGs (again). But increasing rewards alone is not going to fix the problem.

the Bad MMR system , seems bad because only a very small percentage of the pvp community actually BG's. if there was more players in the Ques the MMR would work better. But anyways i still think that its way easier to just zerg surf PVkeep to get AP than busting your @$$ in a PuG bg for a win(which gives little ap, and worse it increases your MMR forcing you to wait for longer ques). BGS need better rewards!

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO

Bgs give decent ap if you win games quickly. I also think more ppl would play bgs if it was either:
Only solo q or larger numbers so premade vs pugs wasn't so prevalent.

pieratsos

There are people who are seriously against BGs giving more AP?

VaranisArano

pieratsos wrote: »

There are people who are seriously against BGs giving more AP?

ZOS already increased the amount of AP. If that didn't solve the problem, how is adding more going to help?

I mean, short term it will draw more of the type of player who is like "I'm PVE only and I suck at PVP but I really just need Warhorn/Purge/Vigor/Caltrops, so kthxbai!" Which BGs already does. So increasing the AP would actually get them done and out of the queue quicker...

Adding more AP alone is not a good solution.

pieratsos

VaranisArano wrote: »

pieratsos wrote: »

There are people who are seriously against BGs giving more AP?

ZOS already increased the amount of AP. If that didn't solve the problem, how is adding more going to help?

I mean, short term it will draw more of the type of player who is like "I'm PVE only and I suck at PVP but I really just need Warhorn/Purge/Vigor/Caltrops, so kthxbai!" Which BGs already does. So increasing the AP would actually get them done and out of the queue quicker...

Adding more AP alone is not a good solution.

Yes they increased it and its still not enough. Its still no where near to the amount you can get in cyro.
But let me rephrase. Why should BGs give less AP than cyro. Just one valid reason. If anything it should give more since its a more competitive type of PVP.

Prince_of_all_Pugs

pieratsos wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

pieratsos wrote: »

There are people who are seriously against BGs giving more AP?

ZOS already increased the amount of AP. If that didn't solve the problem, how is adding more going to help?

I mean, short term it will draw more of the type of player who is like "I'm PVE only and I suck at PVP but I really just need Warhorn/Purge/Vigor/Caltrops, so kthxbai!" Which BGs already does. So increasing the AP would actually get them done and out of the queue quicker...

Adding more AP alone is not a good solution.

Yes they increased it and its still not enough. Its still no where near to the amount you can get in cyro.
But let me rephrase. Why should BGs give less AP than cyro. Just one valid reason. If anything it should give more since its a more competitive type of PVP.

OMG i couldnt agree more!

NupidStoob

pieratsos wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

pieratsos wrote: »

There are people who are seriously against BGs giving more AP?

ZOS already increased the amount of AP. If that didn't solve the problem, how is adding more going to help?

I mean, short term it will draw more of the type of player who is like "I'm PVE only and I suck at PVP but I really just need Warhorn/Purge/Vigor/Caltrops, so kthxbai!" Which BGs already does. So increasing the AP would actually get them done and out of the queue quicker...

Adding more AP alone is not a good solution.

Yes they increased it and its still not enough. Its still no where near to the amount you can get in cyro.
But let me rephrase. Why should BGs give less AP than cyro. Just one valid reason. If anything it should give more since its a more competitive type of PVP.

How is:

"I mean, short term it will draw more of the type of player who is like "I'm PVE only and I suck at PVP but I really just need Warhorn/Purge/Vigor/Caltrops, so kthxbai!" Which BGs already does. So increasing the AP would actually get them done and out of the queue quicker..."

not a valid reason? Also why do people even care about AP? I sit on millions of that stuff with no clue what to do with it unless the golden drops something really nice.

People not queuing for BGs has many reasons: I guess low AP or the thread wouldn't exist, stupid bugged queue, if you don't have a full team you have to accept that someone else might, individual skill actually matters, it's a lot more stressful and competitive than just running around in a zerg and lastly and sadly no CP.

VaranisArano

pieratsos wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

pieratsos wrote: »

There are people who are seriously against BGs giving more AP?

ZOS already increased the amount of AP. If that didn't solve the problem, how is adding more going to help?

I mean, short term it will draw more of the type of player who is like "I'm PVE only and I suck at PVP but I really just need Warhorn/Purge/Vigor/Caltrops, so kthxbai!" Which BGs already does. So increasing the AP would actually get them done and out of the queue quicker...

Adding more AP alone is not a good solution.

Yes they increased it and its still not enough. Its still no where near to the amount you can get in cyro.
But let me rephrase. Why should BGs give less AP than cyro. Just one valid reason. If anything it should give more since its a more competitive type of PVP.

Well, on a 15 minute basis, I generally get more AP from Battlegrounds, not Cyrodiil. If I lose a BG match, I get more AP than capturing a keep.

As I said above in another post, if the problem is that once you take queues into account you get less AP than the equivalent time in Cyrodiil, there are more things that need to be fixed beyond just throwing more AP at the problem. Things like MMR, queue bugs, and not throwing proc sets at BGs every single update.

AP alone is not going to solve your BG problems. That's my problem with your idea. For example, with the MMR the way it is, you'd have to increase AP along with MMR to account for high MMR players getting less games and thus earning less AP.

gabriebe

AP in BGs is pretty appropriate. Say you cram in 4 matches of 15 min, that is a minimum of 40k AP for an hour. This amount is on the better end of an average hour in Cyrodiil.

NordSwordnBoard

I'd be OK with an increase in AP - if we could BET our AP on matches.

Disconnects would be infuriating though...

pieratsos

VaranisArano wrote: »

pieratsos wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

pieratsos wrote: »

There are people who are seriously against BGs giving more AP?

ZOS already increased the amount of AP. If that didn't solve the problem, how is adding more going to help?

I mean, short term it will draw more of the type of player who is like "I'm PVE only and I suck at PVP but I really just need Warhorn/Purge/Vigor/Caltrops, so kthxbai!" Which BGs already does. So increasing the AP would actually get them done and out of the queue quicker...

Adding more AP alone is not a good solution.

Yes they increased it and its still not enough. Its still no where near to the amount you can get in cyro.
But let me rephrase. Why should BGs give less AP than cyro. Just one valid reason. If anything it should give more since its a more competitive type of PVP.

Well, on a 15 minute basis, I generally get more AP from Battlegrounds, not Cyrodiil. If I lose a BG match, I get more AP than capturing a keep.

As I said above in another post, if the problem is that once you take queues into account you get less AP than the equivalent time in Cyrodiil, there are more things that need to be fixed beyond just throwing more AP at the problem. Things like MMR, queue bugs, and not throwing proc sets at BGs every single update.

AP alone is not going to solve your BG problems. That's my problem with your idea. For example, with the MMR the way it is, you'd have to increase AP along with MMR to account for high MMR players getting less games and thus earning less AP.

There is no such thing as a 15 minute basis. Even with perfect queue times you have to wait. BGs in general give less AP. Period. And besides, your entire argument about long queue times needing to be fixed falls short since literally better rewards bring more people meaning less queue times.

But regardless of all that, im still confused as to why would anyone be against giving better rewards. Especially when they are lacklustre. Like seriously?

pieratsos

NupidStoob wrote: »

pieratsos wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

pieratsos wrote: »

There are people who are seriously against BGs giving more AP?

ZOS already increased the amount of AP. If that didn't solve the problem, how is adding more going to help?

I mean, short term it will draw more of the type of player who is like "I'm PVE only and I suck at PVP but I really just need Warhorn/Purge/Vigor/Caltrops, so kthxbai!" Which BGs already does. So increasing the AP would actually get them done and out of the queue quicker...

Adding more AP alone is not a good solution.

Yes they increased it and its still not enough. Its still no where near to the amount you can get in cyro.
But let me rephrase. Why should BGs give less AP than cyro. Just one valid reason. If anything it should give more since its a more competitive type of PVP.

How is:

"I mean, short term it will draw more of the type of player who is like "I'm PVE only and I suck at PVP but I really just need Warhorn/Purge/Vigor/Caltrops, so kthxbai!" Which BGs already does. So increasing the AP would actually get them done and out of the queue quicker..."

not a valid reason? Also why do people even care about AP? I sit on millions of that stuff with no clue what to do with it unless the golden drops something really nice.

People not queuing for BGs has many reasons: I guess low AP or the thread wouldn't exist, stupid bugged queue, if you don't have a full team you have to accept that someone else might, individual skill actually matters, it's a lot more stressful and competitive than just running around in a zerg and lastly and sadly no CP.

So you are telling me that the only people who want AP are the PVE players who want caltrops and vigor. And this is a valid reason? Do you even realise how that sounds?

Minno

DaveMoeDee wrote: »

Why are you talking about ethics? Why the inflated importance of something so trivial?

Because OP forgets you don't need 24 people to press the bg que button lol

NupidStoob

pieratsos wrote: »

NupidStoob wrote: »

pieratsos wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

pieratsos wrote: »

There are people who are seriously against BGs giving more AP?

ZOS already increased the amount of AP. If that didn't solve the problem, how is adding more going to help?

I mean, short term it will draw more of the type of player who is like "I'm PVE only and I suck at PVP but I really just need Warhorn/Purge/Vigor/Caltrops, so kthxbai!" Which BGs already does. So increasing the AP would actually get them done and out of the queue quicker...

Adding more AP alone is not a good solution.

Yes they increased it and its still not enough. Its still no where near to the amount you can get in cyro.
But let me rephrase. Why should BGs give less AP than cyro. Just one valid reason. If anything it should give more since its a more competitive type of PVP.

How is:

"I mean, short term it will draw more of the type of player who is like "I'm PVE only and I suck at PVP but I really just need Warhorn/Purge/Vigor/Caltrops, so kthxbai!" Which BGs already does. So increasing the AP would actually get them done and out of the queue quicker..."

not a valid reason? Also why do people even care about AP? I sit on millions of that stuff with no clue what to do with it unless the golden drops something really nice.

People not queuing for BGs has many reasons: I guess low AP or the thread wouldn't exist, stupid bugged queue, if you don't have a full team you have to accept that someone else might, individual skill actually matters, it's a lot more stressful and competitive than just running around in a zerg and lastly and sadly no CP.

So you are telling me that the only people who want AP are the PVE players who want caltrops and vigor. And this is a valid reason? Do you even realise how that sounds?

No I have never said that. It will draw people into BGs that aren't there to play and to just grab some easy AP which might shorten queue times but will make the overall BG experience worse, especially for the lower MMR players. Also the big different between PvDooring and BGs is that you have actual PvP in the latter so if you want AP and fun then you go BGs and when really all you care about is worthless AP then you can go PvDoor.

Some more AP probably wouldn't hurt much, but it is by no means the reason so few people play BGs. See the things I listed above.

pieratsos

NupidStoob wrote: »

pieratsos wrote: »

NupidStoob wrote: »

pieratsos wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

pieratsos wrote: »

There are people who are seriously against BGs giving more AP?

ZOS already increased the amount of AP. If that didn't solve the problem, how is adding more going to help?

I mean, short term it will draw more of the type of player who is like "I'm PVE only and I suck at PVP but I really just need Warhorn/Purge/Vigor/Caltrops, so kthxbai!" Which BGs already does. So increasing the AP would actually get them done and out of the queue quicker...

Adding more AP alone is not a good solution.

Yes they increased it and its still not enough. Its still no where near to the amount you can get in cyro.
But let me rephrase. Why should BGs give less AP than cyro. Just one valid reason. If anything it should give more since its a more competitive type of PVP.

How is:

"I mean, short term it will draw more of the type of player who is like "I'm PVE only and I suck at PVP but I really just need Warhorn/Purge/Vigor/Caltrops, so kthxbai!" Which BGs already does. So increasing the AP would actually get them done and out of the queue quicker..."

not a valid reason? Also why do people even care about AP? I sit on millions of that stuff with no clue what to do with it unless the golden drops something really nice.

People not queuing for BGs has many reasons: I guess low AP or the thread wouldn't exist, stupid bugged queue, if you don't have a full team you have to accept that someone else might, individual skill actually matters, it's a lot more stressful and competitive than just running around in a zerg and lastly and sadly no CP.

So you are telling me that the only people who want AP are the PVE players who want caltrops and vigor. And this is a valid reason? Do you even realise how that sounds?

No I have never said that. It will draw people into BGs that aren't there to play and to just grab some easy AP which might shorten queue times but will make the overall BG experience worse, especially for the lower MMR players. Also the big different between PvDooring and BGs is that you have actual PvP in the latter so if you want AP and fun then you go BGs and when really all you care about is worthless AP then you can go PvDoor.

Some more AP probably wouldn't hurt much, but it is by no means the reason so few people play BGs. See the things I listed above.

I never said its the reason few people play BGs. I said you should be able to make at least the same amount of AP in BGs because you should. And again how does increasing AP draw more people that arent there to play? If they go there they play. Whether they are there for the AP or for fun or for whatever other reason, they still play.

VaranisArano

pieratsos wrote: »

NupidStoob wrote: »

pieratsos wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

pieratsos wrote: »

There are people who are seriously against BGs giving more AP?

ZOS already increased the amount of AP. If that didn't solve the problem, how is adding more going to help?

I mean, short term it will draw more of the type of player who is like "I'm PVE only and I suck at PVP but I really just need Warhorn/Purge/Vigor/Caltrops, so kthxbai!" Which BGs already does. So increasing the AP would actually get them done and out of the queue quicker...

Adding more AP alone is not a good solution.

Yes they increased it and its still not enough. Its still no where near to the amount you can get in cyro.
But let me rephrase. Why should BGs give less AP than cyro. Just one valid reason. If anything it should give more since its a more competitive type of PVP.

How is:

"I mean, short term it will draw more of the type of player who is like "I'm PVE only and I suck at PVP but I really just need Warhorn/Purge/Vigor/Caltrops, so kthxbai!" Which BGs already does. So increasing the AP would actually get them done and out of the queue quicker..."

not a valid reason? Also why do people even care about AP? I sit on millions of that stuff with no clue what to do with it unless the golden drops something really nice.

People not queuing for BGs has many reasons: I guess low AP or the thread wouldn't exist, stupid bugged queue, if you don't have a full team you have to accept that someone else might, individual skill actually matters, it's a lot more stressful and competitive than just running around in a zerg and lastly and sadly no CP.

So you are telling me that the only people who want AP are the PVE players who want caltrops and vigor. And this is a valid reason? Do you even realise how that sounds?

You weirdly mashed together a couple of quotes there, so I'll try to disentangle this nonsense.

First off, I dont disagree that increased AP would benefit BGs. I do disagree that its a end-all, be-all solution to the low population of BGs.

Increasing AP will not increase the number of PVP players who play BGs. Why? Because we can assume that everyone who actually likes BGs is already playing them.

Increasing AP will draw more of two groups of players. 1. The type of PVE player who is only there to get their Alliance War skills, and 2. The type of player who just wants AP. This approach of add more AP backfires as the first group gets done with BGs faster, and only attracts the second group. Problem is, the second group gets a higher MMR, and thuse lower queues, and thus less AP. And unless that 2nd group is somehow so numerous as to fix the MMR (its not, BGs has constantly struggled with low pop), high MMR players will still get less AP per hour than they could in Cyrodiil due to having to wait on queues.


If you want an actual solution that brings more people AND equalizes AP for skilled players to that in Cyrodiil, you need to:
Either fix the MMR or Increase AP gains to be commensurate with MMR.

That way, a low MMR player gets faster queues and thus more AP and higher MMR players make more AP compensating them for the slower queue.

Increasing AP alone is not a solution. ZOS already tried it and it failed. Any solution has to take into account the MMR.

pieratsos

VaranisArano wrote: »

pieratsos wrote: »

NupidStoob wrote: »

pieratsos wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

pieratsos wrote: »

There are people who are seriously against BGs giving more AP?

ZOS already increased the amount of AP. If that didn't solve the problem, how is adding more going to help?

I mean, short term it will draw more of the type of player who is like "I'm PVE only and I suck at PVP but I really just need Warhorn/Purge/Vigor/Caltrops, so kthxbai!" Which BGs already does. So increasing the AP would actually get them done and out of the queue quicker...

Adding more AP alone is not a good solution.

Yes they increased it and its still not enough. Its still no where near to the amount you can get in cyro.
But let me rephrase. Why should BGs give less AP than cyro. Just one valid reason. If anything it should give more since its a more competitive type of PVP.

How is:

"I mean, short term it will draw more of the type of player who is like "I'm PVE only and I suck at PVP but I really just need Warhorn/Purge/Vigor/Caltrops, so kthxbai!" Which BGs already does. So increasing the AP would actually get them done and out of the queue quicker..."

not a valid reason? Also why do people even care about AP? I sit on millions of that stuff with no clue what to do with it unless the golden drops something really nice.

People not queuing for BGs has many reasons: I guess low AP or the thread wouldn't exist, stupid bugged queue, if you don't have a full team you have to accept that someone else might, individual skill actually matters, it's a lot more stressful and competitive than just running around in a zerg and lastly and sadly no CP.

So you are telling me that the only people who want AP are the PVE players who want caltrops and vigor. And this is a valid reason? Do you even realise how that sounds?

You weirdly mashed together a couple of quotes there, so I'll try to disentangle this nonsense.

First off, I dont disagree that increased AP would benefit BGs. I do disagree that its a end-all, be-all solution to the low population of BGs.

Increasing AP will not increase the number of PVP players who play BGs. Why? Because we can assume that everyone who actually likes BGs is already playing them.

Increasing AP will draw more of two groups of players. 1. The type of PVE player who is only there to get their Alliance War skills, and 2. The type of player who just wants AP. This approach of add more AP backfires as the first group gets done with BGs faster, and only attracts the second group. Problem is, the second group gets a higher MMR, and thuse lower queues, and thus less AP. And unless that 2nd group is somehow so numerous as to fix the MMR (its not, BGs has constantly struggled with low pop), high MMR players will still get less AP per hour than they could in Cyrodiil due to having to wait on queues.


If you want an actual solution that brings more people AND equalizes AP for skilled players to that in Cyrodiil, you need to:
Either fix the MMR or Increase AP gains to be commensurate with MMR.

That way, a low MMR player gets faster queues and thus more AP and higher MMR players make more AP compensating them for the slower queue.

Increasing AP alone is not a solution. ZOS already tried it and it failed. Any solution has to take into account the MMR.

There was nothing weird at all. I answered each comment in seperate posts. The one you quoted wasnt even an answer to you.

I never said that its the end all be all solution to BG issues. In fact no one said that in this thread so not sure where you are coming from with this.

Stating that increasing AP wont increase the amount of players playing BGs is a prety bold statement considering that double AP events double the amount of players PVPing for their duration. Increasing AP is making the rewards better so it could actually bring more people. Its kinda obvious that if BGs AP gains rivalled or was better than cyro then it would make BGs a valid choice for farming AP. And yes ud be surprised how many people want the grand overlord title.

Higher MMR queue times are longer because there are less people with high MMR and there are also a lot of premades which makes it even harder to match them together. Having more people with high MMR literally makes the queue times shorter. The more players you have in general makes the queue times shorter. This is common sense. You cant possibly judge the MMR of everyone and say "but those players that will come will be high MMR so they will wait longer and therefore wont get the AP". This is a completely asinine statement to make based on no evidence. If anything, its impossible to even have evidence for a statement like that.

Completely agree that increasing AP in some sort of way is what is needed. That is literally the entire point of the thread. Imo the base AP gain should be increased alongside extra AP for how well you perform. Preferably more if you are solo since solo BGs are more fun.

ZOS did increase the AP and it was a good change. It didnt fail. It just still needs more whether it will bring more players in whether it doesnt. Here is the thing that you dont understand. Its not even about bringing more players to BGs. Its about the fact that BGs should give more AP. Bringing more players is a possible outcome as well which reinforces the need to increase the AP even more.

Sandman929

I think the people who aren't playing BGs already aren't playing because they don't play an MMO for COD style death-matches. I'm not sure more AP helps that.

VaranisArano

pieratsos wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

pieratsos wrote: »

NupidStoob wrote: »

pieratsos wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

pieratsos wrote: »

There are people who are seriously against BGs giving more AP?

ZOS already increased the amount of AP. If that didn't solve the problem, how is adding more going to help?

I mean, short term it will draw more of the type of player who is like "I'm PVE only and I suck at PVP but I really just need Warhorn/Purge/Vigor/Caltrops, so kthxbai!" Which BGs already does. So increasing the AP would actually get them done and out of the queue quicker...

Adding more AP alone is not a good solution.

Yes they increased it and its still not enough. Its still no where near to the amount you can get in cyro.
But let me rephrase. Why should BGs give less AP than cyro. Just one valid reason. If anything it should give more since its a more competitive type of PVP.

How is:

"I mean, short term it will draw more of the type of player who is like "I'm PVE only and I suck at PVP but I really just need Warhorn/Purge/Vigor/Caltrops, so kthxbai!" Which BGs already does. So increasing the AP would actually get them done and out of the queue quicker..."

not a valid reason? Also why do people even care about AP? I sit on millions of that stuff with no clue what to do with it unless the golden drops something really nice.

People not queuing for BGs has many reasons: I guess low AP or the thread wouldn't exist, stupid bugged queue, if you don't have a full team you have to accept that someone else might, individual skill actually matters, it's a lot more stressful and competitive than just running around in a zerg and lastly and sadly no CP.

So you are telling me that the only people who want AP are the PVE players who want caltrops and vigor. And this is a valid reason? Do you even realise how that sounds?

You weirdly mashed together a couple of quotes there, so I'll try to disentangle this nonsense.

First off, I dont disagree that increased AP would benefit BGs. I do disagree that its a end-all, be-all solution to the low population of BGs.

Increasing AP will not increase the number of PVP players who play BGs. Why? Because we can assume that everyone who actually likes BGs is already playing them.

Increasing AP will draw more of two groups of players. 1. The type of PVE player who is only there to get their Alliance War skills, and 2. The type of player who just wants AP. This approach of add more AP backfires as the first group gets done with BGs faster, and only attracts the second group. Problem is, the second group gets a higher MMR, and thuse lower queues, and thus less AP. And unless that 2nd group is somehow so numerous as to fix the MMR (its not, BGs has constantly struggled with low pop), high MMR players will still get less AP per hour than they could in Cyrodiil due to having to wait on queues.


If you want an actual solution that brings more people AND equalizes AP for skilled players to that in Cyrodiil, you need to:
Either fix the MMR or Increase AP gains to be commensurate with MMR.

That way, a low MMR player gets faster queues and thus more AP and higher MMR players make more AP compensating them for the slower queue.

Increasing AP alone is not a solution. ZOS already tried it and it failed. Any solution has to take into account the MMR.

There was nothing weird at all. I answered each comment in seperate posts. The one you quoted wasnt even an answer to you.

I never said that its the end all be all solution to BG issues. In fact no one said that in this thread so not sure where you are coming from with this.

Stating that increasing AP wont increase the amount of players playing BGs is a prety bold statement considering that double AP events double the amount of players PVPing for their duration. Increasing AP is making the rewards better so it could actually bring more people. Its kinda obvious that if BGs AP gains rivalled or was better than cyro then it would make BGs a valid choice for farming AP. And yes ud be surprised how many people want the grand overlord title.

Higher MMR queue times are longer because there are less people with high MMR and there are also a lot of premades which makes it even harder to match them together. Having more people with high MMR literally makes the queue times shorter. The more players you have in general makes the queue times shorter. This is common sense. You cant possibly judge the MMR of everyone and say "but those players that will come will be high MMR so they will wait longer and therefore wont get the AP". This is a completely asinine statement to make based on no evidence. If anything, its impossible to even have evidence for a statement like that.

Completely agree that increasing AP in some sort of way is what is needed. That is literally the entire point of the thread. Imo the base AP gain should be increased alongside extra AP for how well you perform. Preferably more if you are solo since solo BGs are more fun.

ZOS did increase the AP and it was a good change. It didnt fail. It just still needs more whether it will bring more players in whether it doesnt. Here is the thing that you dont understand. Its not even about bringing more players to BGs. Its about the fact that BGs should give more AP. Bringing more players is a possible outcome as well which reinforces the need to increase the AP even more.

Yeah, I mis-read the quote, sorry.

The OP is pretty much, simplifed, "BGs needs more AP so its slightly better than Cyrodiil which will bring more people which will shorten queue timers."

Which, sure, it will - short-term. The question I have is whether or not that's actually going to fix the constant problem Battlegrounds has with sustainable population.

I think any solution has to deal with the MMR and the queuing issues so that players who want to play lots and lots of Battlegrounds can actually play lots and lots of Battlegrounds, without relying on a sudden influx of new players only drawn by the lure of AP, which is not sustainable.

Battlegrounds has always, always struggled with having a sustainable population. You think that luring new people in with AP is going to work, long-term. I'm not so confident - because I don't think its sustainable, just like PVP events aren't, and just like all the other rewards like more AP and style pages and Daily Random Battlegrounds exp designed to lure players to Battlegrounds haven't been sustainable. We won't know whether you or I are right unless ZOS does it, so I'll let that rest.

My preferred solution/method would be to increase AP with higher MMR rankings or to increase AP with queue waiting time so that Battlegrounds is equivalent or slightly better than Cyrodiil. This is not a flat increase in rewards, but it does reward players who are dedicated Battlegrounds players without requiring a long-term influx of new players to work. Its also sustainable, because it ensures that Battlegrounds players make equivalent or better AP regardless of how many or how few players are actually queuing for Battlegrounds, because they make the same rate of AP either because they play more matches (if there are more players) or get increased AP with the increased wait (if there are fewer players). That sustainable rate of AP that's equivalent or slightly better than Cyrodiil, plus the guarantee that you get rewarded for waiting in queue because of High MMR, should draw the AP farmers who actually want to play Battlegrounds back from zerging Cyrodiil, which boosts the sustainable population further.

In any case, I'm pretty much repeating myself, so if we're just going to argue about our preferred methods, I think I'm going to have to agree to disagree.

pieratsos

VaranisArano wrote: »

pieratsos wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

pieratsos wrote: »

NupidStoob wrote: »

pieratsos wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

pieratsos wrote: »

There are people who are seriously against BGs giving more AP?

ZOS already increased the amount of AP. If that didn't solve the problem, how is adding more going to help?

I mean, short term it will draw more of the type of player who is like "I'm PVE only and I suck at PVP but I really just need Warhorn/Purge/Vigor/Caltrops, so kthxbai!" Which BGs already does. So increasing the AP would actually get them done and out of the queue quicker...

Adding more AP alone is not a good solution.

Yes they increased it and its still not enough. Its still no where near to the amount you can get in cyro.
But let me rephrase. Why should BGs give less AP than cyro. Just one valid reason. If anything it should give more since its a more competitive type of PVP.

How is:

"I mean, short term it will draw more of the type of player who is like "I'm PVE only and I suck at PVP but I really just need Warhorn/Purge/Vigor/Caltrops, so kthxbai!" Which BGs already does. So increasing the AP would actually get them done and out of the queue quicker..."

not a valid reason? Also why do people even care about AP? I sit on millions of that stuff with no clue what to do with it unless the golden drops something really nice.

People not queuing for BGs has many reasons: I guess low AP or the thread wouldn't exist, stupid bugged queue, if you don't have a full team you have to accept that someone else might, individual skill actually matters, it's a lot more stressful and competitive than just running around in a zerg and lastly and sadly no CP.

So you are telling me that the only people who want AP are the PVE players who want caltrops and vigor. And this is a valid reason? Do you even realise how that sounds?

You weirdly mashed together a couple of quotes there, so I'll try to disentangle this nonsense.

First off, I dont disagree that increased AP would benefit BGs. I do disagree that its a end-all, be-all solution to the low population of BGs.

Increasing AP will not increase the number of PVP players who play BGs. Why? Because we can assume that everyone who actually likes BGs is already playing them.

Increasing AP will draw more of two groups of players. 1. The type of PVE player who is only there to get their Alliance War skills, and 2. The type of player who just wants AP. This approach of add more AP backfires as the first group gets done with BGs faster, and only attracts the second group. Problem is, the second group gets a higher MMR, and thuse lower queues, and thus less AP. And unless that 2nd group is somehow so numerous as to fix the MMR (its not, BGs has constantly struggled with low pop), high MMR players will still get less AP per hour than they could in Cyrodiil due to having to wait on queues.


If you want an actual solution that brings more people AND equalizes AP for skilled players to that in Cyrodiil, you need to:
Either fix the MMR or Increase AP gains to be commensurate with MMR.

That way, a low MMR player gets faster queues and thus more AP and higher MMR players make more AP compensating them for the slower queue.

Increasing AP alone is not a solution. ZOS already tried it and it failed. Any solution has to take into account the MMR.

There was nothing weird at all. I answered each comment in seperate posts. The one you quoted wasnt even an answer to you.

I never said that its the end all be all solution to BG issues. In fact no one said that in this thread so not sure where you are coming from with this.

Stating that increasing AP wont increase the amount of players playing BGs is a prety bold statement considering that double AP events double the amount of players PVPing for their duration. Increasing AP is making the rewards better so it could actually bring more people. Its kinda obvious that if BGs AP gains rivalled or was better than cyro then it would make BGs a valid choice for farming AP. And yes ud be surprised how many people want the grand overlord title.

Higher MMR queue times are longer because there are less people with high MMR and there are also a lot of premades which makes it even harder to match them together. Having more people with high MMR literally makes the queue times shorter. The more players you have in general makes the queue times shorter. This is common sense. You cant possibly judge the MMR of everyone and say "but those players that will come will be high MMR so they will wait longer and therefore wont get the AP". This is a completely asinine statement to make based on no evidence. If anything, its impossible to even have evidence for a statement like that.

Completely agree that increasing AP in some sort of way is what is needed. That is literally the entire point of the thread. Imo the base AP gain should be increased alongside extra AP for how well you perform. Preferably more if you are solo since solo BGs are more fun.

ZOS did increase the AP and it was a good change. It didnt fail. It just still needs more whether it will bring more players in whether it doesnt. Here is the thing that you dont understand. Its not even about bringing more players to BGs. Its about the fact that BGs should give more AP. Bringing more players is a possible outcome as well which reinforces the need to increase the AP even more.

Yeah, I mis-read the quote, sorry.

The OP is pretty much, simplifed, "BGs needs more AP so its slightly better than Cyrodiil which will bring more people which will shorten queue timers."

Which, sure, it will - short-term. The question I have is whether or not that's actually going to fix the constant problem Battlegrounds has with sustainable population.

I think any solution has to deal with the MMR and the queuing issues so that players who want to play lots and lots of Battlegrounds can actually play lots and lots of Battlegrounds, without relying on a sudden influx of new players only drawn by the lure of AP, which is not sustainable.

Battlegrounds has always, always struggled with having a sustainable population. You think that luring new people in with AP is going to work, long-term. I'm not so confident - because I don't think its sustainable, just like PVP events aren't, and just like all the other rewards like more AP and style pages and Daily Random Battlegrounds exp designed to lure players to Battlegrounds haven't been sustainable. We won't know whether you or I are right unless ZOS does it, so I'll let that rest.

My preferred solution/method would be to increase AP with higher MMR rankings or to increase AP with queue waiting time so that Battlegrounds is equivalent or slightly better than Cyrodiil. This is not a flat increase in rewards, but it does reward players who are dedicated Battlegrounds players without requiring a long-term influx of new players to work. Its also sustainable, because it ensures that Battlegrounds players make equivalent or better AP regardless of how many or how few players are actually queuing for Battlegrounds, because they make the same rate of AP either because they play more matches (if there are more players) or get increased AP with the increased wait (if there are fewer players). That sustainable rate of AP that's equivalent or slightly better than Cyrodiil, plus the guarantee that you get rewarded for waiting in queue because of High MMR, should draw the AP farmers who actually want to play Battlegrounds back from zerging Cyrodiil, which boosts the sustainable population further.

In any case, I'm pretty much repeating myself, so if we're just going to argue about our preferred methods, I think I'm going to have to agree to disagree.

Except you keep missing the entire point of this thread. The OP said that the AP from BGs should be increased and indicated that it could potentially increase the population as well and make the queue times shorter. That was his point.

You see, you got it backwards, its not about increasing the AP to bring more people in BGs. A lot of things has to happen to fix BGs. However this is about simply increasing the AP cause it needs to give more AP. Its a more competitive environment than cyro and u get much less AP. It makes no sense. More people coming in as a result is the icing on the cake. Not the reason to increase the AP.

VaranisArano

pieratsos wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

pieratsos wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

pieratsos wrote: »

NupidStoob wrote: »

pieratsos wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

pieratsos wrote: »

There are people who are seriously against BGs giving more AP?

ZOS already increased the amount of AP. If that didn't solve the problem, how is adding more going to help?

I mean, short term it will draw more of the type of player who is like "I'm PVE only and I suck at PVP but I really just need Warhorn/Purge/Vigor/Caltrops, so kthxbai!" Which BGs already does. So increasing the AP would actually get them done and out of the queue quicker...

Adding more AP alone is not a good solution.

Yes they increased it and its still not enough. Its still no where near to the amount you can get in cyro.
But let me rephrase. Why should BGs give less AP than cyro. Just one valid reason. If anything it should give more since its a more competitive type of PVP.

How is:

"I mean, short term it will draw more of the type of player who is like "I'm PVE only and I suck at PVP but I really just need Warhorn/Purge/Vigor/Caltrops, so kthxbai!" Which BGs already does. So increasing the AP would actually get them done and out of the queue quicker..."

not a valid reason? Also why do people even care about AP? I sit on millions of that stuff with no clue what to do with it unless the golden drops something really nice.

People not queuing for BGs has many reasons: I guess low AP or the thread wouldn't exist, stupid bugged queue, if you don't have a full team you have to accept that someone else might, individual skill actually matters, it's a lot more stressful and competitive than just running around in a zerg and lastly and sadly no CP.

So you are telling me that the only people who want AP are the PVE players who want caltrops and vigor. And this is a valid reason? Do you even realise how that sounds?

You weirdly mashed together a couple of quotes there, so I'll try to disentangle this nonsense.

First off, I dont disagree that increased AP would benefit BGs. I do disagree that its a end-all, be-all solution to the low population of BGs.

Increasing AP will not increase the number of PVP players who play BGs. Why? Because we can assume that everyone who actually likes BGs is already playing them.

Increasing AP will draw more of two groups of players. 1. The type of PVE player who is only there to get their Alliance War skills, and 2. The type of player who just wants AP. This approach of add more AP backfires as the first group gets done with BGs faster, and only attracts the second group. Problem is, the second group gets a higher MMR, and thuse lower queues, and thus less AP. And unless that 2nd group is somehow so numerous as to fix the MMR (its not, BGs has constantly struggled with low pop), high MMR players will still get less AP per hour than they could in Cyrodiil due to having to wait on queues.


If you want an actual solution that brings more people AND equalizes AP for skilled players to that in Cyrodiil, you need to:
Either fix the MMR or Increase AP gains to be commensurate with MMR.

That way, a low MMR player gets faster queues and thus more AP and higher MMR players make more AP compensating them for the slower queue.

Increasing AP alone is not a solution. ZOS already tried it and it failed. Any solution has to take into account the MMR.

There was nothing weird at all. I answered each comment in seperate posts. The one you quoted wasnt even an answer to you.

I never said that its the end all be all solution to BG issues. In fact no one said that in this thread so not sure where you are coming from with this.

Stating that increasing AP wont increase the amount of players playing BGs is a prety bold statement considering that double AP events double the amount of players PVPing for their duration. Increasing AP is making the rewards better so it could actually bring more people. Its kinda obvious that if BGs AP gains rivalled or was better than cyro then it would make BGs a valid choice for farming AP. And yes ud be surprised how many people want the grand overlord title.

Higher MMR queue times are longer because there are less people with high MMR and there are also a lot of premades which makes it even harder to match them together. Having more people with high MMR literally makes the queue times shorter. The more players you have in general makes the queue times shorter. This is common sense. You cant possibly judge the MMR of everyone and say "but those players that will come will be high MMR so they will wait longer and therefore wont get the AP". This is a completely asinine statement to make based on no evidence. If anything, its impossible to even have evidence for a statement like that.

Completely agree that increasing AP in some sort of way is what is needed. That is literally the entire point of the thread. Imo the base AP gain should be increased alongside extra AP for how well you perform. Preferably more if you are solo since solo BGs are more fun.

ZOS did increase the AP and it was a good change. It didnt fail. It just still needs more whether it will bring more players in whether it doesnt. Here is the thing that you dont understand. Its not even about bringing more players to BGs. Its about the fact that BGs should give more AP. Bringing more players is a possible outcome as well which reinforces the need to increase the AP even more.

Yeah, I mis-read the quote, sorry.

The OP is pretty much, simplifed, "BGs needs more AP so its slightly better than Cyrodiil which will bring more people which will shorten queue timers."

Which, sure, it will - short-term. The question I have is whether or not that's actually going to fix the constant problem Battlegrounds has with sustainable population.

I think any solution has to deal with the MMR and the queuing issues so that players who want to play lots and lots of Battlegrounds can actually play lots and lots of Battlegrounds, without relying on a sudden influx of new players only drawn by the lure of AP, which is not sustainable.

Battlegrounds has always, always struggled with having a sustainable population. You think that luring new people in with AP is going to work, long-term. I'm not so confident - because I don't think its sustainable, just like PVP events aren't, and just like all the other rewards like more AP and style pages and Daily Random Battlegrounds exp designed to lure players to Battlegrounds haven't been sustainable. We won't know whether you or I are right unless ZOS does it, so I'll let that rest.

My preferred solution/method would be to increase AP with higher MMR rankings or to increase AP with queue waiting time so that Battlegrounds is equivalent or slightly better than Cyrodiil. This is not a flat increase in rewards, but it does reward players who are dedicated Battlegrounds players without requiring a long-term influx of new players to work. Its also sustainable, because it ensures that Battlegrounds players make equivalent or better AP regardless of how many or how few players are actually queuing for Battlegrounds, because they make the same rate of AP either because they play more matches (if there are more players) or get increased AP with the increased wait (if there are fewer players). That sustainable rate of AP that's equivalent or slightly better than Cyrodiil, plus the guarantee that you get rewarded for waiting in queue because of High MMR, should draw the AP farmers who actually want to play Battlegrounds back from zerging Cyrodiil, which boosts the sustainable population further.

In any case, I'm pretty much repeating myself, so if we're just going to argue about our preferred methods, I think I'm going to have to agree to disagree.

Except you keep missing the entire point of this thread. The OP said that the AP from BGs should be increased and indicated that it could potentially increase the population as well and make the queue times shorter. That was his point.

You see, you got it backwards, its not about increasing the AP to bring more people in BGs. A lot of things has to happen to fix BGs. However this is about simply increasing the AP cause it needs to give more AP. Its a more competitive environment than cyro and u get much less AP. It makes no sense. More people coming in as a result is the icing on the cake. Not the reason to increase the AP.

Yeah, we're going to have to disagree on Cyrodiil being a less competitive environment. They are quite different environments, and I don't care to get into an argument over the "small scale no zergs" style of BGs vs Cyrodiil's much wider range of combat styles.

I'm up for equality of AP on a per hour basis because that makes sense, or slightly better for BGs on account of BGs needing the help. But in a per hour basis, you've also got to account for the queues, which is why I suggest tying the AP increases to the queue times/high MMR.

Heimpai

Might change for some but for me I’d rather be in a ghost town cyro...bg‘s is okay but it’s not as fun as cyro, not even close

That being said I’m all for an AP increase or anything that’ll get more people into pvp

Are the bg‘s still pitting solo players against groups? If so there’s your biggest problem

pieratsos

VaranisArano wrote: »

pieratsos wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

pieratsos wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

pieratsos wrote: »

NupidStoob wrote: »

pieratsos wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

pieratsos wrote: »

There are people who are seriously against BGs giving more AP?

ZOS already increased the amount of AP. If that didn't solve the problem, how is adding more going to help?

I mean, short term it will draw more of the type of player who is like "I'm PVE only and I suck at PVP but I really just need Warhorn/Purge/Vigor/Caltrops, so kthxbai!" Which BGs already does. So increasing the AP would actually get them done and out of the queue quicker...

Adding more AP alone is not a good solution.

Yes they increased it and its still not enough. Its still no where near to the amount you can get in cyro.
But let me rephrase. Why should BGs give less AP than cyro. Just one valid reason. If anything it should give more since its a more competitive type of PVP.

How is:

"I mean, short term it will draw more of the type of player who is like "I'm PVE only and I suck at PVP but I really just need Warhorn/Purge/Vigor/Caltrops, so kthxbai!" Which BGs already does. So increasing the AP would actually get them done and out of the queue quicker..."

not a valid reason? Also why do people even care about AP? I sit on millions of that stuff with no clue what to do with it unless the golden drops something really nice.

People not queuing for BGs has many reasons: I guess low AP or the thread wouldn't exist, stupid bugged queue, if you don't have a full team you have to accept that someone else might, individual skill actually matters, it's a lot more stressful and competitive than just running around in a zerg and lastly and sadly no CP.

So you are telling me that the only people who want AP are the PVE players who want caltrops and vigor. And this is a valid reason? Do you even realise how that sounds?

You weirdly mashed together a couple of quotes there, so I'll try to disentangle this nonsense.

First off, I dont disagree that increased AP would benefit BGs. I do disagree that its a end-all, be-all solution to the low population of BGs.

Increasing AP will not increase the number of PVP players who play BGs. Why? Because we can assume that everyone who actually likes BGs is already playing them.

Increasing AP will draw more of two groups of players. 1. The type of PVE player who is only there to get their Alliance War skills, and 2. The type of player who just wants AP. This approach of add more AP backfires as the first group gets done with BGs faster, and only attracts the second group. Problem is, the second group gets a higher MMR, and thuse lower queues, and thus less AP. And unless that 2nd group is somehow so numerous as to fix the MMR (its not, BGs has constantly struggled with low pop), high MMR players will still get less AP per hour than they could in Cyrodiil due to having to wait on queues.


If you want an actual solution that brings more people AND equalizes AP for skilled players to that in Cyrodiil, you need to:
Either fix the MMR or Increase AP gains to be commensurate with MMR.

That way, a low MMR player gets faster queues and thus more AP and higher MMR players make more AP compensating them for the slower queue.

Increasing AP alone is not a solution. ZOS already tried it and it failed. Any solution has to take into account the MMR.

There was nothing weird at all. I answered each comment in seperate posts. The one you quoted wasnt even an answer to you.

I never said that its the end all be all solution to BG issues. In fact no one said that in this thread so not sure where you are coming from with this.

Stating that increasing AP wont increase the amount of players playing BGs is a prety bold statement considering that double AP events double the amount of players PVPing for their duration. Increasing AP is making the rewards better so it could actually bring more people. Its kinda obvious that if BGs AP gains rivalled or was better than cyro then it would make BGs a valid choice for farming AP. And yes ud be surprised how many people want the grand overlord title.

Higher MMR queue times are longer because there are less people with high MMR and there are also a lot of premades which makes it even harder to match them together. Having more people with high MMR literally makes the queue times shorter. The more players you have in general makes the queue times shorter. This is common sense. You cant possibly judge the MMR of everyone and say "but those players that will come will be high MMR so they will wait longer and therefore wont get the AP". This is a completely asinine statement to make based on no evidence. If anything, its impossible to even have evidence for a statement like that.

Completely agree that increasing AP in some sort of way is what is needed. That is literally the entire point of the thread. Imo the base AP gain should be increased alongside extra AP for how well you perform. Preferably more if you are solo since solo BGs are more fun.

ZOS did increase the AP and it was a good change. It didnt fail. It just still needs more whether it will bring more players in whether it doesnt. Here is the thing that you dont understand. Its not even about bringing more players to BGs. Its about the fact that BGs should give more AP. Bringing more players is a possible outcome as well which reinforces the need to increase the AP even more.

Yeah, I mis-read the quote, sorry.

The OP is pretty much, simplifed, "BGs needs more AP so its slightly better than Cyrodiil which will bring more people which will shorten queue timers."

Which, sure, it will - short-term. The question I have is whether or not that's actually going to fix the constant problem Battlegrounds has with sustainable population.

I think any solution has to deal with the MMR and the queuing issues so that players who want to play lots and lots of Battlegrounds can actually play lots and lots of Battlegrounds, without relying on a sudden influx of new players only drawn by the lure of AP, which is not sustainable.

Battlegrounds has always, always struggled with having a sustainable population. You think that luring new people in with AP is going to work, long-term. I'm not so confident - because I don't think its sustainable, just like PVP events aren't, and just like all the other rewards like more AP and style pages and Daily Random Battlegrounds exp designed to lure players to Battlegrounds haven't been sustainable. We won't know whether you or I are right unless ZOS does it, so I'll let that rest.

My preferred solution/method would be to increase AP with higher MMR rankings or to increase AP with queue waiting time so that Battlegrounds is equivalent or slightly better than Cyrodiil. This is not a flat increase in rewards, but it does reward players who are dedicated Battlegrounds players without requiring a long-term influx of new players to work. Its also sustainable, because it ensures that Battlegrounds players make equivalent or better AP regardless of how many or how few players are actually queuing for Battlegrounds, because they make the same rate of AP either because they play more matches (if there are more players) or get increased AP with the increased wait (if there are fewer players). That sustainable rate of AP that's equivalent or slightly better than Cyrodiil, plus the guarantee that you get rewarded for waiting in queue because of High MMR, should draw the AP farmers who actually want to play Battlegrounds back from zerging Cyrodiil, which boosts the sustainable population further.

In any case, I'm pretty much repeating myself, so if we're just going to argue about our preferred methods, I think I'm going to have to agree to disagree.

Except you keep missing the entire point of this thread. The OP said that the AP from BGs should be increased and indicated that it could potentially increase the population as well and make the queue times shorter. That was his point.

You see, you got it backwards, its not about increasing the AP to bring more people in BGs. A lot of things has to happen to fix BGs. However this is about simply increasing the AP cause it needs to give more AP. Its a more competitive environment than cyro and u get much less AP. It makes no sense. More people coming in as a result is the icing on the cake. Not the reason to increase the AP.

Yeah, we're going to have to disagree on Cyrodiil being a less competitive environment. They are quite different environments, and I don't care to get into an argument over the "small scale no zergs" style of BGs vs Cyrodiil's much wider range of combat styles.

I'm up for equality of AP on a per hour basis because that makes sense, or slightly better for BGs on account of BGs needing the help. But in a per hour basis, you've also got to account for the queues, which is why I suggest tying the AP increases to the queue times/high MMR.

I'm not sure what there is to disagree about. It's not about the small scale no zerg or anything like that. It's about the nature of the two types of PVP. Whether you, me or anyone like it or not Bgs are more competitive by nature. Matching players of equal skill in fair matches with medals, scoring and leader boards. Now whether all that are working as they should is a different discussion but the system is designed in a much more competitive way supposedly promoting competitive PVP.

Cyro is not really competitive by nature. You can do whatever the hell you want. There arent any actual rules to make it competitive.

MalagenR

Prince_of_all_Pugs wrote: »

Zos, I dont think its ethical that a player who just follows zergs around and pvkeeps all day gets to gain 4-10 times more AP than a player who ques for BG's. What is the point of doing BG's than other than to avoid the faction stacked , lag proliferating zergs of Cyrodiil? Even the $#!tty loot/cheves/titles you get from BG's are nothing compared to what you can get in cyrodiil from just faction zerging all day (emperor, slightly better loot, waaaaay more ap, etc). Im not saying that the rewards from cyrodiil should be nerfedat all (never), all Im saying is that the rewards from solo queing in a bg should be Buffed to be slightly better than cyrodiil, This will also get more people to que up to bgs, which should shortened up que timers. This will be a win-win in my opinion.

If Cyro play doesn't have a greater incentive for you to spend 5 minutes riding your horse to a keep vs. que'ing a BG why would anyone ever go to Cyro?

I'm seriously concerned about gamers these days. It almost seems like I'm surrounded by small children.