Hello!

This idea popped up in my head when I was lying on my bed yesterday.

Back in the day they changed some BG stuff aswell and out of it came the birht of Battlegroups!
Now here we are at almost the same situation (long queues) and with the solution right infront of us!

Link or enlarge battlegroups in a way so horde and alliance balance out about 50-50 %
You guys have to have some statistics on how much allies and horde per realm there are. Otherwise there is some website around with statistics which are pretty accurate.

I think this will bring queues down and will have more BG's up because there will be more realms/people per battlegroup and hopefully a more balanced Ally/horde ratio.

So what do you guys think of this idea?

Personally i hope Blizzard reads this and forwards it to te dev's

Ps: This is in here on purpose, this maybe should be in the Suggestion forum but this is posted here so i can get as many opinions on this.

---

Q u o t e:
This has been suggested multiple times in the past and while we won't exclude that this is something that might one day become possible, there are currently some technical limitations in place that prevents this from being a viable option.

---

What kind of technical limitations?

Servers ? software? it cant be the BG hosting server because there are fewer bg's up now then before?

maybe the community can brainstorm with u :3

See, this is why it is pointless for Blizzard emplotyees to respond to suggestions. Basically, from what I read this has already been considered but the guys who really know the system (those who designed and support it) say it's not currently viable. I would suggest that you just trust that if they say it can't be done that they know what they are talking about. Wasting the CM's tine "brainstorming" with a bunch of ill-informed randomers (and I include myself in that) is not going to help. You can guaranteee that there is nothing that we from the outside can suggest to aleviate a technical issue that will not have already been considered internally.

This is not a dig at the OP specifically, but more a general statement. In this case the response simply elicited a request for more responses that would benefit no-one and simply waste employee time. I can imagine that in other threads however, a blue response would just cause more arguments.

So what a CM basically said: "It's it posible, but you wont get it, because that requires coding changes and coding changes cost money." Some of forum folks need to understand, that blizzard still is a company. Even if u had good ideas, they arent implementing them because it costs.

Or because of technical limitations as was stated above. You could argue that these limitations could be removed with enough money, but sometimes not. Again, it shows the futility of getting a CM to respond as whatever they say will be interpreted differently by each person, or they will simply be accused of lying etc.

The technical problems are basically the physical location of the servers. the only fix would be to move all the servers to the same location, which would be a really big operation

---

Q u o t e:
This has been suggested multiple times in the past and while we won't exclude that this is something that might one day become possible, there are currently some technical limitations in place that prevents this from being a viable option.

---

Or.. you could go with the most simple and effective solution and just undo changes that caused the problem in the first place...

---

Q u o t e:
Or.. you could go with the most simple and effective solution and just undo changes that caused the problem in the first place...

---

Here we go again.

The changes were brought in for a good reason. That reason was people like you with little concept of the bigger picture QQing over unbalanced battlegrounds. Many of us explained that "fixing" this would cause other issues like longer queues, but the QQers kept on QQing. Blizzard obviously trusted the QQers. That they honestly were willing to wait longer for balanced BG's, but guess what... they are now QQing even more because of the longer queues.

See what happens when Blizzard listens to the "popular" suggestions rather than the "good" suggestions? Yet another reason for them to distance themselves from this forum.

---

Q u o t e:
Here we go again.

The changes were brought in for a good reason. That reason was people like you with little concept of the bigger picture QQing over unbalanced battlegrounds. Many of us explained that "fixing" this would cause other issues like longer queues, but the QQers kept on QQing. Blizzard obviously trusted the QQers. That they honestly were willing to wait longer for balanced BG's, but guess what... they are now QQing even more because of the longer queues.

See what happens when Blizzard listens to the "popular" suggestions rather than the "good" suggestions? Yet another reason for them to distance themselves from this forum.

---

Well now we have alot longer waiting time to enter BGs, but do we also have more balanced BGs for it?
I don't know about your battlegroup but mine sure as hell isn't any more balanced then it was before the change.
And hey here is an idea, how about Blizzard creates a realm where they and the player can test new ideas and see if those ideas are actually good and then they could name this realm, oh i don't know, maybe Player Test Realm or something...

---

Q u o t e:
I don't know about your battlegroup but mine sure as hell isn't any more balanced then it was before the change.

---

As I said, Blizard listened to the QQers. Also, the inbalance now is caused PURELYU by the players. A BG will not strt until there is enough on each side to completely fill the BG. It is people deciding not to enter the BG that are causing the imbalance. Not a lot that Blizzard can do about that.

---

Q u o t e:
how about Blizzard creates a realm where they and the player can test new ideas

---

You obviously have no clue about testing. Testing can never accurately represent the real world situataion, especially on scale and on the users involved. Or are you suggesting that there is a whole new battlegroup created, and that the people on that are the same as those on a normal battlegroup, including the AFK leechers, the gold farmers, the ninjas, the causlas and the hardcore? The fact is that the PTR only attracts the more active players. They also fill the servers to get the most out of the testing. They don't create imbalances realms, they don't get people who join BG queues and then don't play the BG. Basically they can't test for the way people will play the game.

I would like to thank Blizzard for answering this question which has crossed so many minds so often.

Considering the 'one big happy battlegroup' option is for the time being of the table, is there any news on a free transfer to a 'Twink Town' Realm/Battlegroup so the problem of honest twinks not being able to play their characters due to REALLY long, long queues gets (hopefully) resolved?

---

Q u o t e:
As I said, Blizard listened to the QQers. Also, the inbalance now is caused PURELYU by the players. A BG will not strt until there is enough on each side to completely fill the BG. It is people deciding not to enter the BG that are causing the imbalance. Not a lot that Blizzard can do about that.

---

How does it matter what causes the problem? Fact is there still is a problem with a new one added in.

---

Q u o t e:
You obviously have no clue about testing. Testing can never accurately represent the real world situataion, especially on scale and on the users involved. Or are you suggesting that there is a whole new battlegroup created, and that the people on that are the same as those on a normal battlegroup, including the AFK leechers, the gold farmers, the ninjas, the causlas and the hardcore? The fact is that the PTR only attracts the more active players. They also fill the servers to get the most out of the testing. They don't create imbalances realms, they don't get people who join BG queues and then don't play the BG. Basically they can't test for the way people will play the game.

---

Hah well funny story, but actually I have this really strange idea that, like any other software development company, it should actually be Blizzards developers that figure out how to test out big changes like those to crossrealm BGs and try to predict how people will behave with the changes.

Its just i don't understand why its not possible atm.

You guys did it before, when battlegroups didn't exist.

Why cant they be tweaked so a battlegroup is more people or realms or different realms so the horde/alliance ratio is balanced.

---

Q u o t e:
It is people deciding not to enter the BG that are causing the imbalance. Not a lot that Blizzard can do about that.

---

Oh there is, only allow queuing of 1 BG at a time.
That way players are forced to only play the bg they really want rather than leave a BG when the one they want pops up half way through

---

Q u o t e:

Oh there is, only allow queuing of 1 BG at a time.
That way players are forced to only play the bg they really want rather than leave a BG when the one they want pops up half way through

---

It wont stop them from queueing and then not joining, because they've gone afk/cba afterall. I joined Isle of Conquest earlier, and there was 17 alliance, to hordes 40.

Which is because people wait. And wait. And wait. Then they go do something else that requires time. :( Thus, when BG comes up they're like "OH RIGHT LOL NO THANKS"

---

Q u o t e:
Oh there is, only allow queuing of 1 BG at a time.

---

No, what would happen is that this would immediiately double the length of the queues. Currently, for each person queuing, there are 2 queue slots filled. With this change, that would be only half, so it would require double the number of people queueing to have enough to start a BG.

For example, 100 people are queueing. It takes 125(?) to fill one of each BG. If you could only queue for one BG, then that would mean that it is quite possible that no BG's will be available. There could be 35 queuing for each of IoC and AV, then 10 for each of AB, EotS and SotA.

If however they can queue for 2, then that would guarantee that one or more of hte BG's would have enough people in the queue to start.

See what I mean about suggesting things that you have not thought through? Balancing the battlegrounds without making the queues horrendous, or without consigning any of them to a completely unplayable state is not a simple task. Saying simple "fix it" is not helpful.

Personally I much prefer the idea of
- Allowing you to queue for all BG's
- Holding your place in the queue when you enter a BG
- Allowing you to queue any (but only 1) of your characters for BG's even if you're not logged into that character

That, IMO, would be a better solution, but would require whole new queuing system to be designed and implemented. Realistically ther eis no "easy" solution that will fix the BG issues. There are many options, but each has risks and costs involved.

Queue length is getting to me as well, I must admit; at least before, if you entered a misloaded BG and were instantly steamrollered, you got a token and were out again in 5 minutes.
Sitting for (on my battlegroup) an average of 10-20 minutes, waiting for one BG that you may well not even win? Doesn't feel like a productive use of my time, even though I like PvP. :(

I appreciate why the changes were brought in, but I'm not enjoying them especially.

---

Q u o t e:
I appreciate why the changes were brought in, but I'm not enjoying them especially.

---

Indeed. It just goes to re-enforce that Blizzard should not just implement changes because they are "popular". This is the sort of thing that results.