Do you want a custom battleground queueing mechanic from lvl 10 to 59?

[Jackpothead]

Have the devs commented on this? I think it's a really good idea, and I guess the rest of the players aswell, since the Yes:No is 2:1

 

[Volescue]

The only time I remember queueing for WSG was when I was questing in Ashenvale or level 60. It was just too far outta the way otherwise. The same goes for AV. I think such a feature would attract more players than it was push away.

 

[Lexenadar]

Well, I understand that it isn't really a priority and would not be available at launch, but could we finally get an answer for it? And not just a ''we're considering it''.

 

[kengar]

I voted no. It affects actual vanilla low lvl experience and if u really wanna join bg but you're somewhere far away then ask guild m8 or friend from same lvl range to queue u. Simple. Yeah yeah i know u will be in city after BG is done but hey! then queue again and move back to lvling area while waiting for another BG i highly doubt there will be instant BG pops anyway so u should have time to back to lvling and get some progress while waiting for another BG pop.

IF something is to be added then innkeeper version imo. bg command equals to RBG expansion casual crap wich is 1 of the reasons im not playing expansions. So as i said i voted No and hopefully it will be that way.

 

[Lexenadar]

it affects actual vanilla low lvl experience

That's not a concrete argument.

IF something is to be added then innkeeper version imo

That was the concensus, indeed.

I advice you to read the whole thread, there have been some extremely good arguments written.

 

[kengar]

That was the concensus, indeed.
I advice you to read the whole thread, there have been some extremely good arguments written.

Yeah im sure theres been all kind of answers but just said what OP made me personally feel about this.

 

[Weedix]

I voted no as well.

 

[Lexenadar]

Can we have reasons? Other than ''it's not blizzlike''?

 

[Struckd]

Yeah im sure theres been all kind of answers but just said what OP made me personally feel about this.

..but...thats why you should read through all the arguments...because after you read both sides of the story...thoroughly...you tend to change 'how you feel', only the oblivious just opens their mouth without regarding the debate.

 

[szsoulzek]

I'll vote: No, not classic.

If this is being considered it'd be incredibly easy to throw a giant list at the devs of other "improvements" (basically anything on live that is not gameplay related but accessibility related).

 

[nimeralos]

I think they'll make a decision very soon. If we'd have over 9000 online - there will be low lvl BGs without Innkeeper/anywhere queue. If we'd have, say, 2000 online - idk if there'll be low lvl BGs or not. If we'd fail in terms of population... Staff have to look at how the things are before working on implementing the feature or declining it.

 

[Lexenadar]

'll vote: No, not classic.

If this is being considered it'd be incredibly easy to throw a giant list at the devs of other "improvements" (basically anything on live that is not gameplay related but accessibility related).

The concrete effects of the innkeeper solution were deeply discussed and measured in the thread. It won't change the ''vanilla feel'', all it'll change is more BGs happening due to people not having to run all the way to their city to queue. Unlike say, Dungeon Finder, which would remove one of the iconic traits of vanilla and completely alter the gameplay experience.

Besides, if the majority of the player base (60%) want a change to be made, is it really that bad of an idea? Especially since the 14 previous pages showed how anti-queue people basically repeated the dogmatic ''its not blizzlike'' all over again, whereas pro-queue explained how it can only help the server.

 

[Dalloway]

Can we have reasons?

Short-sightedness? Never in short supply.

And because I do not want to add a post solely to satisfy my sarcasm, /lobby.
I will never play low-level battlegrounds myself, but this request is solid for those who do. You're only going to slide down a slippery slope if you're not able to use your discernment properly. Which is to say, you should practice it...

 

[Magnifican]

The concrete effects of the innkeeper solution were deeply discussed and measured in the thread. It won't change the ''vanilla feel'', all it'll change is more BGs happening due to people not having to run all the way to their city to queue. Unlike say, Dungeon Finder, which would remove one of the iconic traits of vanilla and completely alter the gameplay experience.

Besides, if the majority of the player base (60%) want a change to be made, is it really that bad of an idea? Especially since the 14 previous pages showed how anti-queue people basically repeated the dogmatic ''its not blizzlike'' all over again, whereas pro-queue explained how it can only help the server.

This! ^
Im so tired of "its not blizzlike"-arguments. Blizzlike sucked in alot of ways in vanilla and its just nostalgia talkin, no logic or reason. Bad things are still bad. I vote for Innkeepers giving us the ability to queue up for BG, except for the major towns, where we have to go to the war room etc. But im definitley against a command of any sort. The world needs to live :w00t:

 

[kengar]

As i said i voted "No" but dont mind if we lose the poll and they add BG queue to Innkeepers Im fully open for that system. Totally against commands tho.

 

[Chaplin]

Casuals... Filthy casuals everywhere! You're the reason WoW has turned out the way it has.


On a serious note though, you are.

 

[Lexenadar]

Ya, wanting BGs to actually occur is so casual.

 

[jorim]

Queue at innkeepers for lowlvls please.

To me it feels very odd to have a feature to turn xp off for your twink but what's the point of it if you won't be able to do much battlegrounds with them...

 

[Artick]

What will happen with people who block their exp (commands) and camp "lows", while they wait for bg. For example, a lvl 59 in Winterspring?
I'm against both ideas (exp block and innkeepers queuing)... but...