The redundancy of XP lock, low level PVP, heirlooms and more.

Lights

Lights

Legend
The XP lock feature has become redundant. Separating the XP locked player base from the XP on player base makes no difference to the current game.
The core reasoning behind the introduction of the separate BG feature for XP locked players was to prevent newer and low level players from getting demolished by experienced and far more geared players. I agree with Blizzard's original reasoning and for the time, it was a good feature, but I feel times have changed and the system in place is no longer serving anyone.
Not just twinks, it's not serving the XP on players either.

As a new player approaching the game and getting to LV10, most feel inclined to try out PVP at least a few times. Now why is it that we barely see any non-heirloomed players in low level battlegrounds? Why is it that the heirloom wearing players far out weigh the ones without them? Well, let's think about that for a second. I'm a level 10 Orc Hunter in a few greens and mostly white gear, I enter my first Warsong Gulch and run down the tunnel into mid and meet a few enemy players that beat me down and send me to the GY. I resurrect and leave the GY and make my way back to mid, and die to the same players. This happens over and over again until eventually I either quit out from the battleground or we lose the match. In the whole of this experience, I probably didn't even realise that we were actually playing Capture The Flag, because to me it likely felt like a deathmatch that I just couldn't win. After this experience, I'd likely never queue for a battleground again until I feel a bit more "powerful".

This only mirrors a bit of what new players experience. Some new players could find themselves on the side of the winning team and feel a bit more useful, but overall, I think new players do not like getting demolished by far more experienced and geared players.

The introduction of XP lock/separate BGs in 2009
  • The XP lock feature was introduced in Patch 3.2 (WotLK)
    I speculate this feature was introduced to prevent low level players from getting stomped by twinks.
    The same patch added XP being gained through BGs. Again with the speculation, I think overall this was to promote leveling through BGs.
  • In patch 3.2, there were Weapon, Shoulder, Chest and Trinket heirlooms. Dread Pirate Ring was added in Patch 3.3.
    Having all 5 heirloom slots and average leveling gear, there was still a massive statistical difference between that of a twink player.

Fast forward to 2015
  • There is now 10 heirloom slots in the game.
  • Almost every low level XP-on PVP player has heirlooms.
    The average health pool I see in 10-19 XP on BGs is 1300-2000. When I see someone without heirlooms, it's about 500-1000.
    The statistical difference between a full-loomed XP-on PVPer and an XP-off twink is marginally smaller.
    My Lv19 Arms Warrior has 2.6k HP, whilst leveling 10-19 through BGs with heirlooms/whites with enchants I had 2.3k.

Now having said all of this, I haven't even mentioned the fact that with the new heirloom account page and the huge availability of gold and resources, that it has become incredibly easy to just create an "XP on twink" (ie: Full heirlooms, BoE greens with enchants, white rings with enchants, etc) which has an incredibly easy time racking up 30+ killing blows and around 100-150 HKs in a 15 min WSG game. Is people doing this not the original reason the separate BG (XP off) playlist was created for? To prevent inexperienced players from getting stomped on by far more experienced and geared players?

Anyway, there's somewhat of a solution that actually has potential to be possible.
Im gathering with the addition of the Heirloom account page, that there'd be a way to differentiate between accounts with and without heirlooms, so my idea is this.

  • Removal of the current BG playlist (XP on and XP off)
  • Addition of Non-BOA playlist, for accounts without BoA. - New Player pool
    This creates a fair environment for low level players who are new to the game.
  • Addition of BOA playlist, for accounts with BOA, and also for players that have chosen to lock their XP. - Experienced pool
    Players with BOA are likely experienced, and with the minor statistical difference between that of a twink and an XP on heirloom'd player, this environment I'd also consider fair.


What do you guys think? Feel free to argue, add to it, etc.

Player that has no heirlooms that wants to try PVP > New Player pool
Player that has heirlooms that wants to PVP > Experienced pool
Player that has locked XP (regardless of heirlooms or not) > Experienced pool

There is XP gained in both pools. The only difference is that in the Experienced pool, people have the ability to lock their XP.
If you were to try and "abuse" the New Player pool, the only way would be being on account without any heirlooms. It doesn't matter if your character has them equipped or not, it differentiates via account, not via character. Whilst playing in the New Player pool, there is no way to lock XP. If you lock XP, you're moved into the Experienced pool. If you really want to just stomp noobs, you'd have to roll a character, get gear, chants, proffs, etc. and then play for a few games, and then reroll as you ding over the bracket's cap, because there is no way to lock XP.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That's a pretty good idea, although blizzard is pretty set up on making garrisonville Facebook version 2.0 for WoW right now they probably won't listen :p I really hope this gets implemented though, it sounds great.
 
Lights said:
There's an obvious flaw: Where do F2Ps fit into this?
Obviously needs more thought, but that's why I'm posting it here rather than suggesting it to Blizzard myself.
Click to expand...

Why would f2p not just go with the BoA group if they have, well you know, BoAs??

The bigger flaw is where is the line drawn one BoA, 2, 3, full set? Then you'd have abuse of whatever magic number let you play non-BoA BGs.

With the scaling that is currently implemented a more elegant solution would be:

When you hit lvl 10 you get a quest to see the 'Battlemaster' in your capital city.

He gives you another quest for a single player scenario that is a simulation of a few BGs.

Completing this quest awards a full set of iLvl 14 basic blue gear (primary stat/stam) appropriate to your class/spec.

Completion of these quests is required to queue for BGs via the group finder interface.
 
Takeo said:
Why would f2p not just go with the BoA group if they have, well you know, BoAs??

The bigger flaw is where is the line drawn one BoA, 2, 3, full set? Then you'd have abuse of whatever magic number let you play non-BoA BGs.

With the scaling that is currently implemented a more elegant solution would be:

When you hit lvl 10 you get a quest to see the 'Battlemaster' in your capital city.

He gives you another quest for a single player scenario that is a simulation of a few BGs.

Completing this quest awards a full set of iLvl 14 basic blue gear (primary stat/stam) appropriate to your class/spec.

Completion of these quests is required to queue for BGs via the group finder interface.
Click to expand...

This is also another good idea.

Also, I'd personally draw the line at just 1 BOA on the account. If you know what a BOA is and how to get it, chances are you can play against experienced people.
 
Lights said:
The XP lock feature has become redundant. Separating the XP locked player base from the XP on player base makes no difference to the current game.
The core reasoning behind the introduction of the separate BG feature for XP locked players was to prevent newer and low level players from getting demolished by experienced and far more geared players. I agree with Blizzard's original reasoning and for the time, it was a good feature, but I feel times have changed and the system in place is no longer serving anyone.
Not just twinks, it's not serving the XP on players either.

As a new player approaching the game and getting to LV10, most feel inclined to try out PVP at least a few times. Now why is it that we barely see any non-heirloomed players in low level battlegrounds? Why is it that the heirloom wearing players far out weigh the ones without them? Well, let's think about that for a second. I'm a level 10 Orc Hunter in a few greens and mostly white gear, I enter my first Warsong Gulch and run down the tunnel into mid and meet a few enemy players that beat me down and send me to the GY. I resurrect and leave the GY and make my way back to mid, and die to the same players. This happens over and over again until eventually I either quit out from the battleground or we lose the match. In the whole of this experience, I probably didn't even realise that we were actually playing Capture The Flag, because to me it likely felt like a deathmatch that I just couldn't win. After this experience, I'd likely never queue for a battleground again until I feel a bit more "powerful".

This only mirrors a bit of what new players experience. Some new players could find themselves on the side of the winning team and feel a bit more useful, but overall, I think new players do not like getting demolished by far more experienced and geared players.

The introduction of XP lock/separate BGs in 2009
  • The XP lock feature was introduced in Patch 3.2 (WotLK)
    I speculate this feature was introduced to prevent low level players from getting stomped by twinks.
    The same patch added XP being gained through BGs. Again with the speculation, I think overall this was to promote leveling through BGs.
  • In patch 3.2, there were Weapon, Shoulder, Chest and Trinket heirlooms. Dread Pirate Ring was added in Patch 3.3.
    Having all 5 heirloom slots and average leveling gear, there was still a massive statistical difference between that of a twink player.

Fast forward to 2015
  • There is now 10 heirloom slots in the game.
  • Almost every low level XP-on PVP player has heirlooms.
    The average health pool I see in 10-19 XP on BGs is 1300-2000. When I see someone without heirlooms, it's about 500-1000.
    The statistical difference between a full-loomed XP-on PVPer and an XP-off twink is marginally smaller.
    My Lv19 Arms Warrior has 2.6k HP, whilst leveling 10-19 through BGs with heirlooms/whites with enchants I had 2.3k.

Now having said all of this, I haven't even mentioned the fact that with the new heirloom account page and the huge availability of gold and resources, that it has become incredibly easy to just create an "XP on twink" (ie: Full heirlooms, BoE greens with enchants, white rings with enchants, etc) which has an incredibly easy time racking up 30+ killing blows and around 100-150 HKs in a 15 min WSG game. Is people doing this not the original reason the separate BG (XP off) playlist was created for? To prevent inexperienced players from getting stomped on by far more experienced and geared players?

Anyway, there's somewhat of a solution that actually has potential to be possible.
Im gathering with the addition of the Heirloom account page, that there'd be a way to differentiate between accounts with and without heirlooms, so my idea is this.

  • Removal of the current BG playlist (XP on and XP off)
  • Addition of Non-BOA playlist, for accounts without BoA.
    This creates a fair environment for low level players who are new to the game.
  • Addition of BOA playlist, for accounts with BOA, and also for players that have chosen to lock their XP.
    Players with BOA are likely experienced, and with the minor statistical difference between that of a twink and an XP on heirloom'd player, this environment I'd also consider fair.


What do you guys think? Feel free to argue, add to it, etc.

PS GUYS - THE IDEA BEHIND THIS FOR US IS MORE QUEUE POPS IN EVERY BRACKET.
Click to expand...

1. It's not the XP lock that is bad, it's the segregation of XP enabled players from those who have XP disabled, which is bad. This created a pretty substantial rift in the pvp community. Once upon a time the pvp aspect of this game was about overcoming disadvantages through character progression and skill. Blizzard never should have caved into the scrubs who refused to get with the program.

2. Their core reasoning for segregation wasn't to prevent new players and casuals from being demolished by experienced players (they put players on starter accounts in the same XP disabled BGs as twinks FFS). Their reason for segregation was to prevent all players from being subjected to games where groups of twinks could use years of experience and character development as a method of controlling the outcome of BGs indefinitely through group queuing with friends and guildies. They don't want non twinks to be unable to have an effect on the outcome of games.

3. I agree with you that the current state of the game puts non twinks on a much more even playing field than they used to be on, in terms of stats. However, they are still a long way off from twinks who have spent a significant amount of time and effort perfecting their toons and skills in pvp. I would like to see a more comprehensive queuing system that recognizes twinks and limits the number of them in each BG, without having segregation.
 
willix said:
1. It's not the XP lock that is bad, it's the segregation of XP enabled players from those who have XP disabled, which is bad. This created a pretty substantial rift in the pvp community. Once upon a time the pvp aspect of this game was about overcoming disadvantages through character progression and skill. Blizzard never should have caved into the scrubs who refused to get with the program.

2. Their core reasoning for segregation wasn't to prevent new players and casuals from being demolished by experienced players (they put players on starter accounts in the same XP disabled BGs as twinks FFS). Their reason for segregation was to prevent all players from being subjected to games where groups of twinks could use years of experience and character development as a method of controlling the outcome of BGs indefinitely through group queuing with friends and guildies. They don't want non twinks to be unable to have an effect on the outcome of games.

3. I agree with you that the current state of the game puts non twinks on a much more even playing field than they used to be on, in terms of stats. However, they are still a long way off from twinks who have spent a significant amount of time and effort perfecting their toons and skills in pvp. I would like to see a more comprehensive queuing system that recognizes twinks and limits the number of them in each BG, without having segregation.
Click to expand...

I agree with all your points dude, but the problem with over complicating the queues even more is a) it divides us up even more and b) it's asking way too much of Blizzard.
I think what I have is suggested is actually plausible if we communicate properly/effectively.
 
Takeo said:
Why would f2p not just go with the BoA group if they have, well you know, BoAs??

The bigger flaw is where is the line drawn one BoA, 2, 3, full set? Then you'd have abuse of whatever magic number let you play non-BoA BGs.
Click to expand...

You haven't understood what I said above. There is no way to abuse the magic number of BOA and there is no way to queue against non-loomed players with your XP off.
I get the idea behind "Oh, I'll just make a character without heirlooms and stomp on noobs in their queues" but you need to keep in mind that there'd be no way of preventing XP gain.
The "new player, non heirloom" battelgrounds would be for leveling, and leveling only.
 
Turtle said:
so if you lock xp and don't have BoAs you will still play in the leveling non-BoA bracket?
Click to expand...

FOR CLARITY'S SAKE
If you have no heirlooms and your XP is on, you'll be in the Non-BOA playlist.
If you have heirlooms and your XP is on, you'll be in the BOA playlist.
If you have no heirlooms and your XP is off, you'll be in the BOA playlist.
If you have heirlooms and your XP is off, you'll be in the BOA playlist.
There is absolutely no way to "abuse" this system without risking over leveling the bracket's cap.

Just put this in OP. Can understand why people are confused, I'm only using Non-BOA and BOA playlist terms to help differentiate. The playlists wouldn't actually be called "BOA on BOA off" it'd probably closer to "New Player Pool" and "Experienced Pool"
 
Lights said:
FOR CLARITY'S SAKE
If you have no heirlooms and your XP is on, you'll be in the Non-BOA playlist.
If you have heirlooms and your XP is on, you'll be in the BOA playlist.
If you have no heirlooms and your XP is off, you'll be in the BOA playlist.
If you have heirlooms and your XP is off, you'll be in the BOA playlist.
There is absolutely no way to "abuse" this system without risking over leveling the bracket's cap.

Just put this in OP.
Click to expand...

Well that's gay in think non boas locked or not should get their own play list
 
Turtle said:
Well that's gay in think non boas locked or not should get their own play list
Click to expand...

Again, it's a good idea, but it's complicating things even more. The smaller the ask, the more likely Blizzard are to agree.
Also, like was mentioned before, this totally contradicts the idea of "New Player" and "Experienced", as Experienced people could just roll non-loomed characters and destroy people anyway.
Twinks aren't all about gear superiority, generally they're just a lot better at the game because of more hours spent at certain levels.
PVP Q&A is soon. https://twitter.com/Warcraft/status/588429270323634176
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Turtle said:
Nigga ... non boas get their own play list locked or not same for boas...your idea is more complicated switching 4 perspectives through
Click to expand...

The idea isn't that complicated lol
Looms + XP off = Experienced playlist
Looms + XP on = Experienced playlist
No looms + XP off = Experienced playlist
No looms + XP on = New player playlist

If you are a non-loomed player that's locked their XP, you are obviously a subscriber and you obviously have access to heirlooms. Gimping yourself as a non-loom player on a subscriber account is just silly talk.
 
Lights said:
The idea isn't that complicated lol
Looms + XP off = Experienced playlist
Looms + XP on = Experienced playlist
No looms + XP off = Experienced playlist
No looms + XP on = New player playlist

If you are a non-loomed player that's locked their XP, you are obviously a subscriber and you obviously have access to heirlooms. Gimping yourself as a non-loom player on a subscriber account is just silly talk.
Click to expand...

Oh so this comes down to just subscribers and non subscribers ... I do this with every bracket as i lvl. If stop at the 2nd last level 38 48 58 etc and lock get bis then unlock and PVP till it hit the new bracket then it repeat
 
The other half of this is quality vs quantity. Obviously the motivation behind this idea is for more consistent queue pops for locked XP players. The "New player" pool of non-BOA, non-XP locked players is just what happens when you pool the majority of players in the "Experienced" playlist, and would be somewhat of an incentive for Blizzard to notice this idea. I'm not going to argue entirely for the twink community, because as soon as anyone starts barking on the forums about "twinks and how they're being neglected" it just passes by Blizzard's eye and nothing is acted upon. This is a halfway mark that I think is plausible. The other side of this is quality of games, because with more consistent pops, the community would be widespread again and your average WSG match might have 4 or 5 twinks either side, could be more, could be less.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Top