08-21-2009, 09:25 AM
That's a reasonable solution too, especially when you have such a huge population to draw from. Odds are you could create battlegrounds for 1v1 through 40v40 in increments of 2 (1v1, 2v2, 4v4, 6v6, 8v8, etc) and have people lining up for all of them.
But then there's people like me who simply like "worlds" better than "games".
I think battlegrounds, even really good ones, even ones with character development, will never do it for me long term. I miss the MMORPG world and I don't like the complete disconnect that battlegrounds have. Even in WAR, where battlegrounds have an impact on the rest of the world, you're still completely disconnected from the game world and in the end the result of your battle is a tick on a progress bar.
I think what it boils down to for me is that I don't like "artificial fairness", which is to say, "well defined games", at least not in an MMO. MMOs I expect to be more open, where players have to create their own fairness and are given the room to do so (e.g., 400 vs 100 sucks in a small room but the bigger you make the room, the less it will suck for the 100).
But then there's people like me who simply like "worlds" better than "games".
I think battlegrounds, even really good ones, even ones with character development, will never do it for me long term. I miss the MMORPG world and I don't like the complete disconnect that battlegrounds have. Even in WAR, where battlegrounds have an impact on the rest of the world, you're still completely disconnected from the game world and in the end the result of your battle is a tick on a progress bar.
I think what it boils down to for me is that I don't like "artificial fairness", which is to say, "well defined games", at least not in an MMO. MMOs I expect to be more open, where players have to create their own fairness and are given the room to do so (e.g., 400 vs 100 sucks in a small room but the bigger you make the room, the less it will suck for the 100).