Proposal: crossrealm BG between Anathema and Darrowshire

[Dralek 5]

Making this topic to see everyone's opinion. I'm in favour of a merger between Anathema and Darrowshire, however, until that argument is well discussed and settled, perhaps we could apply a cross-realm function for bgs between both realms. At least for pugs only (so we don't get an anathema premade farming a darrowshire one).

The patch and gear diference between both realms isn't much, and the pvp community is suffering a lot in both realms. Perhaps this could help bring back battlegrounds. I'm not sure how ranking would be handled, I suppose pvp ranks would still be for each realm individually.

As for Elysium, it would be nice if they want to join too, I have no idea how Elysium's pvp community is right now.

If we apply this for Pugs only, gear difference won't really matter, cause every side would get a mix of players from each realm.

[Dizeliun 0]

cross realm BGs where one server has AQ gear and another doesnt. It's not fair. The only fix is to merge the two completely and let darrow catchup on gear

[Dralek 5]

25 minutes ago, Toradh said:

Ah yeah, cross-realm stuff totally worked out for retail lol

http://wow.gamepedia.com/Patch_1.12.0

Patch 1.12.0: For the first time in the history of World of Warcraft, you will be able to face off against players from other realms in the Battlegrounds. PvP Battlegrounds link Alterac Valley, Warsong Gulch, and Arathi Basin so that players from several realms will be combined into one huge matchmaking pool. Replenish your mana, sharpen your blades, and get ready for some brand-new challengers!

So cross-realm BGs in vanilla are blizzlike, and were infact implemented to deal with this sort of problems.

23 minutes ago, Dizeliun said:

cross realm BGs where one server has AQ gear and another doesnt. It's not fair. The only fix is to merge the two completely and let darrow catchup on gear

In a PUG environment, both teams will have a mix of players from both realms. So in essence it will be sort of balanced. The problem would be from the premade perspective in which an Anathema premade could have the advantage over a Darrowshire premade. Even so the diference beween realm patchs isn't that high an the gear is, while not equal, not distant in total power. However, you can enable this only for PUGs or whatever, given that my porposal is not a final product of what we could implement. The idea is to have more battlegrounds popping each day, as we used to have, because instanced pvp is really dead in both realms.

I do agree Anathema and Darrowshire should be merged, but until that happens this is a minor solution to some of the problems both of them face.

[Dralek 5]

1 hour ago, Toradh said:

That's not what I'm saying, I'm saying it's not gonna work

Please behave like an adult and provide an actual argument as to why it wouldn't work. Pointless one liners do nothing to either help or prevent the implementation of a good/bad idea.

Otherwise, the children's forum section is this way, and is perhaps more suited for you: https://us.battle.net/forums/en/bnet/

 

[Hurricane2 2]

It won't work because it's not possible  (It's also a bad idea).  There are no plans for such a thing and a dev could clarify this but I don't think it's possible with the current client and therefore is impossible because they are not going to create a new client.

[Dralek 5]

10 minutes ago, Hurricane2 said:

It won't work because it's not possible  (It's also a bad idea).  There are no plans for such a thing and a dev could clarify this but I don't think it's possible with the current client and therefore is impossible because they are not going to create a new client.

Let me see if I get your point: you state something will not work, and your reason is that you "think" it "may" not be possible because of the client, despite that cross-bgs do work for the 1.12 patch. And in any case what would be the technical limitation of the client?. At most the limitation would have to be from server-side connection between both realms, which is different from what you've stated

Not trying to be unpleasent here, but an argument of faith based on a weird assumption is just as useless as providing no argument at all :/

[Hurricane2 2]

The 1.12 client here is not the same one blizzard used for 1.12.  The devs would have to explain why it isn't doable.

[TheDruidCode 28]

7 minutes ago, Hurricane2 said:

The 1.12 client here is not the same one blizzard used for 1.12.  The devs would have to explain why it isn't doable.

Client is the same. Just here to be a besserwisser. Moving along.

[Hurricane2 2]

It is my understanding that it is based on the mangos core and that is different than what blizzard had.

[TheDruidCode 28]

Just now, Hurricane2 said:

It is not the same but they did try to get it as close to how it used to be as possible.

You're talking about the server. The client is on your computer and very much blizzard original. 

And I'm pretty sure staff has already stated why there will be no cross realm.

[Guest]

You couldn't do cross-realm due to the differences in item databases between both Anathema and Darrowshire. You can't effectively host a 'third' server and have both instances of an item be present at a time. The balancing nightmare to achieve this would be untenable.

Now, if they were on the same patch... that's more of a Core Development + Server Infrastructure issue than some easy scripting. You have to account for things like colliding player name/GUIDs, network routing, client data movements, persistency from Home to BG realm and back... that's an extremely complex request when you get down into it.

[Dralek 5]

5 hours ago, Phoosy said:

 

Now, if they were on the same patch... that's more of a Core Development + Server Infrastructure issue than some easy scripting. You have to account for things like colliding player name/GUIDs, network routing, client data movements, persistency from Home to BG realm and back... that's an extremely complex request when you get down into it.

That seems like a reasonable and legit argument as to why not to do it.

Thnx for reading the idea, but nvm the proposal then. Close topic if you wish.

[wurzlsepp 0]

SInce a PVP Realmpool will not be possible due to progression differences, Im all for speeding up the progression towards AQ release for darrowshire and a possible merger 1-2 months after that. Darrowshire guilds on the alliance are mainly raidlogging / equipping twinks through mc, bwl, ony and zg currently. Top raiders have already prepared their raid mats for a AQ. Horde guilds are falling apart left and right due to the player influx. The factio ratio is getting worse every day. PVP is as good as dead

However,

- people on darrowshire deliberately joined a PVE server, not everyone here will enjoy world pvp

- not everyone has seen nef dead, has the gear he/she desires

- AQ content back then was making players/guilds quit. It did on other private servers and will also do on darrowshire.

- a merger will therefore lead to even more loss in the playerbase  and accelerate the problem.

There is no single good solution to this. The player base of both realms will further decrease. The realms will eventually die off forcing their playerbase to start anew at the Elysium realm or leaving the whole project/game behind.

I guess the only solution will be forcing a migration of Darrowshires/Anathemas population towards Elysium (including gear downgrades) at a later point.

[Pottu 290]

Darrowshire is a PvE realm and players who want the PvE experience will roll there. It will not be merged with Anathema.