heyaz
06-10-2009, 01:45 PM
I've heard a lot of talk about the more competitive battlegroups, especially Bloodlust (BG9) where 5v5 is a bit more active. But I don't quite understand people's logic, saying they want to move to an easier one.
On some of the more dead BG's, like Reckoning, the highest rated teams aren't even that high... meaning even to get 1850 you are going to be playing the best. I see much more disparity between new teams and pro teams on the big battlegroups, where they have teams up into the 2600s. Especially in 2v2.
I look at our record last week.. something like 45-75. Our losses are against the same handful of 1900-2200 cleave teams we play over and over and over. The occassional win, or the rare case we get something under 1700 (with which we mop the floor), got us up to 1500.
Here's the question: Now if you aren't going for titles and prestige, wouldn't a very active, "competitive" battlegroup, where 1850 is a garbage rating, be the better way to gear up? Or is everyone so good that you are playing hard teams even at that level?
On some of the more dead BG's, like Reckoning, the highest rated teams aren't even that high... meaning even to get 1850 you are going to be playing the best. I see much more disparity between new teams and pro teams on the big battlegroups, where they have teams up into the 2600s. Especially in 2v2.
I look at our record last week.. something like 45-75. Our losses are against the same handful of 1900-2200 cleave teams we play over and over and over. The occassional win, or the rare case we get something under 1700 (with which we mop the floor), got us up to 1500.
Here's the question: Now if you aren't going for titles and prestige, wouldn't a very active, "competitive" battlegroup, where 1850 is a garbage rating, be the better way to gear up? Or is everyone so good that you are playing hard teams even at that level?