Battlegrounds are (Mechanical) Ducks

Part of the reason is that Battlegrounds are like ducks. A duck looks like it effortlessly glides across the water, but their little feet are actually working madly beneath the surface to make it happen. Battlegrounds are the same way. They may look simple -- even static -- to a casual observer, but in reality there's an incredible number of very complicated processes going on behind the scenes. Part of the reason for this is due to a lot of technical hurdles that need to be jumped to make them perform as seamlessly as they do, battle after battle. As a result, it's actually extremely difficult to design Battlegrounds, partially due to the technical limitations that are currently in place. (source)

I loved this blue comment posted on the forums the other day. For one it gave me this wonderful image of a mechanical duck swimming around a lake. Looks like a duck, swims like a duck, but really it's a robotic duck patented back in 1738.

Second, it continues detailing the underlying complexity of designing a new BG. Mainly, if there is a technical exploit that can be had by either side (early start, tripping on floor transitions), someone is going to complain. "It's an advantage for the ___ because of this!!!"

I love a good battleground. The kind where the game is fair and both sides have an equal chance of winning. I don't want Blizzard to throw out a new battleground that has an exploit, especially when there is a high chance that it can fall into the random battleground cycle.

" the PvP community is ultimately more interested in having perfectly balanced and bug-free maps to play on"