Armory Stats - Battleground Win Ratios, Battleground Queue Times, Blue Tweets, DLC

[bobert13]

The guys with the better racials attracting better pvpers thus winning more matches overall? Color me shocked.

And then WOD came along and no one played Horde ever again. The End.

[Farabee]

Thanks for telling us what we already know about BG win ratios. Even better is Blizzard forcing us all to play Temple/SSM to get cloaks, which for Horde is a single queue while Alliance it's an all-day event. SSM is so ridiculously imbalanced with the mine cart starting right outside Horde spawn, I'm surprised anyone still plays it on Alliance that doesn't need a cloak.

[ringpriest]

Incoming more nerfs for Alliance for AV and IoC.

Maybe they should make Glaives auto-destruct after 20 seconds. It's SO unfair to expect 1 or 2 horde to go and destroy them to win the battleground for the team.

It's not "unfair"; it's bad design that has been uncorrected for years. Having a 'massive' BG where one side needs members of one specific class (2 if you count feral druids) to successfully complete a particular action in order to avoid a guaranteed loss is bad. Letting that design continue for years is just awful. Even something as simple as moving the flags for hangar and docks to be equidistant from both factions would help, but it's not been done.

[Lothaeryn]

The game does need BGs that Alliance can win. Otherwise, you'll get even less Alliance in BGs than there already is and even longer queue's for the Horde side. What really needs to happen is there to be more incentive for the losing faction to queue up for BGs. I know I know. Bots, AFKs etc but really I'm not seeing the alternative. The losing side honor is too low at the moment. They jacked it up for awhile and then reversed themselves again. This is a loot based game. You can't make getting loot too steep of a climb.

I wholheartedly agree on this point and this issue was one of the reasons i quit in cataclysm. Alliance loss ratios were so rampant i was literally sitting in qeues just to lose and earn a measly 145 honor points, bots were becoming a menace in pvp and i never seemed to find a bg that didnt have 5 of them. At that point in time it was literally more cost effective to run a 2's team and get conquest points at a faster rate than it would have taken to wait in qeue for 10 minutes and waste another 15-30 minutes losing a match to earn little to no honor that would be needed to get ONE piece of gear. The earn rates were attrocious and it didnt help that wins were very far few and in between.

Think about it, it was easier to get conquest points than it was to get honor, you could grind bgs nonstop in losses for one week and get one piece of honor gear, or win ten arena matches and get one piece and have some.left over for next week. Its a serious problem that might also be a factor in why there is such a discrepancy in bg's.

[rogueMatthias]

It's not "unfair"; it's bad design that has been uncorrected for years. Having a 'massive' BG where one side needs members of one specific class (2 if you count feral druids) to successfully complete a particular action in order to avoid a guaranteed loss is bad.

No, Rogues can make is easier but Glaives have So little hp, 2-3 of practically any class can destroy them long before the gates down. You're assuming Alliance are bright enough to actually defend the Glaives in 90% of battles.

[subanark]

I don't think it was ever intended that the glaives can out range the towers. Increase their range and I think you will find the BG a bit more fair.

Well, except that most of the time it ends up just being a rush to see who can smash down the gate faster. What needs to happen is a BG like Strand that doesn't allow runaway victories by getting demos to later gates with no one defending them.

[Bootyraider]

So what you're saying is Alliance "still" only wins 2 out of 11 BG's...

[Pacster]

50/50 chance? You do realise the glaives is Alliance's ONLY plan? EVERY TIME? If you destroy the glaives we just run around confused until we loose. Horde already has demos by then, if they fuck up at that point its their own fault.

Glaives is a STUPID plan because the entire win or loose is based on just a couple of Horde actually using common sense. The fact Alliance wins so much at it doesn't prove Ali are better at that BG or that it's unfair, it just proves how bad/self-serving the majority of Horde are playing in the battleground. I'm genuinely dumbfounded every time they glaives plan actually works.

No. I lost almost all IoC lately although the glaives have been killed...simply cause you still have the catapults and often enough you get access to hangar while the stupid horde is standing either in the middle or in front of your walls idling. Killing the demolishers is easy...and after that the horde is the one without any plan left...cause we don't have catapults.

[ringpriest]

No, Rogues can make is easier but Glaives have So little hp, 2-3 of practically any class can destroy them long before the gates down. You're assuming Alliance are bright enough to actually defend the Glaives in 90% of battles.

Perhaps it's changed since I finished Battlemaster on my rogue back in Cata, but back then Alliance went docks more often than they zerged in AV, and the glaives were typically accompanied by a goodly number of twitchy allies - you needed stealth to get the glaives down, unless you could bring a lot more than 2-3 Horde. (On reflection, I'm sure it has changed some - more bots if nothing else.)

[Siddown]

[/B]
I wholheartedly agree on this point and this issue was one of the reasons i quit in cataclysm. Alliance loss ratios were so rampant i was literally sitting in qeues just to lose and earn a measly 145 honor points, bots were becoming a menace in pvp and i never seemed to find a bg that didnt have 5 of them. At that point in time it was literally more cost effective to run a 2's team and get conquest points at a faster rate than it would have taken to wait in qeue for 10 minutes and waste another 15-30 minutes losing a match to earn little to no honor that would be needed to get ONE piece of gear. The earn rates were attrocious and it didnt help that wins were very far few and in between.

Think about it, it was easier to get conquest points than it was to get honor, you could grind bgs nonstop in losses for one week and get one piece of honor gear, or win ten arena matches and get one piece and have some.left over for next week. Its a serious problem that might also be a factor in why there is such a discrepancy in bg's.

The problem with what you wrote is it's entirely out of date, and seeing as you haven't played in years, that makes sense. Getting honor now on either side is incredibly easy. If you drop your Guild Banner you get 700 honor in 10 minutes on IoT, they also upped the honor rate in BGs, so even if you lose 70% of your games, with instant queues, Alliance still get plenty of honor (and don't forget to drop that banner at the end again). Gearing up in MoP on either Alliance or Horde is trivial at this point.

There are huge problems with the queuing system and BGs at the moment, but not getting enough honor isn't one of them.

[Thallidomaniac]

50/50 chance? You do realise the glaives is Alliance's ONLY plan? EVERY TIME? If you destroy the glaives we just run around confused until we loose. Horde already has demos by then, if they fuck up at that point its their own fault.

Glaives is a STUPID plan because the entire win or loose is based on just a couple of Horde actually using common sense. The fact Alliance wins so much at it doesn't prove Ali are better at that BG or that it's unfair, it just proves how bad/self-serving the majority of Horde are playing in the battleground. I'm genuinely dumbfounded every time they glaives plan actually works.

And even if you do manage to kill off the first wave of Glaives, (I sometimes have to do that as an Enhance Shaman out of all things) Horde take so long to get the wall down that the Glaives respawn, and they forget to kill those as well, and proceed to lose.

[tinystomper]

oQueue users have this data in-game as part of the weekly score.
it reports the ratios for oQueue led groups... but it is a sampling of regular bg results.

[frymastermeat]

Rejoice - it actually is being removed in the gearing process for raiders. Heroic Dungeons will drop equivilent gear to LFR, meaning you can skip it and go straight to 'Normal' (current Flex) to gear up.

Until 6.2 and LFR gear is better again, or there is a "Legendary" quest item in a raid that no one will bother doing in normal anymore so you have to do it in LFR. Same as it is now.

[Deleted]

Interesting. So horde has a lot more skilled players and alliance dominates only bgs with terrain imbalances that favor alliace. Maybe Blizzard knows mostly kids play alliance, so they have to give them some advantages.

Please, watch the PvP ranking in europe: eu.battle.net/wow/es/pvp/leaderboards/rbg
750/1000 first players, are alliance, in RATED BG, arenas 2vs2, 3vs3 and 5vs5.
The stats of this graphic are negative for alliance for US realm, but in Europe alliance rules.
And IOC is a mirror map.

I want to see regional stats from europe.

P.d: In Random bgs win who have less bots.
And wait to the WOD, when all bg's have item lvl balance (and i hope a solution to the bots)

[frymastermeat]

50/50 chance? You do realise the glaives is Alliance's ONLY plan? EVERY TIME? If you destroy the glaives we just run around confused until we loose. Horde already has demos by then, if they fuck up at that point its their own fault.

Glaives is a STUPID plan because the entire win or loose is based on just a couple of Horde actually using common sense. The fact Alliance wins so much at it doesn't prove Ali are better at that BG or that it's unfair, it just proves how bad/self-serving the majority of Horde are playing in the battleground. I'm genuinely dumbfounded every time they glaives plan actually works.

This was in Cataclysm, pre-Blacklist. In my last 10 or so IoCs as Alliance we've taken both the demolishers and glaives from the start with very little resistance. That precludes all nonsense about balance since it's clearly a player problem. Horde players just aren't queuing for IoC or AV and it's turned into Alliance vs Bots/newbs. As long as this is the case, any discussion of map imbalances is moot.

[Barnabas]

Not necessarily. Note, from a PvE persective, how guilds have swapped factions to get better racials to turn sub 1-health wipes into boss kills. And your faction being World First means that players will most likely flock to it, both PvE and PvP enthusiasts alike.

On NA servers this mentality plays out but on EU I see a lot of alliance for pvp.

[Darmalus]

So what you're saying is Alliance "still" only wins 2 out of 11 BG's...

0.73+0.415+0.487+0.434+0.307+0.821+0.451+0.425+0.438+0.364+0.414 = 5.286 out of 11 games, or about 48%

[frymastermeat]

0.73+0.415+0.487+0.434+0.307+0.821+0.451+0.425+0.438+0.364+0.414 = 5.286 out of 11 games, or about 48%

That would only be true if every map were played at a 1 to 1 ratio, which they aren't.

[ZeroWashu]

Reduce the length that the BG is active, you win in X amount of time or it ends.

Both sides get X amount for merely joining.
+Y for each objective
+Z for each kill, capped. You can only get X number of points from kills.
Winning side gets a small percentage bump.

Just make them play out like scenarios, even 15 minutes is too long for some.

[Siddown]

oQueue users have this data in-game as part of the weekly score.
it reports the ratios for oQueue led groups... but it is a sampling of regular bg results.

I think this just shows that premade > any other factor for winning.

When I was alliance all last summer, if we got 4+ people on TS/Vent together in an BG, we'd win at a ridiculous rate. If we had more than 5, with Alliance instapop, we'd even do the "poor man's" oQueue move which is someone with the least lag saying "3 - 2 - 1 Queue" and group queuing more often than not get in the same group. In those cases we'd win 90%+ easy.

I have no doubt that the average, random Horde PvPer is more skilled (in North America anyway, might be the exact opposite in Europe), but that is quickly overcome by even adequate group play.

EDIT: Hmm, that or I completely read those stats wrong.

EDIT2: So in those numbers, Horde played 30% more games, yet WSG, EoTS, Battle of Gilneas and ToK are all pretty close to 50/50. I'm not sure what that means, but I find it interesting.

- - - Updated - - -

So back to the issue with queue times. If they "are working on something" yet same faction v. same faction is "off the table", beyond free transfers, what kind of solution is there?

Buffing racials doesn't help (as much as people like to think), since the EU has clearly gone the other direction and are all Alliance. Maybe i'm being short sighted, but other than Horde v. Horde (or Alliance v. Alliance in the EU), I can't think of a way to fix this issue.