Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst ...
3
4
5
6
7
... LastLast
  1. #81
    Its really important to note the bias on both sides. To the people crying out about how AV and IoC favours alliance because of the map design, you have to realize that the problem is greatly noticeable because AV and IoC are blacklisted more than any other BG by the horde, to the point where queue times for AV and IoC are equal for horde and alliance, which cannot be said about any other BG. Also the size of AV and IoC are 4 times than others player-wise, which is statistically important because the way the data is gathered. For every bg win/loss, there are 80 entries statistically, and when combined with the fact that most other horde blacklist AV/IoC, you're looking at a bg where there are more horde queuing for it to AFK for the little honor gains. Faster queues for this bgs, more people fitting in them, more cycles, = more AFK honor and therefore more AFKers, which contributes more to the loss ratio for horde than any other bgs.

    Combine all these statistically relevant things, the win/loss ratio on IoC and AV is no where near as telling as the whole story.

  2. #82
    Actually it seems there is a larger gap in percentages now than the previous graphs you guys linked. It's just that the scale is shown differently.

  3. #83
    It's actually funny watching Hordies clamor desperately for "balance" in the two BGs they don't win. Of course, "balance" here means "Make me win, Blizz. plz."

    If you had your balance, your queues would explode within half a year. Alliance would stop queuing, because it'd just be one more in-game representation of Blizzard's admitted Horde bias. You've got the best racials, and have had them for ages now. In a game as homogenized as WoW, it's only natural that even advantage as small as racials are a pull towards playing Horde. Remove or balance racials much more closely, and then sure, we can look at actual balance in IoC/AV. Not your balance, of course. Actual balance.

    I don't get why it matters, though. You can blacklist the two battlegrounds that you aren't at an advantage in, so why does "balancing" them matter to you? I can't (And wouldn't, if I could. I'm not a child) blacklist the 9 BGs I'm at a disadvantage in.

  4. #84
    There's no imbalance in AV. I played Alliance for the first few years and they zerg. Period. Every single time. I switched to Horde a few years ago, and every match begins with 40 players arguing over what to do. There's always 20 clowns saying "zerg doesn't work", as the Alliance team zergs and wins. It's like half the Horde players are retarded or something.

  5. #85
    Old God Nerraw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    10,818
    I could have told you that. This is one of the reasons why I decided to quit until the expansion. It simply is impossible to get anywhere in casual PvP as Alliance.

  6. #86
    Stood in the Fire ApeDosMil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    359
    I went through some crazy number crunches to illustrate why the horde's average 59.13% win rate after blacklisting AV/IoC vs. the alliance's win rate of 51.52% win rate with AV/IoC not blacklisted and SotA and SSM blacklisted instead (seeing as they are our worst losses as alliance) and I'm sickened. IF (pay attention to that word) you just get conquest only from random bgs based off of those blacklists, it would take the average alliance player 94.5 more minutes a week to cap, not including queue times. Getting a full conquest set would take an alliance player 20.58 more hours (or 1234.94 minutes) a season. If you really believe that gap is acceptable, you are delusional.

  7. #87
    SotA and IoC need to be entirely redesigned or removed, i have them blacklisted since blacklisting was introduced... Wotlk had terrible bgs

  8. #88
    High Overlord Sillicis's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    173
    Quote Originally Posted by Miuku View Post
    And why is that exactly?

    I can't expect to clear normal raids with PVP gear, why should we let PVE'ers do "normal" BGs with their gear?
    Ban PvP'ers from LFD, LFR, worldbosses and everything then. Why should we let pvp'ers do Pve content with pvp gear.
    random bg's are the Looking for Group of PvP. If you care that much about some people not being at their skillcap, or people being at the top of their game in pve gear. Go do rated bg's. Compare those to 'normal raids' as you put it

  9. #89
    To all the Alliance players who complain about Horde players who complain about imbalance in AV and IoC: Do you really think it's fair that you have two dead sure wins and therefore get loads of honor basically for free every time you enter them? Sure, Horde may slightly dominate other bgs, but results fall within error margin in almost all of them and the chance of winning is more or less 50-50, not 90-10.

  10. #90
    Horde PVPers... Cry more... Want bottle of milk with pacifier, too?

  11. #91
    Quote Originally Posted by Couac View Post
    To all the Alliance players who complain about Horde players who complain about imbalance in AV and IoC: Do you really think it's fair that you have two dead sure wins and therefore get loads of honor basically for free every time you enter them? Sure, Horde may slightly dominate other bgs, but results fall within error margin in almost all of them and the chance of winning is more or less 50-50, not 90-10.
    take in the result of all bgs the result is very slightly in hordes favour, but its practiaclly 50/50 (~52/48 horde advantage)
    with out those 2, its ~ 60/40 horde advantage

    so it takes the high amount of wins from those 2 bgs alone to make it even for the other 9

    i would gladly take the longer rand q times for a greater chance of winning the other 9 and im sure many alliance would too instead of relying on 2 bgs

  12. #92
    This is my personal experience from the Vanilla days.

    On Arthas-US, Horde won probably 90% of bgs. When AV changed to become closer to what it is now, we lost it 90% of the time.

    I really despise blizz allowing faction change because the day that happened all Alliance wanna-bes changed to horde to 'win more' and be more 'badass', all they did was pollute the pvp player base and make queues longer.

  13. #93
    Av is imbalanced it has always been so.
    If both teams rush flawlessly; alliance team will always win.
    With towers you get knockoffs, for bunkers that can be prevented.
    Tower/bunker placement is also more benefical for the alliance side, the first bunker is placed off to the side.
    While all towers are placed directly on the fastest route up.
    Towers are also "easier" to cap, theres only one mob that has to die and it is easier losed.
    With the bunkers, theres 2 mobs that has to go down and these are harder to los (far from impossible, there is a sweet spot but your average player will not use this).

    The bridge is also a way better choke point than what the horde have. Ranged can really dominate that bridge, on the horde side it is simple to rush that narrow corridor when you have walls to los behind.
    Still a fun bg, if anything should be done; make it slower / impossiburu to rush.

  14. #94
    I can't help but laugh at every person who was "surprised" by this "news".

  15. #95
    Legendary! Ryme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    In a field, somewhere
    Posts
    6,307
    Quote Originally Posted by Nillah View Post
    Wonder why alliance only wins the two 40 mans. We knew AV was biased, but why IoC now?
    Faster access to glaives, which are superior base busters for casual groups/pugs.
    I am the lucid dream
    Uulwi ifis halahs gag erh'ongg w'ssh


  16. #96
    that moment when you have IoC and AV blacklisted as alliance, and lose almost every bg

  17. #97
    Legendary! Ryme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    In a field, somewhere
    Posts
    6,307
    Quote Originally Posted by Khwaj View Post
    lol, giving reason why IoC/AV should change/remove with your left hand while trying to deny the underlying reason is you want the advantage in ALL bgs with your right hand
    its not like alliance can black list the other 9 bgs

    alliance - 2 bgs
    horde - 9 bgs
    The other bgs are mirrors of each other and temple is just a brawl fight - it may just be that Horde are, in general, better pvpers than Alliance. The statistics clearly show this.
    I am the lucid dream
    Uulwi ifis halahs gag erh'ongg w'ssh


  18. #98
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryme View Post
    The other bgs are mirrors of each other and temple is just a brawl fight - it may just be that Horde are, in general, better pvpers than Alliance. The statistics clearly show this.
    i agree, so let us have those 2 while u have the rest

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryme View Post
    Faster access to glaives, which are superior base busters for casual groups/pugs.
    for crying out loud plzzzzz stop using this as an excuse
    all it takes is 2 ppl out of 40 to kill both glaives, 1 if ur exceptionally skilled, they only have 1.2mill hp, thats pretty weak as it is

    same can be said abt av, i havnt been to drek in ages as i always go with 3-4 ppl including myself to back cap towers
    80% of the time there is only 1-2, 3 tops defending the towers
    the times i lost av is when horde have like 5-7 players back capping and wipe us out and our tower defenders

  19. #99
    If those statistics are even remotely indicative of what's actually happening, then Blizzard REALLY needs to get on that. No faction should be dipping below a 45% win rate in any BG, and those AV/IoC stats are beyond ridiculous. The only one there that's in an acceptable range is Warsong Gulch, and one out of eleven is NOT good.

  20. #100
    Sum all horde wins from the 11 bgs - 569,1
    Ally - 530,9

    1100 is for 100
    569,1 is for x

    x= 51,7363
    Overall horde wins on 51,73% of all BGs that's not a big w/l ratio
    Though i'm assuming all BGs are played the same amount, which we know is not true
    Last edited by Freegels; 2014-01-20 at 10:06 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •