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

[Deleted]

Some of these bot's are very sophisticated. Most of the time they going around together, some times's there is like 20ish in the big bg's perhaps more.

[Syh]

The main thing I'm disappointed about:



I really would love to know the reasoning behind that stance.

[Itisamuh]

Pretty obvious what these stats indicate. Horde has the better pool of players right now (whether that is because of botting or not is debatable) but those two big maps are imbalanced. I was pretty surprised to see how few players actually use blacklist though.

- - - Updated - - -

The main thing I'm disappointed about:



I really would love to know the reasoning behind that stance.

The reasoning is pretty simple, random battlegrounds are one of the few places left where the faction war is still actually relevant.

[Bawl]

One thing that definitely couldn't be quantified is how long queue times impact a player's desire to win. If you have to wait 8-15 mins as opposed to an instant queue, you might be apt to take it more seriously, or at least not AFK out at the first sign of falling behind (which I see quite a lot of).

That's actually a good point I hadn't thought of. The shorter the queues the more inclined players are to hop in, halfass their way through, get a few points, and get out. I recall seeing a lot more players like that on alliance side when I bothered with PVP- they're not technically bots but they're pretty close.

[Syh]

The reasoning is pretty simple, random battlegrounds are one of the few places left where the faction war is still actually relevant.

That's cool and all but when it affects a faction negatively that's honestly a pretty bad reason. Does only playing against the opposite faction benefit anybody?

I rather go against both Horde & Alliance groups than have to wait 10-15 minutes simply because they want me to only play against Alliance players.

[Thallidomaniac]

That's cool and all but when it affects a faction negatively that's honestly a pretty bad reason. Does only playing against the opposite faction benefit anybody?

I rather go against both Horde & Alliance groups than have to wait 10-15 minutes simply because they want me to only play against Alliance players.

It's apparently to hold the argument that keeping a faction war like this is just something that goes with the franchise, and if you take that away, then that's just a sign of pandering to other demands and not keeping the standard gameplay instead. There were some arguments about this back when they made Rated BGs cross-faction due to Horde players having ridiculously long queue times.

[glycerethe]

Haha 7% increase in Horde AV wins, I told you guys before this change is a joke.

- - - Updated - - -

That's actually a good point I hadn't thought of. The shorter the queues the more inclined players are to hop in, halfass their way through, get a few points, and get out. I recall seeing a lot more players like that on alliance side when I bothered with PVP- they're not technically bots but they're pretty close.

More excuses please, try swap the AV starting place and see if Alliance will have ANY desire to win at all, if Horde starts at Alliance cave, the winning percentage won't be 80%, it will probably be 95%.

[Rekra]

Long ago PvPers figured out the alliance had an advantage in AV and IoC. Not great, but enough to make the difference in some battles. Totally disagree with holinka, most of the serious horde pvpers are using blacklist and they are blacklisting AV and IoC. Small map imbalance + mostly noob horde players makes those 2 maps the only ones where alliance has advantage.

[Sky High]

lol dat IoC ratio, oh that's why my entire guild blocks that shit out. total waste of time unless you are the handful that can cap.

[longevity]

I wish Chaud would post data on premades vs solo q in WoW bg's

probably be extremely interesting how it factors into the win ratios

[Cosmic Janitor]

The main thing I'm disappointed about:



I really would love to know the reasoning behind that stance.

They want to keep the non-sensical pseudo (faboi) warfare, with totally war like scenarios like CTF or who can touch the orb in a naughty way the longest, faction specific to never have to change the static faction 'dynamic', which at this point is hardly even canon in itself. Considering how non-sensical faction PvP is in general. A way more elaborate way of doing it would have been to let people decide which surogate race they want to play in the epic retelling of a story, which just let's you chose a race and a faction and just assembles a loby, you know like any sensible PvP game ever. Not to mention this could also make asymetircal gameplay work alot better.

[ringpriest]

The main thing I'm disappointed about:



I really would love to know the reasoning behind that stance.

Don't worry. In Blizzard speak, "not on the table" translates to "wait an expansion or two, less if we figure out how to charge for it".

- - - Updated - - -

They want to keep the non-sensical pseudo (faboi) warfare, with totally war like scenarios like CTF or who can touch the orb in a naughty way the longest, faction specific to never have to change the static faction 'dynamic', which at this point is hardly even canon in itself. Considering how non-sensical faction PvP is in general. A way more elaborate way of doing it would have been to let people decide which surogate race they want to play in the epic retelling of a story, which just let's you chose a race and a faction and just assembles a loby, you know like any sensible PvP game ever. Not to mention this could also make asymetircal gameplay work alot better.

But then they'd have to abandon the pretense that WoW is an MMORPG, instead of a themeparked lobby game.

[Eldrad]

Someone explain Strand of Ancients data!!!! It's literally a perfectly balanced map.

[Zalraki]

So Horde dominates all but 2 BGs due to various things like map travel times, paths, objective locations, layout and gear (yes player skill is only a minor factor)... Yet the only thing Blizzard fixes is 1 of only 2 maps that Alliance has a good chance at.

I can't help but think biased.

Based on these stats what reason would any alliance have to do BGs, knowing you will always lose more than you will win, unless you do AV and IoC?

[subanark]

Someone explain Strand of Ancients data!!!! It's literally a perfectly balanced map.

It is one of the hardest maps to learn how to do correctly. All it takes is a few players who know how to slow down defenders once they get past the gate along with proper capping. The vet horde players know how to play this map and since they have avoided IoC and AV, they dominate on that map. Alliance doesn't want to queue that map since they will usually face more experienced horde than alliance they have on their team.

- - - Updated - - -

Those "map imbalances" aren't even remote factors in 99% of matches. They're not the reason why horde lose and ally win a majority of the time in said BGs; the horde have fundamentally flawed strategies in them.

If the horde have a more difficult stragety in a full on 40 v 40 match up, it matters. Yes, most of it is alliance knows what they are doing since they queue the BG more than horde, but this mostly started with a handful of around 5 per map knowing where to place the glaives such that any horde who sees what is happening has to go really out of their way to kill them. Yes, all it takes is a 5 rouges/feral druids to sneak up and stop them, but trying to convince them to gang up to do this is hard. When horde uses glaives, they are more accessible and less hidden.

[ringpriest]

Based on these stats what reason would any alliance have to do BGs, knowing you will always lose more than you will win, unless you do AV and IoC?

Blizzard is counting on most of their customers being ignorant, and that they'll continue to believe shit like, "it's not really in that bad a shape" and, "we're going to make it even better real soon".

[Thallidomaniac]

If the horde have a more difficult stragety in a full on 40 v 40 match up, it matters. Yes, most of it is alliance knows what they are doing since they queue the BG more than horde, but this mostly started with a handful of around 5 per map knowing where to place the glaives such that any horde who sees what is happening has to go really out of their way to kill them. Yes, all it takes is a 5 rouges/feral druids to sneak up and stop them, but trying to convince them to gang up to do this is hard. When horde uses glaives, they are more accessible and less hidden.

And yet, that may not even be enough for a Horde team to win. They tend forget about the second wave of Glaives and let them break into the Horde base. Or even worse, Horde manages to break into the Alliance base first, yet still lose because either they don't have a tank to tank the boss, Horde's DPS on the boss is abysmal (as in ToT LFR boosted toon DPS bad), Alliance have a defense squad inside the boss room, or somehow Horde manage to pull the boss out of his room making him enrage and one-shot everyone.

[ringpriest]

It is one of the hardest maps to learn how to do correctly. All it takes is a few players who know how to slow down defenders once they get past the gate along with proper capping. The vet horde players know how to play this map and since they have avoided IoC and AV, they dominate on that map. Alliance doesn't want to queue that map since they will usually face more experienced horde than alliance they have on their team.

Yep. And don't forget that just 1 or 2 players who know how to speed up the flag caps can make a huge difference in that BG. And with any of these: Strand, IoC, or AV, there are multiple positive feedback loops going on. (Negative reinforcement for the losers, positive reinforcement for the winners, accumulated experience with the BG, morale, experienced vs. inexperienced players queue, etc.) It's taken literally years to get to the huge imbalances that we see now. Unless Blizz manages to fix Silvershard soon, you're eventually going to see a similar effect there I suspect, and it will be equally hard to reverse. Full redesigns might get things back to an even keel, IF they were properly done. (But that would probably come at the cost of a raid tier or two. )

[MrExcelion]

Yeah, years in the making like you said, just how the current faction imbalances on servers didn't happen overnight when server transfers opened up

[subanark]

Even equal maps will eventually lead to this problem as long as you have two separate groups fighting each other (instead of allowing players to fight within factions). If they don't want to mixup with same faction fights, they will need to provide incentive for playing those maps even with a greater chance of losing:
1. Increase honor gain if your side is losing a lot, like they did in Wintergrasp (or possibly something more exciting).
2. Force players to rotate though the BGs. E.g. A reward bonus if you participate in (that is play until you win or lose) every BG once per week.
3. Provide some kind of BG buff to the side that isn't winning as often (probably not a good idea).