Page 23 of 23 FirstFirst ...
13
21
22
23
  1. #441
    Seems about right to me. My stats after playing 2,367 games are:

    AV played: 277 win: 70.04%
    AB played: 550 win: 68.73%
    Gilneas played: 212 win: 65.09%
    EoS played: 377 win: 65.52%
    Strand played: 281 win: 60.14%
    Peaks played: 149 win: 75.17%
    WSG played: 404 win: 73.51%
    Isle played: 117 win: 64.96%

    Total win: 68.06%

    Check Chipbunk-Arthas for stats.

  2. #442
    Grunt kapowaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    London, United Kingdom
    Posts
    23
    People seem to be discussing the charts as much as the data they represent, which is a sure sign that the charts weren't up to the task. There are two popular views which seem to come up again and again here, which (assuming Boub reads here) I'd like to address to ensure that future charts don't fall into the same trap.

    1.) If you'd read the text about the values the axes represent, you'd not be confused.

    The fact is, when drawn correctly, any explanation of the axes shouldn't be necessary — everything about the data should be visible on the chart. Since the whole purpose of a chart is to visualise the data, drawing it in a way that doesn't adhere to the standard way of drawing a bar chart means that the visualisation is useless.

    2.) The data would be better drawn as a pie-chart.

    Also wrong. Pie charts are a very bad way of representing the distribution of data within a dataset. When we scan a pie chart we're looking to see which colour looks biggest so as to determine their relative size, but since they are by nature (unless divided equally) of completely different shapes, it's very difficult to accurately ascertain how much one slice is relative to another. This problem is compounded when pie charts are given a pseudo-3D projection (as some individuals have done in this very thread), since perspective will exaggerate the relative size of an angle towards the front, and understate the size of angles at the back.

    For example, take this chart that shows the win percentage for Eye of the Storm.



    The win percentages are 58% vs 42%, but as a result of the 3D perspective and extra depth added to the bottom, the approximate number of pixels representing each area are nowhere near these values — in fact, they're closer to 66% vs 34%; a significant difference.

    Hopefully in future when MMO-C attempts to convey statistics visually, they'll take these things into consideration. Remember: just because a chart has white space on it doesn't mean you need to crop it! That white space is significant too.
    Last edited by kapowaz; 2011-02-23 at 04:34 PM. Reason: typos!

  3. #443
    Horde have more hardcore pvpers? Sureeee, keep making up statistics out of pure nothing like you always do.

  4. #444
    @Kooshkrusher: How is he making up statistics? The Armory is made up?

  5. #445
    Quote Originally Posted by cretos View Post
    @Kooshkrusher: How is he making up statistics? The Armory is made up?
    It simply depends on how it was done ...

    Statistics means nothing if the sample was not taken properly.

    Btw, I am NOT saying it's the case here, just stating the fact that it's very very easy to ''make up'' stats, you just choose a sample that tells what you wanna prove.

    As we've no idea how he took his sample, we have absolutely no idea how reliable these stats are.

    I myself think they reflect what I've been experiencing closely enough. But then again, this does not prove anything either.

  6. #446
    just shows how grossly imbalanced AV is. this one BG is the only BG that horde don't dominate. either all those folks contributing to winning the other BGs never queue for AV or AV is just that lopsided.

  7. #447
    The Lightbringer Rukh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    3,524
    Well that's a huge congrats to the alliance people on whatever battlegroup makes up for my failtacular battlegroup.


    Played: 266
    Win: 86
    -------------
    32% win rate


    AV: 30/11 :36%
    AB: 52/14 :27%
    BfG: 19/9 :47%
    EotS: 39/21 :54%
    SotA: 37/18 :49%
    TP: 24/6 :25%
    WSG: 41/18 :44%
    IoC: 24/11 :46%

    Before Cata, my stats were quite a bit higher, I was winning just under half of the games. Since Cata though, alliance has managed to reach spectacular levels of fail never thought possible before.
    Last edited by Rukh; 2011-02-23 at 10:43 PM.

  8. #448
    Brewmaster MrKnubbles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    1,446
    It doesn't surprise me because Horde only care about PvP which is why I switched to Alliance.

  9. #449
    Quote Originally Posted by Foxx View Post
    Either way, the balance (despite not using the best way to show this) is quite even. When the largest difference is 58% to 42% that's quite nice balance wise.
    In general, I think it's statistically significant that there's an average of a roughly 6.4% advantage for the horde on non-AV BGs and about a 8% alliance advantage in AV. This tells us two things:

    1) The faction advantage that horde has is smaller than the map advantage that alliance have in AV by enough to swing -6.4 to +8, a rather large gulf, statistically.

    2) There is a clear, but relatively small faction advantage on the horde side (6.4% if you ignore AV, 4.8% if you don't). This isn't shocking. Horde symbolism is all about war, death, conquest and strength. Alliance symbolism is about nature, courage, leadership, craftsmanship and exploration. (keep in mind, I'm talking about the causal observer, here... the kind of symbolism that gets through to everyone playing the game, not the deep lore that a minority of us pay attention to) Given those two sets of symbolism, I would expect there to be a strong bias for players focused on PvP to play horde. The data seems to support the idea that it's actually not as strong as I'd think, but definitely there.

    ---------- Post added 2011-02-24 at 12:44 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by kapowaz View Post
    2.) The data would be better drawn as a pie-chart.

    Also wrong. Pie charts are a very bad way of representing the distribution of data within a dataset. When we scan a pie chart we're looking to see which colour looks biggest so as to determine their relative size, but since they are by nature (unless divided equally) of completely different shapes, it's very difficult to accurately ascertain how much one slice is relative to another. This problem is compounded when pie charts are given a pseudo-3D projection (as some individuals have done in this very thread), since perspective will exaggerate the relative size of an angle towards the front, and understate the size of angles at the back.

    For example, take this chart that shows the win percentage for Eye of the Storm.


    Bad pie chart is bad.



    WoW: Founder <Saturnalia>, Norgannon
    Rift: Mev <Ascended of Corthana>, Faeblight
    Gaming articles

  10. #450

  11. #451
    Quote Originally Posted by Simca View Post
    Racials don't change battlegrounds. That's like arguing gem choice changes DPS by thousands.
    Arguing that the better racials (IF that were true) could attract the better players is possible, I guess, but impossible to prove.
    Tell that to an Alliance Priest/Warlock, who gets usually ripped apart by an Undead Roque (Stunlock, Insignia, WotF, CoS, etc.)
    No chance to CC that Bastard. That's actually why Alliance players have given up on using CC altogether.

    WotF is a relic from the days when the Forsaken still counted as Undead and could be shackled or turned by Alliance Priests and Paladins.
    This racial should have been removed the day the Foraken'd been changed to humanoid.

  12. #452
    I just recently switched from Alliance to Horde and I couldn't be happier with the BG wins. I've managed to cycle through all of them in the past 2 days and i'm 12/12 all Horde wins. (btw i'm on Shadowburn battlegroup). I had been alliance for over 2 years and BGs were tolerable but never lopsided. We would win about 45% of the time. Since Cata hit, I found Alliance losing about 85% of the time (I did like roughly 20 random BGs a week and only won 3). Is it fair? probably not. But, since i have decided to lean more towards doing PvP than PvE lately, might as well reap the benefits while the getting is good.

  13. #453
    Bloodsail Admiral Alex86el's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    1,135
    those graphs fail. they are decieving.

    at first glance i thought it was a massacre,
    but it turns out its 42%/58%.

    16% huh? let me break it down for you...
    6% = RJ
    5% = AT
    4% = WS
    1% = WotF
    vs... EA.
    hang in there EA! we're counting on you little one.

  14. #454

    bye

    Quote Originally Posted by MrKnubbles View Post
    It doesn't surprise me because Horde only care about PvP which is why I switched to Alliance.
    Good riddance.

    ---------- Post added 2011-09-15 at 01:48 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Holyana View Post
    I agree, those graphs are very strange. And I also feel that Alliance loses a lot more than it says there. I have no idea why Alliance has such a hard time in most battlegroups. It used to be the other way around for the longest time.
    Alliance has never dominated bg's in 6 years with the exception of a short duration of i think like 6 months or so during wrath. Then it went back to horde dominating after patch. Alliance really isn't a pvp faction due to the fact the racials are good with the exception of only 2 races now human and worgen wich are now becoming more and more popular. I see a spike in alliance favor now since we are in the late part of Cata.

  15. #455
    Quote Originally Posted by Azure P View Post
    It's always been known that Horde beat Ally in most battlegrounds.

    A little surprised that they're winning more AV this year after last year.


    well that has certainly changed. My experience is around 5 loses for 1-2 wins. Regardless of toon, time, or level. Its almost crazy. I'll bring it up then someone always pops off with how they never lose but the majority of others agree with me. THeir racial attributes are just better and wow simply loves alliance more and i accept that. I'd just like to have some conquest points from time to time.

    ---------- Post added 2012-07-10 at 08:05 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Rukh View Post
    Well that's a huge congrats to the alliance people on whatever battlegroup makes up for my failtacular battlegroup.


    Played: 266
    Win: 86
    -------------
    32% win rate


    AV: 30/11 :36%
    AB: 52/14 :27%
    BfG: 19/9 :47%
    EotS: 39/21 :54%
    SotA: 37/18 :49%
    TP: 24/6 :25%
    WSG: 41/18 :44%
    IoC: 24/11 :46%

    Before Cata, my stats were quite a bit higher, I was winning just under half of the games. Since Cata though, alliance has managed to reach spectacular levels of fail never thought possible before.
    Obviously this is well over a year old and WoW, in it's usual even handed manner, has swung it's pendulum to the other extreme, extremely. I'd give horde smewher in the neighborhood of 20-30% win overall if my experiences prove right. I've played around 6-8 bgs nightly for the last three months. I average one win a night at best.

  16. #456

    Question

    Not sure which realms and battlegroups you scanned, but there is not a single one of my bgs that horde have won a greater percentage of :P same goes for most of my mates. On Barthilas-Us Ally. Data is wrong imo

Posting Permissions

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