I play on Azuremyst. A PvE server. Every Tuesday, all shards are swarming with horde. Every Tuesday. I don't know who your "buddies" are but I have finished all world PVP achievements in this expansion. Thanks to WM system, I am always flagged. I never turn it off.
None of that changes the fact that fewer alliance players PVP and shards are often all horde. Only through grp finder you get to even the odds.
But thanks for your dumb rant.
- - - Updated - - -
That's due to grp finder. Alliance players look for alliance grps since in their own shards, they are usually outnumbered. Mostly. Its not the same for Australia I hear. But in US...
1. Alliance wouldn't turn WM on when the reward was balanced. They had to be bribed with 15-30% bonus and a raid piece. Of course if any Horde bring that they respond with "Well, you had months of free 10%" as if we were responsible for them not turning it on.
2. Totally agree you shouldn't be able to do AAO in a raid group.
3/4. Much more difficult. Agree with you on the skirmish thing. You shouldn't be able to teleport anyone with a queue when you're in combat, just like when you're on a vehicle. As for the phasing/balance it's pretty much impossible. Either you get sent to the phase of your leader as the system intends or the very purpose of shards/phases/CRZ may as well not even exist. 1,000 Horde all off doing their own thing versus 100 Alliance stomping Newhome in a mudhole means they get 30% against next week. =(
The most difficult thing to do is accept that there is nothing wrong with things you don't like and accept that people can like things you don't.
This game is 15+ years old. Many people these days aren't playing "for fun". They are playing for rewards. The times of just joining a battleground because you feel like playing a battleground is long over for a lot of players. The times of just doing world pvp because you enjoy world pvp is long over for many players.
Right now the big difference between world pvp and instanced pvp is that in world pvp not everyone who participates WANTS to participate. That's how it always has been. A lot of people on pvp server didn't want world pvp in that moment. Maybe they were on their way to a raid or dungeon. Maybe they were farming mats/gold. Maybe they were just doing quests. And then some other player came in and forced them to fight. That's what world pvp has always been about. Big epic battles were a tiny minority of world pvp battles. The vast majority of pvp action were ganks. That's world pvp.
If warmode gave no PvE rewards then EVERYONE who would activate warmode would be someone who wants to participate in PvP combat and ONLY PvP combat. It wouldn't be world pvp anymore as it has been back in the days. It would simply just be a battleground. It's the same principle. You press a button and you go into pvp. The only reason to activate warmode is to go into pvp with your system. Warmode would be a battleground, just an unfair and unbalanced one because it's an uneven amount of players fighting each other.
Most people these days want efficiency. The game already throws so many chores at you that you can barely keep up with one char unless you are playing a lot. People would simply DEACTIVATE warmode and do their pve stuff and ACTIVATE warmode to do their pvp weekly quests
edit: This is literally how many people on alliance already play BfA even with a 30% bonus because they don't want to waste an hour for some daily quests. Warmode without reward incentives would never work. When BfA released with only 10% for both sides, it quickly turned into hordemode. Because it just gets worse and worse over time. A 40:60 ratio will demotivate alliance players, who then turn off warmode, which makes it a 35:65 ratio, which demotivates players, which makes it a 30:70 ratio, etc. World PvP was pretty much DEAD before Blizzard gave alliance extra incentives. And you come to this thread and say "there should be no rewards". How can you be so freaking blind?
This is such a naive way of thinking...
Last edited by Wuusah; 2020-08-31 at 08:30 AM.
And you think that this means that they should be entitled to a 10% bonus for doing content in WM in which they basically play as if there is no WM? That makes zero sense.
It's really simple. If you don't want to participate in WPvP, then switch it off. I really can't understand why you are having such difficulty with such a simple concept.
And? If you don't like, don't switch it on. You're not making a case for why it is important to motivate people who don't care for WPvP to switch on WM.
Aside from the fact that this is utter nonsense why would it even be a problem? If everyone in WM is there for the same thing, then surely that would be a good thing?
But as I say, your assertion is baseless. I know for a fact that there are many different reasons why people prefer a WPvP environment.
- Some players like the heightened sense of danger. The PvE environment is generally pretty unthreatening, but the possibility of hostile players poses a real threat
- Some players enjoy the competition for resources and mobs and most importantly
- Some players like the opportunity to put the other faction in their place given the opportunity
The WPvP experience is about a lot more than just going out and hunting enemy players 100% of the time. It's about playing the PvE game in an environment in which you're teamed up with your own faction and competing with players of the opposite faction with the opportunity to engage in combat with them.
Times change, players change. So the expectation of things being like "as it has been back in the days" is wishful thinking. Even Classic is a very different experience today compared to what it was back then.
That being said, as I showed above, your notion that everyone in WM would be there to PvP and ONLY PvP is false. Therefore your contention that WM would be a battleground is baseless.
Stop generalising people. You're describing a small subset of players. And honestly, if that's how this subset chooses to play, I don't see what you think is being lost.
And it doesn't occur to you that maybe the 10% bonus is driving this phenomenon? Think about it please. Take away that 10% and a lot of the horde players just won't bother to switch it on.
Also, given that it is better to be horde with WM on is the most rewarding mode of play, isn't that an incentive that drives more faction imbalance?
No, I said there should be no Extra PvE Rewards. Massive difference. And as I pointed out above, it is those silly rewards which are currently driving the extreme imbalance in the player ratio inside WM.
A far better reward structure for WM should:
- Be based on actual participation in PvP (not just playing in WM)
- encourage playing for the weaker faction
The quality of your argument thus far is woefully inadequate for you to try and be condescending mate.
I would say he does make a case for why.
He wants scrubs to turn on WM so he can gank them and feel good about himself. Not to have interesting fights with other people also looking for PvP.Maybe they were just doing quests. And then some other player came in and forced them to fight. That's what world pvp has always been about. Big epic battles were a tiny minority of world pvp battles. The vast majority of pvp action were ganks. That's world pvp.
It ignores such insignificant forces as time, entropy, and death
you never have interesting fights in world PvP. What is this foolishness here? If you want interesting fights, then go into BGs or even better, Arenas. World PvP is unfair by design. It's not that I WANT THAT. It's how world pvp is designed in its core. I barely do world pvp anyway in WoW, because it's either a premade horde group killing single alliance players or a premade alliance group killing off single horde players. 90% of world pvp is players starting fights that they think they will win and dodging fights that they think they will lose.
World pvp is unbalanced because factions are unbalanced. There will always be more horde doing world pvp than alliance. It doesn't matter if you give no rewards or if you give pvp rewards. Horde dominates the world of warcraft. That wouldn't change if they made racials more balanced. The pvp community is on Horde. They settled there. All the connections are there. World PvP balancing is irredeemable unless Blizzard makes Alliance ridiculously overpowered.
And how are you going to reward pvp participation in the first place? Conquest points? Great, get your low ilvl reward because you have no rating!
I agree. Which is not a great experience. Which is why Blizzard have to bribe players to switch it on. Which qualifies WM as a failure and why I think it's better to let WM succeed or fail on the basis of being a more enjoyable experience, than trying to artificially boost the player participation in order to try and pretend that it's a success.
I would argue though that Blizzard are invested in the idea of WM succeeding because they have this romanticised notion about the importance of WPvP in the game.
Faction imbalance happened because the game rewards being on the stronger faction. It is an unstable system that feeds itself. In order to address the problem they need to change the game such that the game rewards being on the weaker faction.
And in the context of a feature like WM, you don't even need overall faction balance. Just a balance between who is choosing to switch on WM. Right now, for horde, the most expedient way to play is to switch on WM. Nothing changes for you but you get a +10% bonus to all your PvE rewards. This encourages more horde players to do the same and makes the system even more imbalanced. Take away the +10% and a lot of them won't bother. Then it's just a question of giving Alliance a motive to participate.
I am sure that a team like the WoW dev team can think up a far better mechanism for rewarding pvp participation than you or I could. The problem is that they aren't trying to because they don't properly understand what it is that they're trying to achieve. They seem to be so focussed on trying to get more people to switch on WM that they've lost sight of trying to get the right people to switch it on.
And warmode is succeeding. The issue here is simply that you want warmode/world pvp to be something that it never was designed to be.
Which warmode does.
It doesn't change the fact that Horde has always been more active in PvP. Even without PvE rewards, there would be faction imbalance which will result in frustrated alliance players who never activate warmode which results in even stronger faction imbalance. You will NEVER get balanced world pvp.
They are trying to keep the world pvp aspect that has always been in the game, the "you are out in the world to do your PvE stuff and the other faction could attack you any moment" feeling of danger. You won't ever get that feeling with no PvE rewards because people would just deactivate warmode to not waste their time. Players will always choose to eliminate friction if you give them the tool to do it. Old world pvp worked because players didn't have the tool. New warmode works because players get extra incentives to keep that friction.
If warmode gives only pvp rewards, then the only reason to activate warmode is to go and hunt the other faction. And if that's the case, then you might as well remove warmode and make it all about BGs and Arena. Because then you get exactly the same experience without the faction imbalance bullshit. The point of world pvp has never been to get people together who want to fight. That has always been the point of BGs and Arena. The point of world pvp has always been to make the world more dangerous but people will not choose to make the world more dangerous without an incentive to do so. And if the incentive is to fight the other faction, then people will not activate it during PvE activity. It's really simple logic and it blows my mind that you argue against it.
Thats not how the game works. Every feature has a reward tied to it. As I said, back before WM there was no wpvp. It was only ganking and killing of lower lvls with hugely imbalanced servers. the wpvp that was happening was a result of horrid systems controlled by Blizzard. They had to change it one way or another, especially for those on inbalanced servers.
As with any activity in wow, Blizzard slaps on rewards for taking part in it. WM is no exception. If you want to take the chance & risk of having WM on, you might have a great time, you might have a horrible time.
Now - Should they adjust the rewards? Probably. Should they make the rewards more pvp oriented? Probably. Should they remove any reward from WM alltogheter? No.
It's not about what I want it to be. It's what I think it should be.
I mean, if your qualifiers for success are simply that it gets people to switch the feature on, then it's a resounding success. But if your qualifiers for success have any basis in whether it has made the game better, then I have argued that it is a dismal failure.
Look at Island Expeditions as a similar example. A LOT of players used the feature over the expansion, with likely billions of expeditions having been successfully completed by players. But I think you'll struggle to find any players who would call the feature a massive success.
When most people only switch on WM for bonus rewards in spite of the WPvP, there is a serious problem. And this is definitely the case.
Actually it doesn't. It's still more rewarding to play horde. You argued that yourself. What I am talking about is a system that would make any min-maxer look at the situation and go "I would rather play for the current underdog" instead of a lazy 30% buff to rewards while the experience is getting those rewards is still shitty.
What Alliance need in WM is an effective PvP countermeasure against horde dominance. What they get instead is more tourists trying to capitalise on the 30% PvE bonus while avoiding contributing to helping with the PvP problem.
Sorry, but as a Horde player, every time I land up on a shard which is Alliance dominated, I just end up thinking WTF? Because what that tells me is that they're getting +30% bonus for playing a PvE game in which the PvP element is a non-threat, while on every other shard, as Horde, it take two hours to find 10 alliance for the weekly CTA quest.
I am not arguing that it has to be balanced. What I am saying is the numbers should be relatively similar. And achieving similar numbers for WM participation does not require that you get people to change faction, because you only need a subset of the total population.
I never advocated for "no PvE rewards". I am advocating for the removal of bonus PvE rewards. And I am saying that if people regarding getting involved in WPvP as a waste of their time, then they honestly have no business switching on WM in the first place.
I completely disagree. Sure, this is true of some players, but not all. That was the whole point of giving us PvP and PvE servers - to choose the experience you would prefer.
Which is why it is a failure. I mean, honestly, wtf is even the point in bothering making WM if the players don't even want to use it?
Again, you seem to have completely misconstrued what I have said. I said that the bonus rewards (ie above what non-WM gives) should be based on PvP participation while in WM. I am not opposed to being able to do WQs etc with WM on, I am opposed to the 10% bonus which you get even if you never see another player of the other faction (let alone "waste time" fighting them).
And while some players might devote a lot of their efforts towards hunting down the other faction, for many more, it will be about what opportunities present themselves. But by removing the 10% bonus for completing the WQ's and tying the bonus instead to PvP participation, I believe that WM players will be a lot more likely to take advantage of those opportunities instead of doing everything they can to avoid them.
But you've lost sight of why you're trying to make the world more dangerous in the first place. Which is because it makes for a more enjoyable game experience for some players. So once again, if a player requires an additional PvE incentive to activate WM, then they shouldn't be activating WM. Period.
What blows my mind is that you seem to so fixated on your "simple logic" that you refuse to see the bigger picture even though I've laid it out in a way that anyone should be able to understand.
I see zero value in pushing people into using WM unless they want to have a world PvP experience. Furthermore, I see it as detrimental to push players into the mode they don't prefer for the sake of expedience. Warmode is a failure because instead of encouraging players to opt for the game experience we prefer, it is actively encouraging them to do the opposite so that the game devs can pretend that their feature is a success.
- - - Updated - - -
WM is not an activity though. It's a mode of play. The activity associated with WM on is WPvP. The problem is that the reward which Blizzard slapped on is tied to the mode, and not to the activity.
Yeah, this is what I have been saying.
I have chosen server over friends in the past and I always will, because I know what it means to be on a dead server just because a couple of pals raved about the game for two months.
TO echo what @jellmoo said, it is absolutely a free choice. There are pros and cons for both options. You choose to go with friends because you are worried you won't find new ones on whatever server you will pick, not because you are forced by the elements to do so.
And how do you do this? Don't come with "that's Blizzard's job, not mine". You tell me, how are they supposed to get more alliance players to activate warmode so that it evens out?
Sharding is definitely a problem with world pvp. It has nothing to do with PvE rewards, though. Even without PvE rewards people would abuse shards to get those PvP rewards. If warmode rewarded pvp participation only, then people would abuse shards where their faction dominates and get those rewards.Sorry, but as a Horde player, every time I land up on a shard which is Alliance dominated, I just end up thinking WTF? Because what that tells me is that they're getting +30% bonus for playing a PvE game in which the PvP element is a non-threat, while on every other shard, as Horde, it take two hours to find 10 alliance for the weekly CTA quest.
And how do you do that? Horde has the numbers advantage. Remove all PvE incentives to activate warmode and Horde will still have a numbers advantage because the PvP community is on Horde side. So now you need to give Alliance extra incentives to activate warmode. What do you give them?I am not arguing that it has to be balanced. What I am saying is the numbers should be relatively similar. And achieving similar numbers for WM participation does not require that you get people to change faction, because you only need a subset of the total population.
...seriously? When I say "PvE rewards" I'm obviously talking about the 10-30% bonus you get from warmode, not worldquest rewards. How do you even come to the conclusion I would think no PvE rewards from warmode means PvE is deactivated? Seriously man...I never advocated for "no PvE rewards". I am advocating for the removal of bonus PvE rewards. And I am saying that if people regarding getting involved in WPvP as a waste of their time, then they honestly have no business switching on WM in the first place.
Again, you seem to have completely misconstrued what I have said. I said that the bonus rewards (ie above what non-WM gives) should be based on PvP participation while in WM. I am not opposed to being able to do WQs etc with WM on, I am opposed to the 10% bonus which you get even if you never see another player of the other faction (let alone "waste time" fighting them).
To give the sense of danger back to the world. How often do I have to repeat myself? Back in the days of PvP servers, people didn't want to do world pvp 100% of the time all the time. But it could be forced upon you. With warmode, you can opt out of world pvp if you don't feel like doing world pvp and that would remove the experience of having this dangerous world where you might get attacked anytime.Which is why it is a failure. I mean, honestly, wtf is even the point in bothering making WM if the players don't even want to use it?
What opportunities could present themselves to you if you want to do your handful of worldquests without a group and have warmode active? Come on, man. Give examples. All you're talking about in this thread is some vague stuff.And while some players might devote a lot of their efforts towards hunting down the other faction, for many more, it will be about what opportunities present themselves. But by removing the 10% bonus for completing the WQ's and tying the bonus instead to PvP participation, I believe that WM players will be a lot more likely to take advantage of those opportunities instead of doing everything they can to avoid them.
I don't understand why "get more rewards, but you might be killed by other players" is such a bad idea in your opinion. Having players who don't want to participate in pvp but get dragged into it is a big part of world pvp. It has always been a big part of world pvp. Many battles I encountered started just in this way. You're minding your own business and then someone comes along and kills you, so you come back and kill him, then they come along with a buddy and camp your corpse. So you get a few buddies to help you out and suddenly it's 3v4, etc. That's the cool part about world pvp. The part where it escalates.But you've lost sight of why you're trying to make the world more dangerous in the first place. Which is because it makes for a more enjoyable game experience for some players. So once again, if a player requires an additional PvE incentive to activate WM, then they shouldn't be activating WM. Period.
This mentality of "if you don't like it then don't use it" would rob a lot of players of cool experiences. I think you are looking at it in a very shallow way.
Why is there zero value to be forced into world pvp even if you don't want to world pvp? What's so bad about this? What is bad about making the world more dangerous but also more rewarding?What blows my mind is that you seem to so fixated on your "simple logic" that you refuse to see the bigger picture even though I've laid it out in a way that anyone should be able to understand.
I see zero value in pushing people into using WM unless they want to have a world PvP experience. Furthermore, I see it as detrimental to push players into the mode they don't prefer for the sake of expedience. Warmode is a failure because instead of encouraging players to opt for the game experience we prefer, it is actively encouraging them to do the opposite so that the game devs can pretend that their feature is a success.
I am convinced that if you removed PvE rewards from warmode then world pvp would die. One side would dominate so much that the other side would stop bothering with it and never activate it again. It's always going to be a shitshow. People will always deactivate it when they do PvE because it's just not worth it to get ganked all the time, unless they play Horde where they won't ganked anyway because there is no Alliance in warmode. That's what warmode was in BfA release. There is no way to give meaningful PvP rewards. Meaningful PvP rewards come from rated PvP. World PvP will never be rated. They'd have to make special rewards that you can only get from world pvp, like mounts or transmog styles or whatever. And in such a case, Horde would still dominate the servers because they also want those mounts and transmog styles. You will always have more Horde doing PvP. That's the baseline faction difference. Horde does PvP, Alliance doesn't. So how do you fix it with your PvP incentives? Give examples.
Sharding is the real issue. The imbalance would never ever be a factor if sharding did what it was supposed to. It is supposed to make each shard version have roughly equal players with some give or take value. However in practice it has NEVER done this properly. It needs to be extremely aggressive in how it handles this. Join as a large group or raid and there isnt a shard with equal players of the other faction? Poof you go to a shard with no other faction and the smaller groups/solo players get matched on a shard that closely matches them. Should never ever see a situation where it is 10-20 vs 5 either way