Originally Posted by
Raelbo
You're 100% correct that for PvP to work, faction populations need to be balanced. And I would agree that Blizzard have failed on that front. Unfortunately the way the game is designed, it continues to be advantageous to be on the more populous faction, which creates the kind of feedback that leads to population instability.
They need to find a way to set up a stable form of feedback which incentivizes people to migrate to the less popular faction on a server by server basis. There are already mechanisms in the game to encourage player balance. For example, there are loot bags for dungeons and LFR for scarce roles, there is that "against the odds" buff that the underrepresented faction in WM gets that boosts quest rewards. Back in Wintergrasp they had tenacity. These kinds of rewards need to be put in place to encourage people to move towards balanced factions on every server. Simply put, if your faction is significantly outnumbered by the opposing faction on the server you're playing on, you should be experiencing a significant buff to your power, and should be earning significantly greater rewards.
As for the role of shards, I wouldn't call them disgusting, but there are definitely issues. I think that sharding is a good idea because it really can help to manage population imbalance on servers. I would even go insofar as to suggest that it is necessary. The problem is that it is too easily manipulated.
Situations like having 1 shard with a 40 man Horde raid and a different shard with a 40 man Alliance raid both doing Battle for Nazjatar unopposed should be impossible. The system should be smart enough to recognise the situation and move both raids into the same shard. And if it turns out to be impossible because, for example, there are 50% more Horde participating in the battle than Alliance - across all shards then Alliance should receive a massive tenacity buff to help to even the odds, and then the rewards for completing the event should be much greater for Alliance. Players tend to choose the path of maximum reward:effort ratio, so it wouldn't take long before faction imbalance sorts itself out.
As I said, I think it's a philosophical problem that Blizzard have in that they believe they should be motivating everyone to use WM regardless of their attitudes towards WPvP, probably because they have this idea that someone WPvP is what makes WoW great. I mean, it's basically the entire theme of BfA - encourage faction pride and inter-faction fighting because, clearly, in their minds, this is at the heart of WoW. But they're wrong. Faction conflict may be an enticing theme for some players, but I think for most, faction co-operation is actually more appealing.
What they should be doing is making WM appealing to people who like WPvP, while actively discouraging people who don't like WPvP. The only way to achieve this is to set up an asymmetrical reward structure, in which the rewards for playing in WM have high value to PvPers, but low value to PvEers, and vice versa. Right now, the reward structure is that WM is simply more rewarding for everyone, and that seems unlikely to change because Blizzard want us all using WM.
The reason is that they want everyone to use WM.
Yeah, let's not go there. I actually happen to quite enjoy islands largely because of the dev time that went into fixing them (also because I have played them moderately, and never tried grinding 100 in a week). IMO the game is richer for providing a variety of content designed for different people, and the issues afflicting WM don't exist because of a lack of dev time, but because of philosophical problems.