Which faction really "loses all the time" in random Battlegrounds?

[melodramocracy]

This is comprehensive bullshit. Let me explain the ways you are wrong:

(1) The horde has an excellent chokepoint between IB tower and IB GY. Blocking the alliance there was the standard part of the "Scorched Earth" strategy the horde used to dominate AV between patches 2.2 and 2.3, during BC. This chokepoint can still be used, but horde almost never seem to do so.

(2) Balinda's iceblock only slows the horde down if most of the horde players go in to kill her. This is player stupidity. Otherwise, neither Balinda or Galvanger are on the critical path to a win in AV. There is no other event that cannot proceed until either is down. Playing properly, most horde should do what alliance do, and be capping towers/bunkers (and going back to recap the ones the alliance capped), not being wastes of space in Balinda's room.

(3) You do NOT have to kill all the NPCs to cap a bunker. You have to kill at most one, and in some cases none, of the NPCs. The rest can be LOSed.

(4) None of the things you list has anything to do with why alliance wins most of the time. Alliance wins most of the time in AV because they actually try to win, and because good alliance PvP don't blacklist the place.

And they don't blacklist the place because they win there constantly. See how that works? Both factions try to win via zerg, and one gets it done 9 times out of 10.

[Eats Compost]

Alliance wins IoC and AV almost uncontested because apparently Blizzard is cool with a PvP environment being entirely slanted towards one faction. In the ones that aren't slanted, Horde wins the majority, but I think it's like 60/40, maybe 70/30 in some.

Warsong Gulch and Twin Peaks are even, Isle of Conquest and AV are extremely Alliance-dominated, Strand of the Ancients is extremely Horde-dominated and everything else is between a 55/45 and 70/30 slant in favor of the Horde.

It's a pretty sad state of affairs all-round. Even WSG and Twin Peaks aren't perfect, but they're the only BGs with an acceptable ratio.

[Osmeric]

And they don't blacklist the place because they win there constantly. See how that works? Both factions try to win via zerg, and one gets it done 9 times out of 10.

Yes, I see how it works. And it has absolutely nothing to do with the map. Alliance zergs better than horde, and the alliance "zerg" almost always includes defensive play as well.

[wxcopy]

The player that queues for a bg alone will lose every time. It's not faction specific

[melodramocracy]

The player that queues for a bg alone will lose every time. It's not faction specific

Which is exactly why you shouldn't be able to queue for randoms in a group to begin with.

[OreoLover]

...so many "I'm really great and carry my team to enough wins to upset the balance single-handed"

Assuming this is just perception and small amount of data, I have only gotten 2 victories in Isle of Conquest as Horde (roughly a year ago), with 20+ losses recently. Put it back on blacklist until WoD :/

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, I see how it works. And it has absolutely nothing to do with the map. Alliance zergs better than horde, and the alliance "zerg" almost always includes defensive play as well.

Wrong, not even bothering with going on. Too wrong :|

[Blade and Soul]

It shows I have a 68% win ratio as Horde on my statistics, with just over 2500 played.

I mainly queue alone for random BGs, and have AV and IoC on my blacklist.

Battlegrounds played = 2520
Battlegrounds won = 1722

Alterac Valley battles = 235
Alterac Valley victories = 107

Arathi Basin battles = 326
Arathi Basin victories = 230

Battle for Gilneas battles = 246
Battle for Gilneas victories = 179

Eye of the Storm battles = 264
Eye of the Storm victories = 36 (Note: Has been messed up calculating for a long time)

Strand of the Ancients battles = 283
Strand of the Ancients victories = 212

Twin Peaks battles = 233
Twin Peaks victories = 174

Warsong Gulch battles = 321
Warsong Gulch victories = 234

Silvershard Mines battles = 145
Silvershard Mines victories = 116

Temple of Kotmogu battles = 171
Temple of Kotmogu victories = 132

Isle of Conquest battles = 205
Isle of Conquest victories = 94

Deepwind Gorge battles = 91
Deepwind Gorge victories = 70

[Osmeric]

Wrong, not even bothering with going on. Too wrong :|

You aren't going on because you can't actually make a correct argument demonstrating your point. And that's because you are wrong and I am right.

[melodramocracy]

You aren't going on because you can't actually make a correct argument demonstrating your point. And that's because you are wrong and I am right.

You aren't right though. If 'the map is balanced, they just play better' were any rational sort of argument, you'd see similar win %'s on maps like WSG, EotS, etc.

[Osmeric]

You aren't right though. If 'the map is balanced, they just play better' were any rational sort of argument, you'd see similar win %'s on maps like WSG, EotS, etc.

Nope. You are assuming that if one faction plays better in battleground A, then they will also play better in battleground B. But that's an invalid assumption.

[Deleted]

Seems to me that when I go into a random BG with my main, who had full conquest gear, I get into groups of equally geared players. When I do a random bg trying to gear an alt, I get into groups with undergrared people trying to gear up. Mostly playing alliance btw. So win ratio on my main is probably good, in everything except Silvershard Mines. On alts - not so much.

[melodramocracy]

Nope. You are assuming that if one faction plays better in battleground A, then they will also play better in battleground B. But that's an invalid assumption.

These are groups of mostly random people, with random class and gear combinations. The argument that you're trying to pose here doesn't add up.

[Osmeric]

These are groups of mostly random people, with random class and gear combinations. The argument that you're trying to pose here doesn't add up.

You assume the same distribution of players from a given faction show up in each BG. This is an invalid assumption.

You assume players try equally hard in each different BG. This is an invalid assumption.

You assume morale considerations are the same in each different BG. This is an invalid assumption.

You assume the distribution of bots is the same in each different BG. This is an invalid assumption.

Really, you need to sit down and think about all the ways your argument can go wrong. And then you need to stop making the argument.

[melodramocracy]

I'm not talking about different BG's at all, I'm talking about AV very specifically. All things being equal (which they are, in terms of player randomness, number of players on each side, randomness of gear levels, etc), there is no other reason for such a skewed w/l rate. That's all there is to it.

Bots? Morale?

itstimetostopposting.jpg

[Osmeric]

I'm not talking about different BG's at all, I'm talking about AV very specifically. All things being equal (which they are, in terms of player randomness, number of players on each side, randomness of gear levels, etc), there is no other reason for such a skewed w/l rate. That's all there is to it.

So, your argument that nothing else can explain the differences is... just an assertion that nothing else can explain the differences.

Your inability, or at least unwillingness, to imagine what else could cause a difference in winning ratios doesn't mean such an explanation doesn't exist. It just means you are not able/willing to find it. The Argument from Personal Incredulity is yet another invalid argument.

If we look at the actual evidence of what goes on in AV, the difference in performance isn't due to the map. It's due to what players are doing. The alliance simply plays better. They attack in a more structured and optimized way. They defend more aggressively. A theory explaining AV must offer an explanation for these observations. My explanation is that, in AV (and IoC), the horde have adopted a "culture of defeat". They expect to lose, so they don't try, and the losing becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. This is compounded by bots and blacklisting. For alliance, in contrast, there is a culture of victory in AV. They expect to win, they have a lot of practice winning, so they put that practice to use when AV comes up. An alliance loss in AV would be extra sad, so they try that much harder.

The crucial observation is that these cultural issues can be specific to a particular battleground, and are self-sustaining. The performance in one BG by a faction can be different from that in another, even if there is no map imbalance in either, simply because of differing expectations.

[Packing an i5]

Alliance loses more. Not even close to even in my experience. Alliance only excels at the bot filled bgs such as isle of conquest and alterac valley. As a horde player I seem to get wins easily in any other Bg especially the new ones. Exceptions to the rule when Alliance has better geared players.

[Kreeshak]

when I am horde, the alliance loses all the time.
when I am ally, horde loses all the time.

[Vamandrac]

Horde win almost all the bgs outside of AV and IoC from my experience.

[Kanariya]

Alliance generally. I have characters on both sides, and I love queueing for random bgs on my Horde. I find I can solo-queue and win a good 7-8 out of 10 games I play, during pretty much any hour of the day. Alliance, not so much. I pray every time I click random to queue into AV or IoC. Generally there are a lot more undergeared players on Ally teams I find, and when it's a 10m bg, you already know there isn't any hope. Aside from that, Horde players seem to have a bit more skill in player-vs-player and small group cooperation. Alliance really needs to work on that.

I'm hoping one day it'll even out. My main is Ally and I loved pvping on her, but I just can't stomach solo-queues as Ally anymore.

[Deleted]

Nobody mentioned about the amount of impact all these bots in Alterac valley and isle of conquest have?, seems the later the time the more bots on both side so play late at night and it's literally 1 man can make a difference