No that was a way to not reintroduce bugs and exploits from 15 years ago. Are you sure you don’t work for a gold farming site and just want all your old hacks to work? Talk about being disrespectful…they are giving us classic and you’re complaining that they’re not giving us the bugs again?
I’m also waiting for Cyberteamsix to post the Vanilla Navy Seal copy pasta.
I thought that was a 4chan copy pasta
It gets adapted. There’s one about vanilla raiding.
I am really having a hard time to understand what’s your goal here. You don’t even try to discuss, you just play the edgy kid.
The article is fairly clear. The article starts by telling the states of AV before patch 2.2.
Before patch 2.2, Tom Chilton posted a message saying that the Alliance was winning 75%-80% of Alterac Valley and changes would be coming soon. So that situated is at the time of patch2.1 meaning; the version of Alterac Valley 1.11.
Why would he talk about the win-ratio for patches 1.5 -1.8 where the battleground was nothing alike? It would be completely irrelevant. He is referring to the state of AV at the moment he is talking about it so late 2006 …
The article is written post patch 2.3 so the second quote that refers to “old Alterac Valley” refers to AV prior to patch 2.3, so without the reinforcement and timer; the exact period Tom Chilton’s is talking about.
My whole point is that AV patch 1.11 and 2.1 or even 2.2 (which implemented an anti-AFK system) is the same so the same problem will arise. It surprises me you fail to understand that.
6 Likes
It is known - roll alliance if you want to crush people in AV.
1 Like
I am discussing, but you are over here spreading lies, or at the very least misleading stats in order to push your agenda, so I’m calling you out on it.
See this is exactly what I’m talking about.
The way you are making this sound is that patch 1.11 made the imbalances and the earlier versions weren’t an issue. That’s what I’m hearing. And this is a lie. The article is calling out EVERY. SINGLE. VERSION. of AV pre-2.2. It is not calling out 1.11 specifically it says ‘AV was released 2 years ago and these are the stats over that time…’. I can quote it again for you if you really need help understanding.
He is though can you not read??? If he isn’t referring to earlier versions of AV then what makes you think he took vanilla into the account of these in the first place? If you think he is just talking about that patch, then in this context he is talking about that patch DURING THAT TIME! Which is TBC. NOT VANILLA.
But it’s clear he is talking about all of AV because of this quote you obviously chose not to read.
the same exact statement was true for the old Alterac Valley where the goal was to reach the General at the end. So true, in fact, that the Alliance won a up to a whopping 80% of the games.
If anything this right here, is referring to 1.5, or at the very least all of vanilla AV.
What does patch 2.1 or 2.2 have anything to do with my original post? I am talking about 1.5 -> 1.11. See you’re flip flopping your argument again to act like you were talking about TBC patches. Your original statement was calling out 1.11 for being imbalanced when I said it was a more balanced version of AV (when I was comparing it to 1.5).
Get out of here with this nonsense. You got caught lying about your statement and now your trying to explain away your nonsense but it’s not going to happen.
The imbalances were in early AV, however they (beyond the exploits) were of little to no consequence due to the nature of the content that was in the BG. When that content was removed the speed of the BG increased, the rest of the content could be ignored along with PVP, and the imbalances were brought to the forefront.
3 Likes
It made it more balanced but with quicker matches and more people playing it which is what really brought it to front. In old AVs you didn’t really care who won or lost as most of the game you were either just fighting npcs or in massive fights 30v30 and that’s all it really was until a team finally pushed to vicory (which normally was the alliance). In later versions because they were so much shorter you could do a couple in a day instead of just one a day so losing is a lot more noticeable.
This is the thread that never ends,
It just goes on and on my friends,
A CM started posting it, not knowing what it was,
and now we can’t stop arguing because…
1 Like
Soooo, basically a pvpve war zone as originally designed. You make a compelling argument.
2 Likes
I never said I hated that version, it’s just I like the other way better. To me they both can be played the exact same ways depending on what your group chooses to do but one lasts hours for a long one and one can last a whole weekend. I prefer it to last hours over days.
You know what’s really crazy? Reading the old blog posts on AV development, their original intent was for the battleground to never actually end. It actually seems like their original intent was for AV and other battlegrounds to be somewhat similar to Wintergrasp.
5 Likes
So is 1.12. 1.12 just emphasizes pvp more than pve compared to 1.5 which heavily emphasized pve.
1 Like
This is where I once again remind you that less PVP happened as a result, and then you once again attempt to blame the players rather than the changes to the BG.
3 Likes
Pre-release blog post for anyone interested:
2 Likes
Ostensibly, one side could decide to simply swarm the enemy territory. This would involve first attacking the enemy’s forward base camp. This will be a difficult endeavor. The forward camp is guarded by numerous NPC defenders in the mid-fifties, as well as the elite camp commander and his elite special guards. Not only are these defenders numerous, and tougher due to the elites, but there will also be a tower or two flanking the way through this forward camp.
https://web.archive.org/web/20041223182307/http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/pvp/battlegrounds.html
3 Likes
/shrug and this is where you blame the map instead of the players. Despite that there were plenty of games where a lot of pvp happened in 1.12.
For the next few hours after your side scores a victory, the opposition will have no NPC troops to help them.
No, this is where I blame the nerfs and outright removal of content which made zerging the most efficient strategy. Prior to that PVP was not optional.
3 Likes