AV after the "Fixes"

Yea, but it doesn’t have to be a one or the other situation.

Look at wsg for example.

Pugs do well against pugs. (As rarely as this happens.) Faction isn’t an issue. The games are usually quite competitive.


People are participating and there isn’t an actual advantage that either side enjoys.

AV in it’s current form is a complete disaster. I may have queued for two games in the past month. It just isn’t fun to lose every single game you play, and there is literally nothing you can do to improve your situation.

The current playstyle surrounding the honor system is toxic and broken.


This is what I don’t get. Lopsided games sucked, and sometimes never even filled all the way (or not until quite late in the game). Yet, some games that started off lopsided at least stood a chance, if they filled fast enough. Since the “fixes” it’s like 1 win in 100.

How does that work?

*Yes, I know people are afk. That would give a low win rate, not a non-existent one.

Yes, I can understand that it is demoralizing. It is just unfortunate that the response from ex-premaders to being forced to play with the Alliance general population was to go hide in the SHGY houses and not play.

1 Like

Agreed. The “rankers” are a special set of people. Must be nice to not have to go to work and sit at home all day being a chode to everyone they encounter.

Not all, but yeah, a good number of them fit that description.

We’re fixing a setting that allowed the battleground to start with as few as 20 players on a team.

How does that explain games starting with 5 people? I hate to break it to you, but yes…your queue dropping was directly responsible.


5 or 20 really doesn’t matter - when alliance are behind the curve when the gates open due to the map the team is going to give up.

sure queue dropping made it worse, but this singular change would have fixed most of the detrimental issues going on and have a fairly even game spread for win/loss.

1 Like

It literally does matter when you cite a change that explicitly states “20 players on a team” when trying to argue it was not queue dropping causing lobbies to launch under-manned.

20 man starts are under-manned by 50% - what are you on about?

1 Like

Premade groups were mass reporting people not in their premade to get more of their premade into the game. That’s just one of the reasons it’s considered an exploit.

Edit: another reason is that if they didn’t get their premade friends in they would abandon the AV and leave the team with 10-20+ less teammates on the ally side resulting in “free wins” for the horde. (Ironically this is the same effect bots and afk leaches have)

1 Like

Likewise. I am honestly confused…because games were launching with sub 20 people regularly. It almost seems like that “20 players on a team” line of text really wasn’t doing much.

I am more willing to believe that when AV lobbies launched, they had 80 people lined up in queue…40 Alliance and 40 Horde. 40 horde took the queue and only 5 Alliance did the same.

1 Like

You are addressing a symptom, not the actual issue here.

Premades were borne of a necessity to win due to a completely lopsided AV map/mechanics.

The resulting issues were “fixed” by putting a bandaid on a bullet hole.

Premades are gone. Fine, no problem. Being bitter about the fact that they did exist and completely ignoring the problems currently encountered in AV (problems that caused the premades in the first place) is not correct thinking.

AV is terribly unhealthy, and people are pretending that this is anything other than what it is.


AV is mostly unhealthy because of bot/leeches. The map “imbalance” is only a small factor to winrates and the fact many AV games sees allies with 5-20 people not actively helping the team win is what is causing the winrate issue.

1 Like

Preamdes were made because they could maximize honor/hour…and literally nothing else. In your mind, if the horde could premade with the map-advantages you think they have…do you think they would refrain because they didn’t need to?

I am not bitter, and I don’t think i gave the impression of bitterness either. But premades were also not healthy for this game. You don’t fix a current state of bad-health by going back in time to a time that was also unhealthy.


you realize they implemented this change and premades still existed for a week and there were no short games?

But you have zero experience with the issue and should not even be commenting on how it mechanically worked.

the zero compromise thing will just make the game worse long term.

Yes, of course I was there. Assuming I have no idea is really poor form. There were no short games because all the Marshal premades went off to WSG instead because that is where the honor became best.


I don’t opine for the days of premade AV, so this is irrelevant.

By winning. Right, so I don’t understand why you are saying my apple isn’t an apple, but it’s actually an apple.

Premade=better chance of winning regardless of time tested and proven map disadvantage for one side. I know. You think that it isn’t a thing because you’re horde-but it’s a thing.

Ok, but premades are gone. So what are you talking about?

that’s not what happened the first week after this change - the honor grinders did not switch boats until later when they broke the queuing even further.

You don’t have experience from alliance perspective - you’re just assuming things.

this is just another typical topic going nowhere. Not sure why people don’t want to come together to make things better but instead are stubborn, ignorant and bitter about how the game was naturally implemented and how the factions were naturally skewed.

1 Like

They’re gone, but people are trying to argue that they should come back for the health of the game.

Not necessarily. Some times it was the correct call for Alliance premades to concede and hide and let the Horde win because it would end the game faster. I am saying that there doesn’t have to be any other excuse for premading other than it gave the most honor. Nothing else was a factor.