[citation needed]
2 Likes
Comparing Classic to Vanilla is absurd. The only common ground is the map.
In vanilla Horde were the smaller faction, in classic it’s the other way around
In vanilla the number of guilds farming end game raids like BWL and AQ40 was tiny compared to classic, the level of gear is vastly superior in classic.
In vanilla the min/max didn’t exist like it does in classic, the number of warriors in any battleground in classic is more than enough proof of this.
In vanilla there was far less players ranking and earning PvP gear let alone running a PvP spec for battlegrounds
Classic may be a remake of Vanilla but after 15 years of knowledge they are played completely different.
2 Likes
I see report brigading is still alive and well. Sure sign you map blamers are out of arguments.
edit: apparently quoting zyrius’ hypocrisy is “trolling”
3 Likes
FotM factions, not classes. It starts with the classes and ends in a massive faction balance in pvp queuing. As is the case with Classic AV. 2:45 minutes to 5-10. Not made up, real numbers. 1000 horde queuing to 160 alliance.
Again, its hard to argue against established facts and histories. These things did happen and continue to happen and Classic, despite its massive disparities from retail, is no exception. There’s no denying it.
95%+ loss rate. That pretty much settles it. You can say whatever you need to sell your story but the evidence the alliance suck at AV is right there and cant really be trifled with unless youre an ignoramus.
I mean, Ive asked you in game what the map had to do with our team never leaving SHGY and getting curbstomped shortly thereafter and if I remember right you chastised me for doing nothing for sitting outside Galv LTs waiting for any kind of help, even though that made me the smartest guy in the bg.
Better than ripping off a 10kb 24 death game as a sub 60 hunter.
First off, I didnt make all those claims and second, your denouncement comes with the implication that you have the evidence that says it isn’t any of those things. So, where’s that evidence? There is none for either. Its all speculation but not all speculation is created equal.
Red and myself have repeatedly stated its anecdotal and that it seems to be the case but Ive never pushed it into the territory of absolute fact, although a 95% loss rate would lead one to believe Im much closer to the truth than someone who thinks the horde cave location is enough to kick an entire factions butt and reduce them to a bunch of pathetics who cant even burn one freakin tower.
But they’re equals in every way, lolzzzzz
2 Likes
One need look no further than faction ratios of overall PVP servers to see that less alliance are interested in PVP (while all servers combined see a virtually even faction ratio)
1 Like
I just dont get the desperate need to explain away the obvious against all rationality. Im an alliance main, the alliance suck at AV most days of the month…so?
I dont know why people are so personally invested in the loss rate like something important hinges on it. You either like AV or you dont. If you dont like it, dont do it.
The loss rate dont bother me one bit. I still love AV and I love the classes I play and the queues make it fun if not tolerable. There’s always some fun and exciting games if you do AV often enough too.
Prior to Naxx the most difficult thing in the game was to win AV as an alliance pug, in my opinion. Alliance AV wins feel really awesome because indeed everything is not in your favor - its just got nothing to do with the map.
2 Likes
The problem is that most of the players playing on both sides have chars with both factions, and I haven’t noticed a significant gearing differential in the AVs that I have managed to join this past month.
Seems like outside of AV weekends, you see a relatively similar number of high ranks and low ranks and a similar number of <60s on both sides.
Right. Let’s just give one of two runners a 10 second head start in a 100 yard dash. Then when he wins let’s not credit the advantage he’s given - let’s claim it’s because the loser is just bad at running.
This analogy is EXACTLY what you’re doing. Even kookier, your “evidence” that the loser is bad at running is because he’s losing. People have attempted to explain how this is completely faulty, but it’s had the same affect as trying to teach calculus to a cat.
In your world of logic (and I use that word loosely) Alliance would still be losing 99% of AV matches if their cave were behind IWB and the Horde cave were by the Horde base. Alliance reaching SFGY 20 seconds faster than Horde wouldn’t change a thing. Neither would Horde being forced to go around Bal to reach SHGY instead of having a direct path. Alliance reaching the bottom of Galv at the same time Horde did wouldn’t matter. Nothing would change if Horde rezzed at their base instead of IBGY if they died around SF. And Horde having to defend IBGY while Alliance could throw everything at offense wouldn’t make the slightest bit of difference.
Of course I don’t buy that any rational person can believe all that’s true. If anyone does, I actually feel a bit sorry for them.
All this trying to reason with people who have no reason is pointless.
Blizzard will eventually release TBC and with it, a new AV map. Alliance will suddenly do just fine, even though Horde will be the “FTM faction” because errmuhgawwd belf pallies!! It will be the same players, the same mix of undergeared and afk and sub 60 players. The only thing different will be the map.
But I have no doubt that if you’re still here and dip your toe in the AV discussion, you’ll find other reasons to explain the sudden shift in the Alliance win ratio. You’ll claim, without evidence, that it was the ALLIANCE that changed.
Go ahead and bookmark this post.
AV was not intended to be a non pvp footrace. Your analogy fails with your first sentence. It also shines a light on your mentality concerning the BG.
Advantages do matter. Objectives do matter. I understand you don’t believe they do. The whole calculus/cat thing.
It’s obvious you also believe Alliance would still be losing 99% of AV matches if their cave were behind IWB and the Horde cave were by the Horde base. Alliance reaching SFGY 20 seconds faster than Horde wouldn’t change a thing. Neither would Horde being forced to go around Bal to reach SHGY instead of having a direct path. Alliance reaching the bottom of Galv at the same time Horde did wouldn’t matter. Nothing would change if Horde rezzed at their base instead of IBGY if they died around SF. And Horde having to defend IBGY while Alliance could throw everything at offense wouldn’t make the slightest bit of difference.
Bless your heart.
Nope, not remotely. Even if I believed your ridiculous “99%” garbage.
The queue times are imho the most affecting factor related to AV. Yes there are things like cave res order and aid station boot from midfield, I simply do not agree that they have as much of an impact as you insist they do. Again, by evidence of 15 years of history, which you choose to utterly dismiss.
As far as putting the horde cave by the horde base, you are utterly incapable of grasping how that would benefit horde, and are only viewing things through the lens of petty spite.
2 Likes
-
The map is screwy.
-
The graveyard resurrection system is the primary cause of the screwy map.
-
We can adapt to the screwy map but cannot adapt easily if at all to the graveyard resurrection system screwing the map even further.
-
After this long, multiple topics, and thousands of posts, Blizzard just isn’t intent on fixing the graveyard resurrection system to make it less screwy.
-
Alliance players need to know their boycott of AV post-gearing just didn’t work.
-
Adapt (cubby strategy) or lose 99% of the time, Alliance. Just don’t be surprised when I RP ride because we’re in your losing AV because adapting didn’t happen.
So alliance will just continue to not play AV, there’s no compelling reason to at this point since the rep rewards are garbage.
There is no adapting, alliance have no viable counter to scorched earth.
Ok, here are my 2 complaints with this.
First is that mostly affects the start of the BG. Where horde engage the alliance in alliance territory next to a bunker, guards, and LT’s. You’d think having all these NPC’s around would be in favor of alliance but apparently not.
The second is, most of the AV conflict stays beyond Stonhearth and IceWing Bunker. Here the biggest complaint should be Stonehearth is out of the way towards the center and not at a choke. I’m actually BAFFLED when people complain about the map they only talk about the horde start tunnel and not ONCE do you or anyone else talk about how Stonehearth is useless. But that’s fine, you’ve tunnel visioned on one thing and don’t really know that map. That’s cool.
The real argument I will agree with is spawn tunnels should not respawn players AT ALL unless there are no GY’s. This alone would resolve all the “map imbalance” issues that is perceived.
Regardless, horde will still win 95% of AV games because there is no motive for alliance to win with the other factors such as queue times and quality of players.
Moving the tunnel is moot. All it will do is make the alliance wipe even harder in the middle without NPC support. Removing the tunnel respawn will at least force alliance to defend the bridge as they won’t be thrown back into their spawn tunnel where they can happily afk the rest of the match for rep. Alliance will still loose horribly.
The map layout aside Stonehearth bunker’s location plays little impact. Spawning at the entrance tunnel does impact the map, which is more of a Classic WoW AV respawn system is broken – not the map. Alliance still being hot garbage will mean same results and a new excuse such as unable to premade larger than 5 will be the new hotness to complain about.
Its a goddmm BG where you are sent to kill and destroy the other faction as completely as possible. What does that even mean. You are rediculous. If I’m playing Call of Duty and I get rewards for killing the enemy team, even if they’re getting spawn camped, I’m still getting PKs. That is not “ScOrTcHeD EaRtH”. Its called playing the game as its intended and the other team isn’t fighting back you clown.
2 Likes
I don’t disagree scorched earth from horde is a very good tactic.
I’m merely pointing out that when one side has a massive advantage and they drive it home every game the other side will simply stop playing when that is an option. You honestly think horde would still be queuing if they started north and alliance when playing scorched earth every game?
“sCoRcHeD eArF” = playing the BG as intended
Yes, because I don’t play for Rep or Honor. I play to spam Chain Lightning into a crowd with my 700 Spellpower and watch things explode and see if I can rack up more kills than my last record. its called having fun. Alliance don’t pvp for fun.
If I had instant queue times and the bridge for me to defend, all I would do is try to defend an incoming push on the bridge. Don’t threaten me with a good time.
However, alliance want nothing to do with that. Which is why you NEVER see more than like… 2 people defend the bridge.
5 Likes
Not queuing for a BG is also working as intended 
The irony is:
Alliance do not want to turtle, because turtling prolongs games, and with virtually instant queues it is not worth it to them.
2 Likes
Yeah I think you would get bored defending the bridge every game very quickly.
It sounds fun and even is sometime, when it’s every game… not so much.