I’ve seen in early AV alliance push back countless times from SP. The fact of the matter is that you cannot simply throw up your hands, and you cannot allow horde to get around to summoning Lok.
edit: this was back when games were long, as intended.
You argued against it in the beginning, and have now given up all hope of seeing a better day until TBC while actively discouraging others from expressing a viewpoint that you also share.
So I guess I’m asking you to get out of the way of people asking for changes since you clearly have no hope.
You keep bringing that up, and each time we have to remind you that it was done with retail classes, retail epic mounts, all level squished to L60, retail talents, retail gear, and retailers simply PVE racing to get the shiny mount. If current classic was being played like KR was by retailers, you would not be in here bemoaning the very thing you advised when folks said 1.12 would be a PVE race.
I don’t know what you’re talking about. Hope? What does that have to do with anything?
Classic is a recreation of the Vanilla experience…for better or worse. Warts and all. That is by definition what it is. What you’re arguing for goes against the very reason it was created. You don’t cherry pick “Well, this part of Vanilla was good, but that part was bad. Change it!” Deal with it. It has nothing to do with hope. It has to do with the reality that this is how the game was. Is 1.12 an inferior version of AV? Yes. I begged for 1.7 AV from the beginning. I made hundreds of posts on the subject. But this is what the devs chose. So it is what it is.
I don’t recall anyone saying that horde would be playing strong scorched earth with 3+ hour queues. Most people claimed it would be a zerg fest and that hasn’t ended up being the case.
But sure, we were both wrong about how AV was going to play out.
Maybe when full premades were in the game and they messed up the drek rush. But i can assure you that pug vs pug alliance will fail 99.99999999% of the time in pushing back from SP. And even if they do, you are back to the start with a 10 hour game and still the near impossible IBGY capture ahead of you.
They are queueing for the PVP gear, not the PVP itself.
40 random players with virtually instant queues who have no desire to PVP, with 40 players with hour+ queues, who WANT to pvp and have to squeeze as much value out of the game due to the queue.
It is very easy for you to pretend that the average player who chooses alliance is identical to the average player who chooses horde.
No, it is not even remotely the same to say that.
Again, you are very willing to talk metrics and statistics, who handwaving years of it when it suits you.
1 Like
Go farm some wolves and tame some rams.
AV isn’t broken. Learn the objectives of the BG and stop complaining over an non issue. I already told you some of the objectives of winning the map. The cave was moved back In TBC and you now what, they ALSO added reinforcements. It’s a different version than vanilla av. Learn the map.
Note that I specifically stated “early” AV. I am not speaking about the PVE zerg races.
Define “early”?
1.8 and earlier. There were many reasons a lot of us fought for 1.7. The map was balanced around the mobs, NPCs and strength of content, that was subsequently removed and nerfed into oblivion.
Should say 1.7 and earlier. 1.8 is when they started dismantling AV.
Was throwing them a bone. 1.7 was the high water mark. But even in 1.8, the BG could mostly be played as originally intended.
And there’s no reason to think an earlier version, which has all the same issues as the version we have would magically solve anything.
It doesn’t have all the issues. It’s radically different, and the patch notes are right there for you to read. But we had this conversation a thousand times a year ago and you kept praising 1.12 AV. How did that work out?
As far as 1.7 AV I guess we’ll never know, since according to the devs there were too many npcs and they were too powerful.
1 Like
So you are using a previous map design to argue your point for the current map design?
I just don’t understand why you’re so opposed to moving the cave.
You say you’d prefer better games vs. better opponents. Yet you constantly and vigorously argue that the map is balanced and alliance are just bad.
Moving the cave would not be as impactful as you seem to think it will be.
Horde can still hard turtle ibgy and demoralize the alliance.
If anything it would create more dynamic gameplay than just slow pushing from shgy for 30 minutes until alliance give up.
5 Likes
My argument is that the earlier versions would not have the perceived imbalance.
So lets here your numbers, how much better more motivated do you think the average horde player is? 5 times, 10 times? 50 times? Lets use math too, lets say that the average horde players motivation is quantified by there time to wait in que. Alliance have a mandatory 3 minute que, its bullcrap, but its there. So 3 minutes, vs average horde que time lets say two hours, so 120 minutes. So the average horde player has to be 40 times more motivated, lets be even more generous and say the average horde players wait time is 180 minutes, so the average horde player is 60 times more motivated.
Now lets say motivation correlates evenly with win chance on a balanced map. Meaning that from a 50/50 win rate, motivation is equally important to map balance.
Now I am going to do something that few people rarely do on the internet. Admit they may be wrong.
While I do not agree with the assumptions of horde motivation. If we do measure horde motivation by alliance que time vs horde que time, and if we do assume a 50/50 rate for a balanced map, the multiplying the win rate by our motivation should give us a simple equation to solve for expected wins. If ally should expect .5 wins per game played, and alliance score 3/180 out of competitive motivation (assuming 3 minute wait time and a max 3 hour que for horde, than our .5 gets multiplied by .01666. Which equals an expected win rate of .008333. Which basically says, that alliance will win (rounding up) .01% ( 8.3 wins per 1000 games) of the time if horde que times are 3 hours. If horde que times are 2 hours it doesn’t make much difference 12.5 games out of every thousand. Obviously there are many variables we are missing, sadly I cannot prove my point out of this, but it is interesting to say the least. Blizzard should release player statistics to allow people to attempt to isolate the real issue, this basic formula argues that a 50/50 win rate will be achieved if horde/alliance que times were equal, which I don’t think would be the case, but who knows.
2 Likes