No, this apparently makes the Alliance faction completely unplayable and compels them all to reroll Horde.
Meanwhile, in another thread, Bankval cites the same data…
1 Like
Using overall population without actually looking into specific populations is misleading. If overall, roughly half the population of all car drivers prefer blue and the other half (slightly more) prefer red, you can’t just say that it’s mostly even at all levels, as if you look at professional race car drivers and find 80% of them prefer red to blue because they know that it used to be faster than blue but more recently changes to red and blue have left them even, but there’s a large logistics change required to swap from red to blue so they all just stay red, the skew looks way different.
That’s what it is in retail, and in Classic. While overall the populations are roughly even - once you look at more dedicated and competitive players, the populations are anything but. This is why it’s a huge problem for anyone except casual players.
Imagine not getting the sarcasm.
Lol but we are the victim’s and we deserve to enjoy the game more than others. (stomp stomp stomp)
My gaming experience on retail is just fine, it funny seeing people saying this will kill alliance just like retail lul. Retail is 51/49. I gy camp horde almost every bg.
1 Like
You mean Horde vs Horde BGs didn’t just cause your fingers to contort any time you tried to log in as Alliance? You weren’t forced to reroll to escape the unplayable faction?
2 Likes
thats literally what i just said, people who don’t queue battlegrounds will keep not queueing battlegrounds
2 Likes
If Blizzard hadn’t announced this change, most Alliance players wouldn’t have even noticed it 
1 Like
Yes, and why exactly do most of the people wanting to queue for BGs play on the Horde?
…in other words, nothing will change for those same non-BG queuing players 
So they don’t really have anything to complain about.
2 Likes
This assumes that a majority of players actually raid. Keep that in mind, and count the numbers of players in raid logs, while also keeping in mind that some raiders have alts who also raid.
I don’t have any reasonable algorithm to determine anything from this point, because I don’t have any reasonable ways to determine actual numbers of players.
However, I somewhat suspect that most players don’t raid.
1 Like
I am though.
1 Like
Let’s not resort to personal attacks sweetie. I am sure you don’t want a timeout.
1 Like
It’s about the pvp community split, you know, those that actively pvp.
Free xfers H > A would have reduced the problem to acceptable levels as Horde pvpers that have had a jack with queue times and want instant queues would swap increasing the effective Alliance pvp community population, thus lowering Horde queue times for those that wish to stay and deal with more reasonable queue times.
Servers are 60/40 on pvp servers
1 Like
Because not all PvPers choose to waste time on a PvP server.
1 Like
Mate we both know you dabble on hordeside in TBCC
Alliance as a whole continue to refuse to PvP, just as it has been for what…? 15 years now?
Wow, what a shocking twist, how could anyone have ever saw this coming. If only we had 15 years of gameplay showing the alliance has a huge population in it that refuses to participate at all in PvP at all, unless they are given a massively unfair and imbalanced award to entice them to do so. (Which they then promptly immediately stop engaging the moment they get said award and things go back to what it was before)
Alliance side just doesn’t PvP as much as horde side does. It’s the alliance side’s CHOICE to not pvp. If the two factions overall are generally close together, that shows it’s an active choice by a majority of alliance players to not PvP.
The alliance isn’t going to “Die out” if horde aren’t forced into 60-90 minute queues. The alliance will continue on, as it always has. With just a small population playing for PvP, and everyone else playing casually for RP/PvE/Raiding, without giving a damn about battlegrounds, honor, or pvp.
Your communities are actively avoiding PvP, therefore they do not care about changes made to PvP, so how in the world is that going to effect the alliance as a whole? People who refused to do BGs before aren’t going to magically do BGs because the horde has to wait an 75 minutes for a queue. They don’t care, they don’t have interest in said content, and the change does nothing to impact them at all.
Again, obviously if the alliance and horde metrics are fairly close together, the alliance as a whole are not heavily impacted by PvP changes, because they do not participate in PvP, thus realistically all this doomsaying about the alliance dying out is just absolutely ridiculous.
The alliance faction historically doesn’t participate in PvP, and Historically has continued on despite not largely engaging in PvP, and still after 15 years are still relatively close to the same population as the horde, despite all the doomsayers and whiners on the forum predicting the death of the alliance for years and years.
Personally, I don’t do battle grounds, I don’t like PvP, but if someone enjoys pvp they should be allowed to enjoy pvp, and shouldn’t be forced to wait 80 minutes to participate in an activity they enjoy.
If everyones enjoying the activity they enjoy then everyone who enjoys the activity should be happy. Most of the forum posters about this just sound like salty trolls that simply enjoy the frustrations of others and want other people to be inconvenienced so they can heckle them when they complain. They provide absolutely no valuable feedback, and I wish the forums would stop feeding the darn trolls.
4 Likes
First sentence, you already know its from a person who has no clue what they talking about.
Bloodsail Buccaneers player…check- If you see that tag in BGs you instantly know its a player that has no idea how to pvp or what to do in a battleground.
Perfect post.
1 Like
Don’t address anything jump straight to personal attacks.
obvious you have no actual arguments and just want to attack people.
Congratulations, you’re a troll. 
Not surprising in the least.
3 Likes