This indeed. I gained a ton of honor rank last week though…
1 Like
Tbh not really, most bozos going around in 5+ (some a full raid) would get very little honor per kill.
Actually it was the best place you could be. I was horde on HS btw before you call me out. I got rank 6 before bg released, because few people on your faction means little pvp, very low honor caps for brackets.
Did I get steamrolled? Sure, probably more often than I killed alliance but I was focusing on lesser populated zones to get decent 1v1 or 2v1s. But guess what, I knew what pvp was coming in, and I did not cry about it nor use this as a pretext to cheat because I seek vengeance. Its the game. Its a brutal game, deal with it.
Well I can’t play with my friends in AV but alliance can. So much for caring about the social aspect of the game.
At this point, there’s not any feedback on group queues and only thing we can really accept for now is that their silence is an answer.
Won’t happen. But to humor you, if it did, the Alliance would just transfer off again like they did the first time. They aren’t interested in playing with a group of people who just want to 24/7 camp all day.
The game doesn’t have mechanics to handle those activities in a reasonable fashion. There is no way to force someone out, and they suffer no penalty for being killed.
Example, if person As goal is to fight and kill people while person B wants to travel somewhere or get some resource, these are opposing goals. That is fine. They fight, B can win, but A will be right back to try again. B can never achieve their goal regardless of how many times A loses because the system isn’t built to handle it.
When the victory conditions for 1 side do not exist or are impossible to achieve, why would they keep playing? They’ll find something else to do where there is a way to win.
It’s almost as if the majority of players that are more PVP centric just so happened to have rolled horde.
Now I wonder cough racials, cough why that is?
lol!
1 Like
Can’t play with them if they’re in the game and you’re sitting in a queue because your server’s full.
1.) so in this skew how it works is think of the server like a multi-story building, if you have ever worked in an office, its better to think of it as office space. On each floor, you can fit so many people before you force the new people to the newer floors.
Let’s also pretend that the floor can only fit 200 people, and as a result the first 200 are put on the floor. Lastly, lets pretend that each floor requires 100 of employee type A, and 100 of employee type H.
The first 200 employee’s are hired and they are all type H. This creates 2 floors:
Floor 1: 100 H [100 empty A]
Floor 2: 100 H [100 empty A]
1 week later 150 of employee type A join, but only 50 of employee type H join
Floor 1: 100 H, 100 A
Floor 2: 100H, 50A
Floor 3: 50H, 0A.
Over time what starts to happen is convergence to the mean. This is to say that the ratios start to balance for the vast majority of players, with a small unfortunate few that have to deal with faction imbalance issues. The players that deal with it, however, are treated much much worse [think Staalag bad], while none of the players of the minority faction ever really have a problem [less than 3-5% in a fully functioning skew]. On a server of 10,000 people with a 65-35 split [and we will assume 1000 a floor] it looks as follows. Unfortunately, this exacerbates the problem, but never really ruins the experience of world PvP :
Floor 1: 500 H, 500A
Floor 2: 500 H, 500 A
Floor 3: 500 H, 500A
Floor 4: 500 H, 500A
Floor 5: 500 H, 500A
Floor 6: 500H, 500A
Floor 7: 500H, 0A
Floor 8: 500 H, 0A
Floor 9: 500H, 0A
Floor 10: 500H, 0A
Floor 11: 500H, 0 A
Floor 12: 500H, 0 A
Floor 13: 500H, 0 A
-In this model precisely 0 servers result in PvP camping, and 46.1% of your servers achieve the desired PvP balance, whereas in the current model precisely 0 servers have PvP balance, and all have PvP camping issues to a lesser degree. Now you might say but Cletus you picked a really good skew for this to work [and to be fair I did], but lets assume 37.5 vs 62.5
Floors 1-6 don’t change
Floor 7: 500H, 250A [Bad result for Ally]
Rest of the floors don’t change. Under this model there will never a situation where more than 1 of your floors has a camping problem, because its mathematically impossible
At this point accurate, when they structured the game this could have easily been avoided for roughly 40-50% of the playerbase.
Well, it does achieve balance, but it screws the leftover Horde pretty badly. I guess their option in this scenario would be to reroll Alliance if they want to wPvP badly enough?
Correct Negald. From a hardware standpoint, the best you can do if you want to allow:
1.) Any player to pick the faction they desire at any time
2.) Create a competitive world PvP environment
is the sharding/layer-cake/office floor method. It works, not as good as you would like, but it substantially over-performs the current situation, in which from a statistical standpoint 0% of all servers have faction balance [+/- 2%]. The problem is the second you allow for free will, you have to start coding around human behavior, which never leads to desirable outcomes [because people individually will make decisions that go against the collective interest unless forced not to, there’s an entire field of study dedicated to this problem, and it isn’t just in coding].
The problem really boils down to people want 2 things at the same time that are contradictory. Imagine a game of football, where everyone could pick which team they wanted to be on at will, while also wanting a balanced game, the game would never be balanced.
Also small adendum to the layer method, you have to restructure the building every so often when players quit.
In theory this could work. However, I’d be uncomfortable with implementing something this drastic now because it’s so extreme that players need to know about it upfront so that they can make an informed decision. Perhaps this is something Blizzard could do when/if they release TBC servers?
Then you don’t want a solution for the next year or so
OK, first, ‘incompetent’ is not the word you’re looking for. Just doesn’t fit in context here. Come up with a more fitting insult.
Second, Blizzard could certainly have done something, but that something would have caused as many or more problems as it solved.
Third, before the census apps were broken, you could already see that places were already getting heavily unbalanced. This was less than a month in, and there was no sign that it wasn’t going to get worse.
Fourth, anyone who paid any attention at all to retail could have told you the way things were going to go.
Fifth, there were plenty of people here and elsewhere who were telling everyone who would listen that things were unbalanced from name registration, but people ignored us.
I agree, however I was told many times by horde during phase 2 to reroll or quit. I took that advice actually and started playing PvE. Now the horde are complaining there’s no alliance to fight.
There was already fewer alliance than horde on pvp realms before phase 2, and the toxicity it created just encouraged more to leave. This should be an example of how you should attempt to be respectful to your opponent in multiplayer games since you can’t really play the game if your opponent leaves.
I don’t think there’s a fix to this problem, it’s player made and players can fix it. The issue is that they don’t want to since they know that they’ll be on the hard mode faction.
4 Likes
This idiot priest willfully ignoring HS.
There’s a really easy fix from a coding perspective, the problem is the horde don’t actually want it.
1.) Faction caps
2.) Forced Migration
3.) Sharding
A single server. For one Heartseeker there is a Stalagg, Skeram, and Flamelash. Name another alliance PVP dominated server. Even on my realm of Fairbanks, we have a 70/30 imbalance.
So just out of curiosity, why do you refuse to acknowledge the code solution that is sharding.
Not an acceptable solution. Sharding has no place in a social game.
1 Like