This game has always been a meme when it comes to pvp. Fps games are much better for pvp, and always have been imo.
2 Likes
Some shards could be balanced, but unless the faction numbers are similar, there will have to be one or more shards that are imbalanced to handle the overflow of the more populace faction.
Sure, but that ultimately is how we wind up where we are today. If war mode sucks for some players, they just arenāt going to use it, keeping war mode populations down. Then if the war mode sucking disproportionately impacts one faction compared to another, that leads to the dominant faction never having anyone to PVP with of the opposing faction because they donāt toggle into a bloodbath.
Its not. Its why people think pvp sucks. Instanced pvp is strategic on the micro and macro level. Ganking, which is pvp in the same way that crafting is, is absurd and dumb.
3 Likes
This sounds so pathetic. Ganking is the only way you can win, and have fun for you only. Glad blizz doesnāt agree with you and has something called war mode.
3 Likes
only for people who require easier targets because they suck at PVP.
those people donāt want PVP they want to hit target dummies.
2 Likes
pretty obvious, isnt it?
Every time we see a warmode hate thread, its 100% about their losing their gank fodderā¦ātheirā being those who arent good enough to PvP against EQUAL opponents. lol
1 Like
And if you read on, I proposed that Warmode use a similar system that we have in BGās, where you can play as the opposite faction.
Well, we are attempting to make warmode āun-suckā with balancing the shards.
I donāt understand the issue with forming a group in warmode and being placed in a shard that has other groups. Seems like the correct way to handle balance to me.
Solo players just questing and looking for the occasional dust up would be placed with similar people from the opposite faction.
The second you start to organize, making parties of 4 or 5, or raid groups, it should try to place you with similar opponents.
Seems fair to me.
No, what itās time to admit is that WoW PvP is the failure, and especially open-world PvP. Anyone who wants a real PvP experience is rightly playing some other game, AIMED at the PvP audience. WoW is a PvE game, with a poorly executed PvP mode tacked on. I personally think Warmode is mostly a success, since I now never have to suffer through PvP again. 
3 Likes
Simple, we werenāt rewarded for being on PvP servers before. We went there because of our friends or because we liked to PvP.
You typed a whole lot of nothing. No one says remove rewards from all aspects of wow. Iām saying to remove rewards from the thing we never had rewards for doing in the first place.
I never needed a reward to world PvP. Them adding it had more bad effects than good.
1 Like
Letās say 10% of the population is out to pvp. Out of 100 people, that does not mean 5 Horde and 5 Alliance, it means 7 Horde and 3 Alliance. Even if you balance the populations on a shard, without neuralink to actively determine what is in a playerās head, you canāt sort them. The chances you will end up with a shard that has Horde hunting Alliance, versus the reverse is literally double. Mix in the ability to group into a shard, which getting rid of breaks all of the other reasons to cross server group, and youāve just got warbands hunting Alliance.
I love that you used BGs as an example. Join an epic BG to see in real time what happens on shards. All the Alliance gets shoveled into the same one, while the Horde tends to scrape off the top. People leave and that problem snowballs. The last time I did Wintergrasp we had less than 20 people in the group at the end.
And that is the BEST CASE scenario, because people actively self selected to join the BG.
Iām pessimistic because they have done something. This is better. The problem is faction balance and the fallout of it being so lopsided for so long. Thatās not correctable without really favoring the Alliance.
Warmode didnāt exist back then, so you didnāt have rewards for it back then.
Things change over time. There didnāt used to be M+ and a weekly vault system. We used to do dungeons without weekly vault.
Iām going to guess you arenāt also advocating for removing the weekly vault on the basis of it not existing back in the day. We didnāt used to have āworldā quests. And if you go back far enough, we didnāt have ādaily questsā.
Should we remove those?
Go back further and we didnāt even have battlegrounds. Should we remove those too, because they didnāt exist at some point in time?
Nearly every activity or game mode has some sort of reward. There is nothing wrong with that, despite what you say about āback in the dayā.
If that was the purpose of warmode why would there be non pvp questing available? You donāt understand the problem if that is what you think. If red = dead is what you thought warmode was for, what do you think battlegrounds are for? What purpose would they serve that you couldnāt accomplish in the open world?
Warmode is about the risk, not the certainty. When it became a certainty, that was when it died. Encouraging it means it stays dead.
Yes, I used it as an example to bring up the system where you can play as the opposite faction to help balance the overall population.
Again, I am proposing that one possible solution to help balance Warmode shards is to utilize some form of this system.
I did, and it seems like a reasonable idea so I didnāt really have much to add to it. Iām not sure how to reconcile a group thatās doing a quest for an alliance faction leader as a horde or vice versus, but Iām sure something could exist.
Also seems like a reasonable starting point, though I would have concerns with there being too many competing interests for the system to try to balance against. I think people will need to keep realistic expectations here. The reasons someone might turn on war mode are varied and the likelihood for players to organically come together versus not might also be a factor. For instance, 5 players from each faction could toggle solo and be put onto a shard; if the 5 players from alliance all go picking fights while the 5 horde players all just want to do their own thing, you may wind up with the 5v1 ganking situation that is at the root of the concerns in the first place even though they were 10 individuals making their own choice to pop into war mode.
Way to cut out the rest of the comment and totally miss the point. 
1 Like
Because it is a version of the game world where everyone is pvp flagged by default. People play warmode that want the danger and excitement that comes with being able to be attacked by other players.
Again, if you are trying to form groups in Warmode, perhaps because you want to be better defended from attackers, why shouldnāt you be placed in a shard with other groups? Isnāt that fair and balanced for other players who you might come up against?
Then the 5 horde players should work together and fight back.
If people just want to ādo their thingā and donāt want to fight, they should turn warmode off.
That is okay. Iām not saying itās bad or anything negative. Turn warmode on and off 6 times a day if we want to.
1 Like
Yep. And if you form a group with your friends in warmode, you should be placed in a shard with other similar groups, because that would be fair and balanced.
You seem to want to be able to be the only group on your shard, which would be great for you and your friends, but not so great for other players.
Which gets back to my initial post in this thread - those players being able to play the game how they want even in solo world content is contingent on other players. Which is one of the root problems that needs to be solved.
Yes, and this is how we repeat the cycle of having imbalanced factions. If similar quantities of horde and alliance toggle off across all shards because of bad experiences then faction balance will still exist. But all it takes is for a small difference in the rate one faction does so versus the other to start a chain reaction as each day there will be more disadvantaged members of the minority faction deciding to toggle off due to more sour experiences.