World PvP preview [WoW]

[Samflam]

Originally Posted by Cad

So you're betting that the percentage of guilds still working on MC nearly 2 years after it's release that haven't finished it significantly inflates the number of total people who have done the zone? It might increase it a couple percent, if you assume 1 in 10 are still working on it.

I am simply saying that what you claim isn't a fact. Only 2 or 3 Horde guilds on my server can kill Nef, and we got our first C'Thun kill Horde side last night. No other guilds have made any significant progress in AQ, as far as I know (though admittedly I don't follow this stuff very closely).
Remember, you claimed that any guild raiding any instance has probably beaten the respective boss. We're not just talking about Ragnaros, your statement included BWL and Nef, too.
There are alot of more casual guilds that are making headway in MC. With the inclusion or 0.5 armor sets, updated PVP gear etc etc mudflation is making it possible for more people to tackle this content. And on my server there's a good chunk of the population still working on MC. Who cares how long it's been since release? What does that have to do with anything?

[Torrid]

Originally Posted by Etadanik

long winded shit

I never said Horde would be "dominated" in world PvP on PvP servers, granted I'm sure it happens on some of them. I merely agreed that the population imbalance was unfair to the Horde and should be addressed, even if it is much smaller on PvP servers. There are a good number of PvP servers with 1.5:1 ratios.

Ignoring population imbalance because the underpopulated side generaly has better players is retarded. This is this not even the case on all servers. And on the servers it is true, the Alliance damn well should be stomped into the ground.

PvP on normal servers still matters. When I was stuck playing on one, there was enough large scale PvP pre-battlegrounds to lag the server. Mechanics need to be in place to aid the severely underpopulated side, or all of this new content will essentialy go to waste on these servers.

[Cad]

Originally Posted by Samflam

I am simply saying that what you claim isn't a fact. Only 2 or 3 Horde guilds on my server can kill Nef, and we got our first C'Thun kill Horde side last night. No other guilds have made any significant progress in AQ, as far as I know (though admittedly I don't follow this stuff very closely).
Remember, you claimed that any guild raiding any instance has probably beaten the respective boss. We're not just talking about Ragnaros, your statement included BWL and Nef, too.

Right, but the number of guilds on each server working on BWL vs. the number that has defeated it is small.

Originally Posted by Samflam

There are alot of more casual guilds that are making headway in MC. With the inclusion or 0.5 armor sets, updated PVP gear etc etc mudflation is making it possible for more people to tackle this content. And on my server there's a good chunk of the population still working on MC. Who cares how long it's been since release? What does that have to do with anything?

How long it's been since release has to do with something because the number of people who have already defeated that content compared to the number of people currently working on it will be quite large. The 25% number isn't moving because of the backwater guild working on MC. Thousands of guilds have already cleared MC 25 times or more - and those thousands of guilds do not represent more than 25% of the WoW population. Get that through your head. The population of WoW are not raiders.

[Samflam]

Originally Posted by Cad

Get that through your head. The population of WoW are not raiders.

I wasn't arguing that with you.

[Cad]

Originally Posted by Samflam

I wasn't arguing that with you.

Ok then, thats my only point - we get caught up in semantics on this board far too much.

[Etadanik]

Originally Posted by Torrid

I never said Horde would be "dominated" in world PvP on PvP servers, granted I'm sure it happens on some of them. I merely agreed that the population imbalance was unfair to the Horde and should be addressed, even if it is much smaller on PvP servers. There are a good number of PvP servers with 1.5:1 ratios.

Ignoring population imbalance because the underpopulated side generaly has better players is retarded. This is this not even the case on all servers. And on the servers it is true, the Alliance damn well should be stomped into the ground.

PvP on normal servers still matters. When I was stuck playing on one, there was enough large scale PvP pre-battlegrounds to lag the server. Mechanics need to be in place to aid the severely underpopulated side, or all of this new content will essentialy go to waste on these servers.

And my point is that a little imbalance (on PvP servers) doesn't hurt, and is in fact part of what makes PvP fun. Ever join those CS matches where one side is woefully overwhelmed, but someone, maybe you, manages to organize and lead the team to victory? That's the idea. If the sides were perfectly balanced, population-wise, gear-wise, or otherwise, you'd never get into a situation where you either feel like you're winning or that you're the underdog. Saying "it should be all about skill" doesn't capture the fact that fighting against superior numbers and winning makes you all fuzzy inside, doesn't capture the fact that *real* skill is determined not by winning fair fights but by swinging fights where the odds are stacked against you.

If you're so obsessed with making everything fair that you resort to hand-holding players via restrictive artificial game mechanics, what you end up with are the BGs - after all, what gets more fair than forcing people into same-sized groups in instances? What makes world PvP different is that feeling of freedom that you don't get from the BGs, and by its very nature world PvP will incline to one side's favor or the other's from time to time because in the game world, as in the real world, wars don't involve two sides squaring off evenly forever. That very design goal of endless parity is what makes the BGs so damn pointless - if you can't change anything about the world at large, why fight? Why not just faction grind, as most people do nowadays?

For world PvP, game mechanics should encourage a long battle towards victory or defeat on either side, and it shouldn't encourage this by making sure everything's fair, because ultimately war is about one side winning and the other losing; that's inevitable. So sooner or later the sides are going to get imbalanced as people leave when they think they're losing, and even in a war where each side has the same numbers and the same gear, skill differences differentiate them - so nothing was ever fair to begin with. If perfect fairness is boredom, and relative fairness is an illusion, why bother trying to enforce them? Stop obsessing over whether the sides are theoretically balanced and start ensuring that the game is fun whether you're on the winning or the losing side. Make it so that numbers, while important, aren't everything - in a real war, a small group of commandos can sway the very tides of battle. Why not in WoW?

[Quineloe]

on my server alone 54 guilds have killed Ragnaros.

I don't give a shit about your totally outdated numbers Cad.

and repeating your anecdotal evidence in capslock isn't going to change anything.

[frott]

Originally Posted by DisgruntledOrangatang

hey its better than nothing and frankly I dont see whats wrong with it, if you chose to participate then you gain something, if you dont you lose nothing.

If you choose to participate, barring any beefy honor rewards, you remove yourself from contention in the honor system. You know, that system that is there to reward PVP?

[frott]

Originally Posted by Etadanik

And my point is that a little imbalance (on PvP servers) doesn't hurt, and is in fact part of what makes PvP fun. Ever join those CS matches where one side is woefully overwhelmed, but someone, maybe you, manages to organize and lead the team to victory? That's the idea.

Yes, keyword there is "a little," not perpetual imbalance that yields world pvp shitty. Whoops. 2:1 alliance ratio at level 60? Whoopty do. The only solution to this imbalance is making it so that, get this, the non-controlled "world pvp" scenarios do not yield any substantial rewards. Yay? Gurgle?

[Etadanik]

Originally Posted by frott

Yes, keyword there is "a little," not perpetual imbalance that yields world pvp shitty. Whoops. 2:1 alliance ratio at level 60? Whoopty do. The only solution to this imbalance is making it so that, get this, the non-controlled "world pvp" scenarios do not yield any substantial rewards. Yay? Gurgle?

Hardly. There's two things wrong with your post.

1. Assuming that PvE servers should have any sort of world PvP (and noticing that PvE servers are the only ones with the > 2:1 ratios)
2. Being a "tad" too close-minded.

Simplest solution to balancing the sides in a non-controlled world pvp scenario is by offering more rewards to the side with less numbers.

Thrall: "Horde iz lozing? Agh - SPAWN MORE HIGH WARLORDZ."

Makes sense, too. If there's only supposed to be a limited number of high-ranked soldiers per side, the side with less people should have it alot easier getting those ranks.

[Cad]

Originally Posted by Quineloe

on my server alone 54 guilds have killed Ragnaros.

I don't give a shit about your totally outdated numbers Cad.

and repeating your anecdotal evidence in capslock isn't going to change anything.

54 guilds with 70 people in them each * 100 servers = 378k. If US population is around 1.5 million, thats 25.2% of the total population.

Funny how the numbers work out eh?

Also - it's anecdotal evidence from Tigole. Not exactly found on some chinese website and run through the translator.

[frott]

Originally Posted by Etadanik

Hardly. There's two things wrong with your post.

1. Assuming that PvE servers should have any sort of world PvP (and noticing that PvE servers are the only ones with the > 2:1 ratios)
2. Being a "tad" too close-minded.

Simplest solution to balancing the sides in a non-controlled world pvp scenario is by offering more rewards to the side with less numbers.

Thrall: "Horde iz lozing? Agh - SPAWN MORE HIGH WARLORDZ."

Makes sense, too. If there's only supposed to be a limited number of high-ranked soldiers per side, the side with less people should have it alot easier getting those ranks.

No way, if those are substantial the group that's "small" in open world gets a massive bonus in the controlled spaces of the BGs.

Just look at the honor system. Organized horde having a larger kill pool advance faster since they have less of a chance to fight the same people repeatedly. PUG alliance have the same chance of facing the 1 or 2 org groups that the org teams do. Gear saturates and that smaller pool ends up ranking faster due to less competition. Yay?


On top of that, I don't know where you're looking but there are plenty of PVP servers that have near 2:1 alliance/horde ratios of level 60 characters who actively pvp. The best way of seeing this is just taking the split of horde/alliance on the pvp standings pages. The alts tend to get weeded out there and the discrepancies increase.

[frott]

Originally Posted by Cad

54 guilds with 70 people in them each * 100 servers = 378k. If US population is around 1.5 million, thats 25.2% of the total population.

Funny how the numbers work out eh?

Also - it's anecdotal evidence from Tigole. Not exactly found on some chinese website and run through the translator.

1.5 million? Am I missing the joke? First off if you run through census and take the larger guilds, you can get more than 378k characters that are able to kill Ragnaros if they bothered.

Finally if you then add in the pugs/alliances etc you can ramp those numbers up again. Then, find some reliable data on # of 60s in an account and weed those out, or include them, depending on how you want to skew things, and you'll see those numbers continue to inflate. I'm not sure of the NA numbers (my server has a lot of canadiens), but just by taking a glimpse of my server and the people I know I would say less than 10% of the server population can't beat rag at this point, level 60 or under.

I'd sure love to see the # of accounts owned by someone who has access to killing Ragnaros: including shared accounts, one person owning multiple accounts, etc. With each vector, that cuts down the number of casuals. Yes, my bank mule account that I've taken over from a friend will never kill Rag. Zzz.

Between my pool of friends and I we have control of 27 level 60s, 4 real life active players, spread across 7 accounts. Tell me that that doesn't skew the stats just a bit. Of those 27 level 60s, only 6 of them have actually killed rag. Of the accounts only 4 of them. They are spread across 3 guilds. Please number crunch and get back to me with reliable data.

[Northerner]

Frott, I really don't see how it makes any difference in the end though. You are fighting more alliance and earning more honor sure but you are not in competition with the alliance, you are in competition with the rest of the horde. One can make a point that factional rewards are easier to get but the rank rewards are a percentage of the faction and at higher ranks are restricted to a very few people.

[Cad]

Originally Posted by frott

1.5 million? Am I missing the joke?

US population frott. World population is like 6+ ? Alot in china/korea/europe.