We must be just in for the lulz now, surely.
And again you’re just being completely arbitrary. “Things I like are working as inteded and things that I don’t aren’t”. Coupled with a pinch of “no changes except those I like”. The reward system is 100% authentic and working as intende. Yet you want it changed because you don’t like it.
The win rate is the result of the map being imballanced not the reward system.
Finally, a serious relevant question we can have a serious discussion about.
That idea is just a brainstorm idea. When I have presented that idea I usually also add the tweak that the losing faction gets a stacking bonus until the win rate even out. It’s not the be-all end-all suggestion, it’s just a way to open a serious discussion.
To answer your question, it depends. hard to tell. But if Alliance know that if you /afk you get no rewards and if you choose to be inactive you get no rewards, that could be the snowball effect we need. Alliance need something to fight for and to have it more rewarding to win slow than to lose fast.
I didnt ask any questions in bad faith.
I dont think the map is the only thing affecting the winrate, its obviously not.
I do think moving the horde spawn back to a similar distance would encourage more alliance to queue. This would lower the horde queues and raise the alliance ones, reducing the effectiveness of “kill LTs, lose and go again”.
But then i don’t think the 1.12 AV map is some perfect gift from the heavens that is to be untouched. Especially considering we didnt even have x-realm BGs in vanilla til the very last patch.
The map is a map. We use it, we travel on the ground in it. We attack NPCs and players in areas that are designed for that. No one is pulling anything away or going over , though or under anything uninted (like the backdoors). The map is authentic and it’s being used for what it is designed and intended. If anyone is exploiting anything in the AV map, pls let me know where.
Straw Man argument. You are disorting my argument and attacking the distortion. Present you own argument indstead.
No it’s not and I will now present my evidence for my claim that it is being exploted:
xi. Disruption / Harassment: Engage in any conduct intended to disrupt or diminish the game experience for other players, or disrupt operation of Blizzard’s Platform in any way, including: …
Harassment, “griefing,” … , deliberate inactivity or disconnecting, and/or any other activity which violates Blizzard’s Code of Conduct or In-Game Policies.
C. License Limitations. …
Cheating: Create, use, offer, promote, advertise, make available and/or distribute the following or assist therein:cheats; i.e. methods not expressly authorized by Blizzard, influencing and/or facilitating the gameplay*, including exploits of any in-game bugs, and thereby granting you and/or any other user an advantage over other players not using such methods;
Being inactive is not allowed. It gives an unfair advatnage if you enter bgs and are inactive to farm honor in that way. It’s a form of grifing and a cheat.
Look on this picture I took last night:
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/614081264751738920/757619011591733318/unknown.png
This is half the Alliance team being inactive to exploit the reward system. It is a form of cheating and same faction briefing. They are better rewarded for being inactive compared to fighting for a win.
It’s an exploit that can and should be fixed. And fixing this exploit would also improve the win rate for Alliance.
sigh
Obviously you did, I mean you brought it up, not me. it’s obvious what you are trying to do. But it’s irrelevant. So I don’t care if you did it in bad faith or not, because it’s irrelevant.
I agree that it’s obvious.
Ok?
I totally agree. It sucks. It’s bad. Unfair and frustrating.
I disagree. Classic is a recreation of a game. This is a recreation of that map. We can have opinion, but opinions are irrelevant. It’s a recreation.
This is the queue system I am talking about. The unauthentic queue system is totally relevant to this unique and extreme situation.
I highly doubt the AV map was designed to give the Horde a 90%+ winrate. I might be wrong but if I’m not than it’s not working as intended. It’s also not the authentic Vanilla map in the 1st place.
The reward system is 100% authentic. You and your team do objectives and complete matches to get rewards. Seems like it’s working exactly like it was intended. Of course since the report function doesn’t actually work like it should now it’s hard for players to prevent inactivity but that’s on Blizzard who has to either revert the changes to the report function or actually sanction inactivity.
And bottom line remains: changing the reward system is no less of a change than changing the map itself (and arguably is the bigger change out of the 2). It really is “no changes except ones I like”.
Im not quite sure how removing elites and speeding towers up is relevant to the cave moving south? If both sides got the same other changes, then the horde also got moved south, wouldn’t that be because it was too strong where it was?
“made it so players don’t resurrect in the starting caves until all of their faction’s graveyards have been captured.” - Even this alone would go a good chunk of the way to making IB easier for the alliance to assault. The horde spawn halfway between IB and FW at double the rate per res.
You are comparing one map where you win by outlasting the opponent and killing last boss, with a different map where you fight for resources.
Alliance have that same advantage in their own cave at SP GY once it’s assaulted, which according to your logic, should make SP GY impossible to capture.
Because it was about the resources. The same ones still in use in refail. You know, the thing that is replenished with mines and lost 1 per player on your team dying, and lost even more by losing towers/bunkers.
They also implemented a stackable aura on warmasters/marshals and the bosses that increased damage and health by 15% to all warmasters/marshals and the faction boss, because it was a boss rush meta because all of the elites being removed and the ranking system wasn’t a thing anymore.
That aura was 15% per warmaster/marshal btw.
They also removed the spawning of extra warmasters/marshals for bunkers/towers burned, so the only ones there were the ones from the start.
So basically they made it so players had to go for towers/bunkers before going for the boss. In order to despawn those warmasters/marshals and get rid of the aura stacks. Otherwise they’d get oneshotted.
This is why the distance to the first bunker vs. the distance to the first tower mattered.
Meanwhile, in this AV, there are the elites slowing it down and having a closer GY is supposed to be an advantage, is it not? Which Alliance does have to that first clash. Yet Horde tends to win it.
You need to think about it more critically.
Alliance don’t actually have the same advantage at SP as Horde can reinforce from SH while Alliance can’t reinforce while they’re trying to cap IB.
Either way, we want the same thing.
I want queuing into AV to be something fun to do, not a 98% lose rate. You want lower queues and more time spent playing. Diluting the people botting/afk with actual players would go some way towards fixing this.
Considering blizzard has no interest in removing afkers, we would have to convince the alliance to queue more.
The root of all evil in Classic BGs is the automatic matchmaking for teammates. It’s the reason AFKers and bots prospers, and why there’s a significant lack of teamwork on average. Premades makes it more organized, and offers proper challenge. Premades also prevents AFKers and bots completely.
If there are no more pugs, it also removes the motivation to simply “give up” as soon as premades face each other, since the only way to earn anything is by beating premades then.
So you mean the distance from SP GY to SH GY is a disadvantage for the Alliance, but not a disadvantage for the Horde when assaulting SP GY from SH GY? That’s funny.
Also, the distance from SF GY to IB GY is pretty much the same as SH GY to SP GY so it’s not like you can’t get that same ress distance when assaulting. Gotta win the fights first though.
Also, the ress distance from IB GY to SH GY is further than SP GY to SH GY. So before SH GY is capped, where do you think the Horde attackers ress?
“should make SP GY impossible to capture.” - at no point did i ever say its impossible for the alliance to win at IB. I just said theyre at a disadvantage compared to horde taking SH.
If we win the fight at SH, we have to kill at least another 3 waves of full health/mana horde before we’re even close to IB.
Its if once you capped SH we reinforced from the huts on the hill 20 at a time. It would make SH harder to hold on the cap and significantly harder to push through past the tower.
So that’s the only part you bite at now huh? The post was a bit longer than that.
Again, either way its irrelevant, nothing will change with either the map or the systems. Just even a 20/80 winrate would drop your queues significantly.
Noones happy with the current setup.
Sure it’s an advantage. Not the same thing though. If Alliance reinforcements were comming to IB later than Horde retakers then it would be the same thing. It’s not even comparable how much more difficult IB is to take and hold than SP because there are 0 reinforcements coming in for Alliance. Not to mention the fact that one is the very 1st Horde GY before Alliance can take anything while the other is after Horde already have an Alliance GY, 2 towers, 2 Wing Commanders and the boss summoning spot under control. Would be retakers getting nuked/stunned from the sky kind of makes it a bit harder.
Highly doubt the geared Alliance players would choose to queue for AV with a significantly higher average than now before the win rates reach at least a perceived 50/50. Which is never going to happen, because they aren’t queuing. It’s a feedback loop.
just wait until TBC when the proper PvPers sticks to arenas.