Discussion:
battlegrounds and horde/alliance ratio
(too old to reply)
geronimo
2005-05-13 08:42:15 UTC
Permalink
I was wondering why they put a queue system to access the battlegrounds, and
realized that's probably a way to ensure that both sides are balanced, i.e
there won't be a battleground instance with 10 alliance against 0 horde. It
will probably wait until there's 10 (or 40) on each side (or a number close
to that) to open access to the BG.

Can somebody who has tried the BGs on test confirm/infirm that ?

side effect : if there's much more alliance than horde on a serveur,
alliance players won't be able to access the BGs easily !
Simon Nejmann
2005-05-13 09:18:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by geronimo
I was wondering why they put a queue system to access the battlegrounds, and
realized that's probably a way to ensure that both sides are balanced, i.e
there won't be a battleground instance with 10 alliance against 0 horde. It
will probably wait until there's 10 (or 40) on each side (or a number close
to that) to open access to the BG.
Can somebody who has tried the BGs on test confirm/infirm that ?
I'm not on test, but that is how Blizzard always has stated that it
will work.
Post by geronimo
side effect : if there's much more alliance than horde on a serveur,
alliance players won't be able to access the BGs easily !
Yup, sucks to be alliance...

On the other hand, those who can't get into BG can just go raid a
horde city - all from horde who are interested in PvP will likely be
tied up in the BG, so you should be able to raid unopposed...
--
Regards
Simon Nejmann
Christian Stauffer
2005-05-13 10:07:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Nejmann
Post by geronimo
side effect : if there's much more alliance than horde on a serveur,
alliance players won't be able to access the BGs easily !
Yup, sucks to be alliance...
I hope that's meant to be sarcastic. You are complaining about a
problem you are the (only!) cause for.
Post by Simon Nejmann
On the other hand, those who can't get into BG can just go raid a
horde city - all from horde who are interested in PvP will likely be
tied up in the BG, so you should be able to raid unopposed...
= More "unplayable" villages like tarren mill.

Chris
--
[WoW] Wildcard - Treehugging Tauren (41) on EN Sunstrider [PvP]
Jazrah - Brutal Troll (16) on EN Sunstrider [PvP]
Jivarr - Charming Troll (12) on EN Sunstrider [PvP]
Wildcard - Treehugging Tauren (29) on DE Proudmoore [PvE]
Simon Nejmann
2005-05-13 10:45:16 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 13 May 2005 12:07:14 +0200, "Christian Stauffer"
Post by Christian Stauffer
Post by Simon Nejmann
Post by geronimo
side effect : if there's much more alliance than horde on a serveur,
alliance players won't be able to access the BGs easily !
Yup, sucks to be alliance...
I hope that's meant to be sarcastic.
That it is... Kinda...

Queues suck, as does being outnumbered and getting zerked 24/7. Before
it only sucked for horde, now it sucks equally - saying that the
suckage just doubled is just as valid as calling it poetic justice...
On the other hand, if this makes some people shift to the underplayed
side, then YAY!
Post by Christian Stauffer
You are complaining about a
problem you are the (only!) cause for.
How is my level 52 Undead Priest on a server with a 3:1 or 5:1
(depending on who you ask) ratio against the horde causing the
problem? :)
Post by Christian Stauffer
Post by Simon Nejmann
On the other hand, those who can't get into BG can just go raid a
horde city - all from horde who are interested in PvP will likely be
tied up in the BG, so you should be able to raid unopposed...
= More "unplayable" villages like tarren mill.
Aye.


I have heard more than a few horde people who went "Ha ha, now
alliance will have to stand in line while we can get in whenever we
want - nya nya sucks to be alliance", and just revel in the fact that
this is going likely to suck for alliance.
I find this to be a short sighted vengance trip that dosn't take all
the facts into consideration.

I just wish somebody could come up with a solution to solve the
population skew...
--
Regards
Simon Nejmann
Indiana Joe
2005-05-13 15:25:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Nejmann
I just wish somebody could come up with a solution to solve the
population skew...
One of my friends suggested a solution similar to one in Planetside.
Races (or factions) that are under-represented on a server get an XP
bonus, while the over-represented ones get an XP penalty.

My own thoughts on the matter started with removing the artificial
Horde/Alliance split, and rapidly developed into something that wasn't
WoW (although it might make a wonderful MMORPG eventually).
--
Joe Claffey | "Make no small plans."
***@comcast.net | -- Daniel Burnham
Mark Rimer
2005-05-13 17:33:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Indiana Joe
Post by Simon Nejmann
I just wish somebody could come up with a solution to solve the
population skew...
One of my friends suggested a solution similar to one in Planetside.
Races (or factions) that are under-represented on a server get an XP
bonus, while the over-represented ones get an XP penalty.
My own thoughts on the matter started with removing the artificial
Horde/Alliance split, and rapidly developed into something that wasn't
WoW (although it might make a wonderful MMORPG eventually).
I'm still waiting for the ability to cross faction lines. I'm a gnome
rogue, and the Alliance wasn't any big help in keeping my home
town free of a damn dirty trogg invasion. I don't care if the change
is permanent, I want my gnome to do the Lazy Peon quest :-).

Really, though...I want to be a gnome on a Kodo...
;-)
Manyshots
2005-05-14 14:58:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Indiana Joe
Post by Simon Nejmann
I just wish somebody could come up with a solution to solve the
population skew...
One of my friends suggested a solution similar to one in Planetside.
Races (or factions) that are under-represented on a server get an XP
bonus, while the over-represented ones get an XP penalty.
My own thoughts on the matter started with removing the artificial
Horde/Alliance split, and rapidly developed into something that wasn't
WoW (although it might make a wonderful MMORPG eventually).
--
Joe Claffey | "Make no small plans."
Dark ages of camelot tried a lot of things but the 1 that seems to have
worked the best was to give a free level once you got a level the hard way
the difference was that on low pop servers the time period between free
levels was considerably lower than on the high pop severs, as a result we
had an influx of albs come to the hib side which then doubled our time till
some of them left to go to mids now the times are fairly even.
Michael Vondung
2005-05-16 08:43:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Indiana Joe
One of my friends suggested a solution similar to one in Planetside.
Races (or factions) that are under-represented on a server get an XP
bonus, while the over-represented ones get an XP penalty.
They could simply improve the visual appearance of the Horde races. :) None
of them appeal to me, and that's oner of the chief reasons why I play an
Alliance character. I wouldn't enjoy being a rotting corpse, a cow or a
monster.

M.
--
ClamWin, an open source antivirus software for Windows:
http://www.clamwin.com/
gaf1234567890
2005-05-16 11:40:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Vondung
They could simply improve the visual appearance of the Horde races. :) None
of them appeal to me, and that's oner of the chief reasons why I play an
Alliance character. I wouldn't enjoy being a rotting corpse, a cow or a
monster.
Playing Horde is not that bad (visually). Each race has at least one
nice choice for face, hair, etc. Sure, if you play Undead you *can*
choose the grotesque face that's missing it's jawbone and has a metal
plate bolted on. But you can also choose one that looks fine. In fact,
the most pleasing of the female Undead faces is just as good looking as
the Human female. She's also alot thinner and has a stunning rack. If
it wasn't for the bony elbows and the slight hunch you'd swear she was
Human. Same goes for the "good looking" Troll female (although they
gave her thunder thighs unfortunately).

Personally I've played every race except Land Naga (Night Elf), and
find the dwarves to be the most ugly. You simply can't pick one face
that doesn't have a huge hook nose, and they are all "dumpy".
sanjian
2005-05-16 21:04:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Vondung
Post by Michael Vondung
They could simply improve the visual appearance of the Horde races.
:) None
Post by Michael Vondung
of them appeal to me, and that's oner of the chief reasons why I play
an
Post by Michael Vondung
Alliance character. I wouldn't enjoy being a rotting corpse, a cow or
a
Post by Michael Vondung
monster.
Playing Horde is not that bad (visually). Each race has at least one
nice choice for face, hair, etc. Sure, if you play Undead you *can*
"Can be made to be not as bad" just isn't quite what I'm looking for. I'm
trying out an orc shaman and, while she's probably a bit higher on the
evolutionary scale than others, I don't think I'll be getting very attached
to her any time soon.
Post by Michael Vondung
choose the grotesque face that's missing it's jawbone and has a metal
plate bolted on. But you can also choose one that looks fine. In fact,
the most pleasing of the female Undead faces is just as good looking as
the Human female. She's also alot thinner and has a stunning rack. If
it wasn't for the bony elbows and the slight hunch you'd swear she was
Human. Same goes for the "good looking" Troll female (although they
gave her thunder thighs unfortunately).
Personally I've played every race except Land Naga (Night Elf), and
find the dwarves to be the most ugly. You simply can't pick one face
that doesn't have a huge hook nose, and they are all "dumpy".
None the less, they aren't grotesque. Sure, they ain't pretty, but they're
cute in that pit-bull sort of way. Trolls are ugly in that cockroach sort
of way.
franko
2005-05-13 10:25:19 UTC
Permalink
På Fri, 13 May 2005 11:18:22 +0200, skrev Simon Nejmann
<***@worldonline.dk>:

I am horde shaman troll living at croassroads, i rather have the alliance
in greater number at battleground , where horde who want to fight can
oppose them, that having my city being raided by a far superior force
every 15 minutes.
Especially if the hordes willing to fight them back are all at battleground

Malvolio Shaman lvl 33.
Post by Simon Nejmann
Post by geronimo
I was wondering why they put a queue system to access the
battlegrounds, and
realized that's probably a way to ensure that both sides are balanced, i.e
there won't be a battleground instance with 10 alliance against 0 horde. It
will probably wait until there's 10 (or 40) on each side (or a number close
to that) to open access to the BG.
Can somebody who has tried the BGs on test confirm/infirm that ?
I'm not on test, but that is how Blizzard always has stated that it
will work.
Post by geronimo
side effect : if there's much more alliance than horde on a serveur,
alliance players won't be able to access the BGs easily !
Yup, sucks to be alliance...
On the other hand, those who can't get into BG can just go raid a
horde city - all from horde who are interested in PvP will likely be
tied up in the BG, so you should be able to raid unopposed...
--
Sendt med M2 - Operas revolusjonerende e-postprogram:
http://www.opera.com/m2/
Simon Nejmann
2005-05-13 10:50:30 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 13 May 2005 12:25:19 +0200, franko
Post by franko
I am horde shaman troll living at croassroads, i rather have the alliance
in greater number at battleground , where horde who want to fight can
oppose them, that having my city being raided by a far superior force
every 15 minutes.
I follow you logic, and would be happy too if that happened - but it
won't...

If the horde side becomes as outnumbered in the battlegrounds as they
are outside, there is no reason to go in there... Why rush into a
battle you can't win - especially when losing hands a price to your
opponent that makes them even harder to beat the next time.

If Blizzard allowed alliance to outnumber horde in battlegrounds, they
might as well not put them in, because nobody would use them...
--
Regards
Simon Nejmann
David Carson
2005-05-14 03:59:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Nejmann
On Fri, 13 May 2005 12:25:19 +0200, franko
Post by franko
I am horde shaman troll living at croassroads, i rather have the alliance
in greater number at battleground , where horde who want to fight can
oppose them, that having my city being raided by a far superior force
every 15 minutes.
I follow you logic, and would be happy too if that happened - but it
won't...
If the horde side becomes as outnumbered in the battlegrounds as they
are outside, there is no reason to go in there... Why rush into a
battle you can't win - especially when losing hands a price to your
opponent that makes them even harder to beat the next time.
They won't be, because the battlegrounds are instanced with population
control.

If there are 40 Horde wanting to fight, and 100 Alliance, then you'll
get one 40-vs-40 Battleground, and 60 miserable Alliance players
standing in a queue feeling sorry for themselves.
Post by Simon Nejmann
If Blizzard allowed alliance to outnumber horde in battlegrounds, they
might as well not put them in, because nobody would use them...
Don't worry, the battlegrounds are an absolute godsend to those in
heavily outnumbered factions who are sick of getting zerged. In fact,
I'll be willing to bet that the more outnumbered the Horde is on your
server, the more they will dominate the battleground, due to the
Alliance being lazy and disorganised after months of easy mode PvP.

Cheers!
David...
gaf1234567890
2005-05-15 15:24:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Carson
Post by Simon Nejmann
If the horde side becomes as outnumbered in the battlegrounds as they
are outside, there is no reason to go in there... Why rush into a
battle you can't win - especially when losing hands a price to your
opponent that makes them even harder to beat the next time.
They won't be, because the battlegrounds are instanced with
population
Post by David Carson
control.
If there are 40 Horde wanting to fight, and 100 Alliance, then you'll
get one 40-vs-40 Battleground, and 60 miserable Alliance players
standing in a queue feeling sorry for themselves.
Just to clarify...

I moved my L45 Warlock over to the Test server, and while I've only
done the 10v10 Warsong Gulch Battleground a couple times, the OP
doesn't have much to worry about.

1) Although there are only two BG's at this time (Barrens 10v10, and
Alterac 40v40), each of those BG's has many simultaneous instances
running at once. The one on the Barrens/Ashenvale border had about a
dozen simultaneous instances for my level range (41-50) running when I
tried it. There WERE alot of Horde players just waiting to get in
though. I had to wait about 30 minutes before I got the summons. So
either there weren't enough Alliance online at the time, or the Server
has a finite limit on exactly how many instances it can spawn. I think
it's the latter, meaning that NOT EVERYONE on the whole server will be
in the Battlegrounds at once after they go live.

2) The BG's do wait until both sides have a full team. So any
serverwide population imbalance won't be seen within the BG's.

3) There *IS* a level limit of entering the Alterac BG. I couldn't get
in at L45, so I think it's limited to L51-60. The Barrens BG puts you
in with people your own level too, so it's not just getting ganked by
L60's.

SO...

To answer the OP's original question, Yes, the system is very fair even
on servers where the Horde is greatly outnumbered. Plus, depending on
how they configure server limits, *Both* sides will have to wait to get
into the Battlegrounds at peak times. The wait times will be a
reflection of the imbalance, so if your server has an Alliance/Horde
ratio of 1.5 to 1, then they'll have to wait 45 minutes instead of 30.
It's not as much of a "gift" as the Alliance are speculating from what
I could tell.

I don't think Splintertree will be effected by this any more or less
than Aastranar if players decide to just go pilliage and plunder while
they wait. I do think zones far away from the BG's in the same level
range (Stonetalon, Desolace, 1k Needles, etc) will actually get quieter
than they are now. For instance, there really won't be much need/desire
for the Horde to go raid Darkshire anymore just because it's an easy
target.

I think on PvE servers the Battlegrounds will very quickly replace
raiding towns as the main way to farm Honor. On PvP servers the level
60's now have tons of ways to spend their time besides
ganking/griefing. So far it looks like it's going to be really fun and
work out well.

My only complaint, which Blizzard even acknowledged as a problem, is
that it's *REALLY* hard to go into a BG with just your own guild. Two
or three friends who are already Teamed won't have any issues staying
together. But BG's aren't going to make it very easy to duke it out
with a specific enemy from the other faction for bragging rights. That
means that players are besically PvP'ing for their own Honor/CP, not
their guilds. And if you hate playing with any complete strangers,
you'll have to wait for them to address this.

Of course it also makes it really hard to "tweek" a 10v10 group with
exactly the right mix of perfect classes and levels. But I think this
is actually a good thing. If you could just dominate 10v10 with 4
Rogues, 2 Shamen, 2 Hunters and 2 Priests who were all the exact max
for the instance (30, 40, 50) it would re-create the problem with
certain classes not being welcome.
Michael Vondung
2005-05-16 08:47:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Carson
and 60 miserable Alliance players
standing in a queue feeling sorry for themselves.
No, Blizzard gets sixty dissatisfied customers who feel cheated out of
their paid-for content. But anyway, BG isn't going to be my thing anyway
... 40 vs 40 is too large scale for me. I'd pefer 10 vs 10 or 20 vs 20, but
anything else is too sluggish and chaotic. All IMO of course.

M.
--
ClamWin, an open source antivirus software for Windows:
http://www.clamwin.com/
David Carson
2005-05-16 10:56:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Vondung
and 60 miserable Alliance players standing in a queue feeling sorry
for themselves.
No, Blizzard gets sixty dissatisfied customers who feel cheated out
of their paid-for content.
They can reroll Horde. :-)

But seriously, while you're queueing, you can go anywhere and do
anything, and you'll be teleported to the BG as soon as you hit the
front of the queue, which is nice.
Post by Michael Vondung
But anyway, BG isn't going to be my thing anyway ... 40 vs 40 is too
large scale for me. I'd pefer 10 vs 10 or 20 vs 20, but anything else
is too sluggish and chaotic. All IMO of course.
Well there is the 10 vs 10 Battleground in Warsong Gulch!

But I certainly found the 40 vs 40 in Alterac to be less chaotic than
the Southshore/Tarren Mill zerg rushes, just because there were various
different things that different groups of players were off doing. Still
may not be to your taste, but worth a look.

Cheers!
David...
sanjian
2005-05-16 21:07:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Carson
Post by Michael Vondung
and 60 miserable Alliance players standing in a queue feeling sorry
for themselves.
No, Blizzard gets sixty dissatisfied customers who feel cheated out of
their paid-for content.
They can reroll Horde. :-)
But seriously, while you're queueing, you can go anywhere and do anything,
and you'll be teleported to the BG as soon as you hit the front of the
queue, which is nice.
So don't get involved in a group, since I'm sure they won't like you bailing
on them in the middle of an instance. And don't start a quest that requires
quest spawns (ie, the first part of the Vegitarian's Fist quest or the
Missing Diplomat quest part that takes place at the inn in the Wetlands)
The fact is, if I log in wanting to go the BG, then I want to go to the BG,
not do other random stuff while waiting for it.
Michael Vondung
2005-05-17 11:15:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Carson
Well there is the 10 vs 10 Battleground in Warsong Gulch!
Ah, I actually didn't know that, but this does sound good! 10 vs 10 is
something I might enjoy, and will definitely give a try. Where will that BG
be located at?

That way I might be able to stay a disc/holy priest and can focus on
healing rather than having to respec to shadow and do the killing.

M.
--
ClamWin, an open source antivirus software for Windows:
http://www.clamwin.com/
David Carson
2005-05-17 12:10:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Vondung
Post by David Carson
Well there is the 10 vs 10 Battleground in Warsong Gulch!
Ah, I actually didn't know that, but this does sound good! 10 vs 10 is
something I might enjoy, and will definitely give a try. Where will that BG
be located at?
The Alliance entry is in Ashenvale, the Horde entry is in the Barrens.

It is for level 21+, and the instances are divided into level ranges
(21-30, 31-40, 41-50, 51-60).
Post by Michael Vondung
That way I might be able to stay a disc/holy priest and can focus on
healing rather than having to respec to shadow and do the killing.
All the best for it!

Cheers!
David...
gaf1234567890
2005-05-17 12:49:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Carson
Post by Michael Vondung
Post by David Carson
Well there is the 10 vs 10 Battleground in Warsong Gulch!
Ah, I actually didn't know that, but this does sound good!
10 vs 10 is something I might enjoy, and will definitely give
a try. Where will that BG be located at?
The Alliance entry is in Ashenvale, the Horde entry is in the
Barrens.It is for level 21+, and the instances are divided into
level ranges (21-30, 31-40, 41-50, 51-60).
One comment. The level ranges on Warsong Gulch will probably change
before BG's go live. Lots of players have pointed out that Blizzard
goofed by putting L40's in with L31-L39 because you have players with
Mounts fighting against those without Mounts. This also goes for having
L60's that have Epic Mounts (and purple gear) fighting against 51-59's
that don't.

The levels *SHOULD* be: 20-29, 30-39, 40-49, 50-59, and L60's by
themselves. I would be shocked if this doesn't change before they
release it.

Other than that, I can personally say that Warsong Gulch is really fun.
I've even seen in the chat on the Test server that people with a
philosophical problem with Capture the Flag being part of an RPG admit
they did a great job with it after they try it.
David Carson
2005-05-17 13:29:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by gaf1234567890
One comment. The level ranges on Warsong Gulch will probably change
before BG's go live. Lots of players have pointed out that Blizzard
goofed by putting L40's in with L31-L39 because you have players with
Mounts fighting against those without Mounts. This also goes for having
L60's that have Epic Mounts (and purple gear) fighting against 51-59's
that don't.
The levels *SHOULD* be: 20-29, 30-39, 40-49, 50-59, and L60's by
themselves. I would be shocked if this doesn't change before they
release it.
Indeed, I even agitated for that change on the Suggestions forum myself. ;-)

Cheers!
David...

ASKF
2005-05-13 12:57:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by franko
På Fri, 13 May 2005 11:18:22 +0200, skrev Simon Nejmann
I am horde shaman troll living at croassroads, i rather have the alliance
in greater number at battleground , where horde who want to fight can
oppose them, that having my city being raided by a far superior force
every 15 minutes.
Especially if the hordes willing to fight them back are all at battleground
Malvolio Shaman lvl 33.
You're still living at XR?

There ain't any quests for you to do there as lvl 33 (I think the last
one is opened as lvl 30, and takes you to Shimmering Flats), so it
should only be a transit point.

I'll suggest you go to Shimmering Flats instead, and when you hit lvl
34-35 go to Desolace, if Strangelhorn Vale is too populated with
Alliance, then move to Dustwallow Marsh. Barrens kindda loose interest
when past lvl 25 :-D

Snoogromf Shaman lvl 36 - Bloodscalp
--
Allan Stig Kiilerich Frederiksen
"When you try to change a mans paradigm, you must keep in mind that he
can hear you only through the filter of the paradigm he holds."
-Myron Tribus
Vladesch
2005-05-13 20:08:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Nejmann
On the other hand, those who can't get into BG can just go raid a
horde city - all from horde who are interested in PvP will likely be
tied up in the BG, so you should be able to raid unopposed...
Oh joy... killing guards. I cant wait.
flame_thrower
2005-05-13 15:44:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by geronimo
I was wondering why they put a queue system to access the battlegrounds, and
realized that's probably a way to ensure that both sides are balanced, i.e
there won't be a battleground instance with 10 alliance against 0 horde. It
will probably wait until there's 10 (or 40) on each side (or a number close
to that) to open access to the BG.
Can somebody who has tried the BGs on test confirm/infirm that ?
side effect : if there's much more alliance than horde on a serveur,
alliance players won't be able to access the BGs easily !
i'll add this - on the test server last night to enter the Alterac BG on
Alliance side you had to be lvl 51-60
Loading...