Wintergrasp

85 Human Priest
8745
I understand people are upset over the fact of tenacity. And I suppose that is where this change came about.

But I do not think it is right to punish people in general by not allowing them to participate in Wintergrasp just because the server is imbalanced.

Fixing the imbalance should be the priority not tenacity and not limiting the numbers on both sides.

Not being able to get into Wintergrasp and seeing only 7 people in the fight and 2 of these being farming bots was disheartening to say the least.

I think this solution sounds great on paper but it is not working.
85 Human Priest
8745
In some of the servers the imbalance is so far it is 4 or 5:1. I really don't see this as a moot point but one that should be addressed.
100 Draenei Shaman
11060
I can understand where you're coming from Ty, but the fact of the matter is, there needs to be a better set of checks and balances. As you stated, tenacity was obviously not the answer (I had 9 stacks of tenacity the other day. This was at about 5:30 PM.) but how else would they be able to balance the zone once it's PvP enabled? Oh, and I assure you, Blizzard won't want to dump one of their cash cow services.

One of the tricks I've learned in life, is to not present a problem unless you have a viable solution. Not that you can't do it, but you're complaint will fall on deaf ears...
85 Human Priest
8745
I can understand where you're coming from Ty, but the fact of the matter is, there needs to be a better set of checks and balances. As you stated, tenacity was obviously not the answer (I had 9 stacks of tenacity the other day. This was at about 5:30 PM.) but how else would they be able to balance the zone once it's PvP enabled? Oh, and I assure you, Blizzard won't want to dump one of their cash cow services.

One of the tricks I've learned in life, is to not present a problem unless you have a viable solution. Not that you can't do it, but you're complaint will fall on deaf ears...


I have presented the solution before.. if a server gets to 2:1 then the side with 2 should be locked till the other side gets caught up.

As far as balance IN the world pvp zone.... If your fellow mates don't want to help then I think that would be a different issue all together. One side shouldn't be punished just because they have more that "care".
100 Human Paladin
21400
I'm glad that they are auto balancing now, WG is now forced 1:1, and the Alliance can win again!
100 Gnome Mage
13080
Tenacity never worked because when you are way outnumbered you just get stun locked and die anyways. A 1:1 ratio match up is much more fair, but on servers where one side's pvp participation vastly outweighs the other, it sucks for the more populous side because it's hard to get in. No way to avoid it really. It's either faceroll for one side or people on one side hardly ever get in. They'd have to couple tenacity with stun/snare resistance for it to work at all.

That said, back when it started, WG was pretty even on my server. Eventually Horde dominated it so that alliance almost never had it. Maybe occasionally on a Tuesday right after maintenance or very late at night, but that was it. Now alliance gets it maybe 30-40% of the time. It's a better system so far as balance goes, but it does make it really hard to get in on horde side, though it's improved somewhat now that alliance has realized they have a chance at it, and more people have started participating again.
Edited by Lissancy on 11/17/2010 2:04 PM PST
80 Blood Elf Priest
2910
I understand people are upset over the fact of tenacity. And I suppose that is where this change came about.

But I do not think it is right to punish people in general by not allowing them to participate in Wintergrasp just because the server is imbalanced.

Fixing the imbalance should be the priority not tenacity and not limiting the numbers on both sides.

Not being able to get into Wintergrasp and seeing only 7 people in the fight and 2 of these being farming bots was disheartening to say the least.

I think this solution sounds great on paper but it is not working.


It works for me just fine. When I want to do WG, I queue up when the next battle is in 14:59. Haven't missed a single WG yet.
100 Draenei Shaman
11060
Like I said, Blizzard won't dump one of their paid services. Faction transfers are here to stay, there will be no "locking" of factions. As for total server numbers, they do tell you when the server is full.

You need to present a viable solution, and by viable solution, I mean one that makes Blizzard more coin, not less.
90 Undead Mage
8555
it shouldn't be up to blizzard to try and enforce balance in a world zone. if they wish to make it into an instance then they can enforce balance. it's up to you and your fellow players to gather your teams for world pvp zones.

did they limit the amount of peple in nagrand for halaa?..nope.

it's asinine to lock out one side or the other because one set of players don't/can't/wont queue up for something.

throw in an extra bonus for the side tha'ts always undermanned and perhaps they can then light up a fire of "care" under their own faction.

until then it's world pvp, don't want to die don't come. want to win gather your friends and fellow faction players and come get some
85 Undead Rogue
5225
TC, have you ever played WG on the minority faction? It's not fun getting your ass handed to you repeatedly because the other team can be everywhere at once in greater numbers, and it's not fun to constantly be on the lookout for those rare moments of control when you can do VoA or farm elementals that only happen a few times a week or ridiculously late at night.

It's not about one side being undermotivated, it's about one side having fewer total people. If both factions have the same amount of "motivation," the one with more total players is always going to bring more people.

Admittedly, it sounds like the auto-balancer has been kind of buggy. Even on the worst times my underrepresented faction usually gets 20 or so people, and there was supposed to be a minimum cap of 10 or so to prevent a minority faction from outright boycotting. If it's 8v8 then something is probably wrong.
90 Undead Warlock
14295
Poorly designed zone being recreated in similar fashion with the same poor design was a smart move. I'm glad they didn't learn from Wintergrasp.


Yeah, this... I mean, on balanced realms it was a rather fun battle. On heavily imbalanced realms it was ridiculous. I'm guessing that the first few days/week will be balanced since everyone will be interested in it, however it won't take that long until it's back to just a handful on one side. And at that point, it'll become just about impossible for the other side to even play, because there will be an absurdly low player limit. I'm not about to reroll Alliance just to be one of the 12 that will participate in a PvP battle, personally.
90 Undead Mage
8555
and to the point wg is balanced only 120 can be in it on each side.. there are no servers here that i'm aware of that have less than 120 lvl 80's on either side.

it is up to YOU to get your faction into gear and queue up.

and you can win outnumbered, just takes some strategy and ability.
Community Manager
In patch 4.0.3, Wintergrasp queuing was changed so that each battle attempts to match the factions at a 1-to-1 ratio. This is the exact system being used for Tol Barad in Cataclysm. While we understand that this inflates queue times for factions which are vastly overpopulated on select realms, we prefer this system over using Tenacity. In addition, the new system at least encourages playing on a faction that's better balanced against the opposing faction. With the old Wintergrasp functionality, players were almost encouraged to be on an overpopulated faction, further contributing to realm balance issues.

That said, we'll review realms with significant faction imbalances on a case-by-case basis in the event we need to take further action.

Tol Barad preview: http://us.battle.net/wow/en/blog/1159457
85 Human Priest
8745
In patch 4.0.3, Wintergrasp queuing was changed so that each battle attempts to match the factions at a 1-to-1 ratio. This is the exact system being used for Tol Barad in Cataclysm. While we understand that this inflates queue times for factions which are vastly overpopulated on select realms, we prefer this system over using Tenacity. In addition, the new system at least encourages playing on a faction that's better balanced against the opposing faction. With the old Wintergrasp functionality, players were almost encouraged to be on an overpopulated faction, further contributing to realm balance issues.

That said, we'll review realms with significant faction imbalances on a case-by-case basis in the event we need to take further action.

Tol Barad preview: <a href="http://us.battle.net/wow/en/blog/1159457" target="_new">http://us.battle.net/wow/en/blog/1159457</a>


Never got a blue response before, thanks bud:) The information helps:D
90 Undead Mage
8555
then don't make it a WORLD pvp zone. make it into an instance. then you can enforce balance.
you don't limit the amount of players that can appear into an opposing factions capital city on unbalanced servers do you? no you don't. so why did you do this wg and tol barad? because so many people cried that they couldn't get or do something related to the zone?

there isn't a server out there that didn't have the 120 lvl 80's or appropiate levels to enter wg on each side. it's up to that opposing faction to rally their own forces.

if you want to force balance then make it into an instance and not a world pvp zone
This topic has reached its post limit. You may no longer post or reply to posts for this topic.

Please report any Code of Conduct violations, including:

Threats of violence. We take these seriously and will alert the proper authorities.

Posts containing personal information about other players. This includes physical addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and inappropriate photos and/or videos.

Harassing or discriminatory language. This will not be tolerated.

Forums Code of Conduct

Report Post # written by

Reason
Explain (256 characters max)
Submit Cancel

Reported!

[Close]