Thoughts on WG?

Heya all! After the most recent patch I have seen the Horde winning WG more than ever. Obviously most players on Horde side are pretty pleased with the change. However my question is what do the alliance here think about it? Personally I like the change (horde.. duh..) but I feel like it could of been better implemented. Blizz never implemented the mechanic to prevent it from being a 1:1 ratio when it's under 25 players which they said they would implement. Currently as it stands we could just send in 1 player to WG and the Alliance could only have one as well.

All in all it still needs some tweaking imo but I am still in favor of it. Thoughts?
Reply Quote
I haven't really ever cared much for VOA myself, I'm just in it for the pvp.
Reply Quote
85 Worgen Druid
7840
I don't really care about WG at all, and I'm not sure anyone else does, to be honest.

As for the 1:1 thing, we'll be having a 15vs15 Tol Barad instead of 15 vs 100. Might be cool, might be terrible.

Reply Quote
My only concern is if they leave it like it is without the soft cap. If they do, Horde will prolly win all the time which doesn't solve the problem, it just flips it around which is imo, boring.

Edit: this is in regards for Tol Borad.
Edited by Lazypeon on 11/22/2010 12:11 PM PST
Reply Quote
85 Worgen Druid
12840
They did say that they might tweak the system just for "exception" servers with huge faction imbalances. I don't know exactly what that means, but yeah, I think it'd be pretty lame to limit Tol Barad to 15v15 or something. We'll see how it works out.
Reply Quote
85 Worgen Druid
9810
Yeah, horde have won more recently.

But 99% of the alliance probably doesn't care. We've had WG for the last 2 years. With Cataclysm coming in 2 weeks, it's no surprise that people don't care.
Reply Quote
Yeah, horde have won more recently.

But 99% of the alliance probably doesn't care. We've had WG for the last 2 years. With Cataclysm coming in 2 weeks, it's no surprise that people don't care.
No doubt. Most horde don't really care for it either tbh. VOA doesn't mean anything really. Mostly just trying to see how people think of from a pvp perspective. Hope they do tweak the system.
Reply Quote
Sorry.

I've always liked Titanium Ore and JC Daily Gems more than losing rolls.
good thing this isn't talking about VOA.

Edit: Typo.
Edited by Lazypeon on 11/22/2010 5:25 PM PST
Reply Quote
85 Human Rogue
9255
Thoughts on WG.

As an individual player - I don't like not being able to play. Obviously. I understand the "why" of the 1:1 balance, but I don't have to like it. Now that we have that relatively simple task out of the way...

As a member of the larger stormrage community, I understand that both sides need to be given a good chance to win the battle, in order to make it sporting or what have you, or at very least to encourage the Horde to just not give up completely. I am not so concerned about WG anymore as I am whether or not the lessons of WG will be lost going into Tol Barad. So without further lamentation, let me touch upon several key aspects of the WG battle which I think deserve further analysis so as to possibly prevent the current 1:1 system from being implimented again.

#1 - The southern towers. The effect that the existence of these have on the attacker is crippling if the attacker is outnumbered (such as our Horde friends usually are). They force an already small force to further divide its forces to defend the towers, whereas the Alliance (such as usually has/had the fortress) knows that they must only defend that tiny set of doors leading to the relic. Classic military strategy tells us that an attacker wants to concentrate their forces against a selected weak point of the defense: the existence of the towers preclude this. Essentially it forces the attacker to fight on whats called "exterior lines" which is a very bad idea if you are outnumbered.

#2 - The vehicles. The vehicles, with their variety of scaling problems, were a critical weakness for the attacker, because it doesn't take a genius on the defending side to realize that this was the attackers only path into the fortress. With the vehicles unable be healed, even a small amount of damage from a large number of attackers added up over time. I believe that our Horde friends eventually started to wise up to this towards the end of WG as I saw more and more Horde attacks with few vehicles but lots of guards on foot. A wise alliance player would ignore horde players and simply focus on the vehicles (which I did, generally).

#2a - the RPGs. The existence of RPGs in virtually limitless quantities enabled even the weakest of characters to do significant damage to the vehicles. With their relatively long range, one could (and I did this many times) get off one or even multiple shots against vehicles from concealed areas before vehicle defenders even had a chance of reaching the shooter.

#3 - Tenacity. Tenacity was a good idea but it didn't address the entire problem. In fact it helped emphasize what was really important in pvp encounters such as this one - crowd control. Tenacity made our horde friends virtually invincible juggernaughts, however their class weaknesses remained inherent, and a good player could shut down an entire fighting line of horde with a chain CC combo against critical players (healers, namely). Tenacity did nothing to fight these effects and once they were pulled off, horde lines crumpled against incoming allied fire, however weak.

Anyway, that's all I have for now. Obviously there are more points and subpoints and analyses of the various factors to be made, but I feel these are the major ones.

Reply Quote
Thoughts on WG.

As an individual player - I don't like not being able to play. Obviously. I understand the "why" of the 1:1 balance, but I don't have to like it. Now that we have that relatively simple task out of the way...

As a member of the larger stormrage community, I understand that both sides need to be given a good chance to win the battle, in order to make it sporting or what have you, or at very least to encourage the Horde to just not give up completely. I am not so concerned about WG anymore as I am whether or not the lessons of WG will be lost going into Tol Barad. So without further lamentation, let me touch upon several key aspects of the WG battle which I think deserve further analysis so as to possibly prevent the current 1:1 system from being implimented again.

#1 - The southern towers. The effect that the existence of these have on the attacker is crippling if the attacker is outnumbered (such as our Horde friends usually are). They force an already small force to further divide its forces to defend the towers, whereas the Alliance (such as usually has/had the fortress) knows that they must only defend that tiny set of doors leading to the relic. Classic military strategy tells us that an attacker wants to concentrate their forces against a selected weak point of the defense: the existence of the towers preclude this. Essentially it forces the attacker to fight on whats called "exterior lines" which is a very bad idea if you are outnumbered.

#2 - The vehicles. The vehicles, with their variety of scaling problems, were a critical weakness for the attacker, because it doesn't take a genius on the defending side to realize that this was the attackers only path into the fortress. With the vehicles unable be healed, even a small amount of damage from a large number of attackers added up over time. I believe that our Horde friends eventually started to wise up to this towards the end of WG as I saw more and more Horde attacks with few vehicles but lots of guards on foot. A wise alliance player would ignore horde players and simply focus on the vehicles (which I did, generally).

#2a - the RPGs. The existence of RPGs in virtually limitless quantities enabled even the weakest of characters to do significant damage to the vehicles. With their relatively long range, one could (and I did this many times) get off one or even multiple shots against vehicles from concealed areas before vehicle defenders even had a chance of reaching the shooter.

#3 - Tenacity. Tenacity was a good idea but it didn't address the entire problem. In fact it helped emphasize what was really important in pvp encounters such as this one - crowd control. Tenacity made our horde friends virtually invincible juggernaughts, however their class weaknesses remained inherent, and a good player could shut down an entire fighting line of horde with a chain CC combo against critical players (healers, namely). Tenacity did nothing to fight these effects and once they were pulled off, horde lines crumpled against incoming allied fire, however weak.

Anyway, that's all I have for now. Obviously there are more points and subpoints and analyses of the various factors to be made, but I feel these are the major ones.
I truly like this detailed response a lot mate ;D!
Reply Quote
90 Tauren Hunter
8360
I havent done WG since the change, but I heard from horde buddies that its fun now, and heard from a few alliance that it sucks now. These could easily turn into a skill > number debate, but please try to avoid that if possible. If they would have done this earlier, we could have a better response, but since noone really has one, this will probably be our Tol Barad way of doing it (at least for a while). honestly, its fair. I'm interested in seeing this in cata.
Reply Quote
90 Tauren Hunter
8360
I havent done WG since the change, but I heard from horde buddies that its fun now, and heard from a few alliance that it sucks now. These could easily turn into a skill > number debate, but please try to avoid that if possible. If they would have done this earlier, we could have a better response, but since noone really has one, this will probably be our Tol Barad way of doing it (at least for a while). honestly, its fair. I'm interested in seeing this in cata.
Reply Quote

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]