Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Balance of Power and the Undead.

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 8:01:47 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

Everybody moans about the fact that the horde is way outnumbered by the
Alliance.

Why is this?

Well it could be down to the following reasons:

1> People prefer the alliance, as they are the good guys.
2> A real life friend is already alliance so you join them.
3> Guilds from other games such as SWG start playing alliance
characters.
4> The character models are more easy on the eye.

How can this be addressed?

My thought on this would be to make the horde more appealing.

I don`t mean make the characters better looking, but to provide more
choice when picking
you character.

If some new Horde specific classes were to be made then people would go
horde to try these.

Lets say Necromancer for the undead only would be a good start.

This would not spoil the existing game world by any way but would
provide
more incentive for new players to go horde. I.e if you want to be able
to summon skeletons etc then
you need to go horde.

Any thoughts.

More about : balance power undead

Anonymous
July 6, 2005 8:22:22 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

>Everybody moans about the fact that the horde is way outnumbered by the
>Alliance.

>Why is this?

*sigh* not this old chestnut again. I'll advise you to trawl through
the ng archive. You will find many posts about this and hours of
reading.
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 8:51:42 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

I disagree. This is JUST as important on PVE as well.

My server is PVE & is outnumbered about 3-1.

I have played a Human,Dwarf,Night Elf & Undead all on the same server.

You try mining or herbalism when 3 times more people are all doing the
same thing!

Also have you ever seen the Alliance queue for Warsong Gulch!

And lastly the old favourite Ironforge LAG!

Dont let me get started on that old favourite!
Related resources
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 9:09:30 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

Also I forgot to add this previously.

I know that the Horde vs Alliance ratio has been discussed many times
before.

However I am sure Blizzard can afford to pay somebody to read through
the forums for ideas.

Some of the best ideas come out of these sort of discussion groups.

95% of people who post on this news group play WOW.

We are Blizzards customers by playing/paying for WOW.

As a customer base if enough input is put into a topic on a forum then
Blizzard should (if they are sensible)
act on it.

As customers this is one of our best ways of voicing what we want in a
product we pay good money for.

I don`t mean Spamming newsgroups shouting we want Necromancer's etc.

But keeping a topic alive has more chance that Blizzard will take note,
and do something about it.
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 11:05:18 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

>There's nothing wrong with that. The only problem I see is just:
>as long as the A:H ratio is like 2:1, it's antisocial to
>pick alliance because it weakens the game experience even more.

Er surely that would mean the antisocial thing to do would be to pick
horde because there are less people and therefore less to interact
with? If you want to interact with the most players you pick Alliance.

Par in mind a great number of Alliance players means there going to be
a greater number of idiots. It's just as incorrect generalisation to
say all horde are evil ganking so and so or alliance players are
cowards looking for an easy life.

I didn't pick Alliance because I wanted and easy life. I picked a PvE
server because I didn't want some idiot killing me over and over
again when I wanted to do a quest. I picked Alliance because I
preferred the look of the chars. (I had a good look at the all first.)
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 11:17:29 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

Hi,

Original poster here.

I must say that this thread has gone slightly off topic. I did not want
to get into the whole Alliance vs Horde in the sense of which one is
better.

I wanted to just see peoples thoughts on addressing the balance of
numbers between the two.

When I pick a character I choose a class first and then a race which
matches best.

I.e I picked my characters in the following order.

Hunter: I choose dwarf for gun specialization.

Rogue: Night elf for the extra stealth bonus.

Paladin: Already had a dwarf so went human to try new starting area.

Mage: Went undead purely as already had human.

Anyway im going off topic now. Must be contagious. :) 

Back to point of thread. How do we get the ratios more in line.
As stated originally my idea was to add a Necromancer class for Undead
only.

This will give people slightly more choice on the Horde side of things.

It may even tip the balance too far though. If a new class was added
tommorow,
how many alts of that class would suddenly appear?

My question to the forum is how would you level the balance out?
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 12:24:29 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

>My question to the forum is how would you level the balance out?

My question is does it matter? So, there a more alliance then horde on
my server. So, what? It might make BG a pain but I'm not interest in
that so it's not really an issue.

Plus if you are worried about queue times in BG there are other
options. Making it server wide for one.

I'm not sure a Nec will help. A sizable number of people don't play
warlocks and it would have to offer more then the same pets in a
different skin. And if it did it would unbalance things, which would
upset more people then it pleased.
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 1:26:23 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

It actually works well for the horde, and in some way the Battlegrounds
have amde many people create Horde characters. Why? the waiting
time. If there are 100 Horde and 600 Alliance wanting to go to a
battleground, the 100 horde will go while 500 alliance guys will have
to wait.
I know all the PvP guys in my guild created Horde characters just
because of this
July 6, 2005 1:44:12 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 trawetstrebor@hotmail.com wrote:

> I imagine if one is playing a role, or only doing quests, or maybe
> occasionally dabbling in attacks on the towns and outposts of evil,
> they'll tend to play the "good" side with an Alliance character.
>
> What role-player is going to want to find himself in the Undercity as
> they torture and execute alliance races? Will they cheer on the
> sidelines?

IMO, all of the Horde races have a lot of room for some very interesting
RP, if you can avoid the cheesies. The shamanistic/tribal nature of the
non-undead horde races has lots of potential in building a non-standard
background for your character, and certainly with some care you could
craft an interesting scenario to flesh out an undead character (pardon the
pun).

I don't actually play WoW, so I don't know the extent to which
people are taking advantage of these opportunities: I think it would be a
real shame to have people wasting this potential by just playing the
stereotypical Gengis-Khanish pillager or bloodthirsty vamp.

Also, on an RP server, I think that the inability to communicate in
words with rival faction characters eliminates a whole slew of interesting
interactions. I mean, what's the point of destroying your enemy if you
can't monologue while you're doing it? :)  (Just saw the Incredibles,
sorry).

This is a totally artificial construct that sacrifices 'realism' (I
use that loosely) to strengthen the game mechanics. It seems strange to
disallow the possibility for a learned individual to pick up a
foreign language. I mean, in WarIII you see Arthas yakking at opposing
faction leaders all the time; he doesn't have to /wave and otherwise
act like a monkey to get his point across to Mal'Ganis. Why the sudden
backslide? In PvE and PvP this is mostly irrelevant, but I would be
reluctant to invest time in an RP server if there is no way to communicate
with (potentially more than) half of its inhabitants.

Unless, of course, there is such a way, and I've made an ass of myself by
commenting on a game I've never played before ^_^ So be it.

Back to lurking.

-Debo
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 2:04:37 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

Hi.

Original poster here.

I did not want the thread to go this way, but something annoyed me.

"AFTER they had their ally chars levelled quite high. And the generel
> consens, at least on this server, is that ganking is coming far more
> often from alliance side, and that the general immaturity is in the
> hand of the alliance."

Seeing this kind of thing REALLY ANNOYS ME!

Why everyone keeps putting stuff like this is beyond me.

Let me explain.

Lets say out of every 10 players:
2 are complete immature morons.
1 is a really nice honurable person.
7 are just ordinary people trying to just have fun without being an
arse, but without being overly helpful.

The average Alliance vs Horde ratio is 3-1.
So if 500 Horde are on a server you are going to roughly get
100 morons and 50 cool people.

going with the above ratio means you will have 1500 alliance players
which equates to 300 morons but 150 cool people.

So yes there will always be more immature morons on the alliance side,
but they will have 3 times as many cool people as the Horde!

Just because somebody is an Alliance player does not make them
immature!

And just because somebody is Horde does not make them guranteed mature
adults!

I have met many idiots on both sides, and many cool players on both
sides.

Rant Over!
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 4:25:18 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

On 6 Jul 2005 04:01:47 -0700, "Chizel" <cgm@firstoption.com> wrote:

>
>Everybody moans about the fact that the horde is way outnumbered by the
>Alliance.
>
>Why is this?
>
>Well it could be down to the following reasons:
>
>1> People prefer the alliance, as they are the good guys.
>2> A real life friend is already alliance so you join them.
>3> Guilds from other games such as SWG start playing alliance
>characters.
>4> The character models are more easy on the eye.
>
>How can this be addressed?
>
>My thought on this would be to make the horde more appealing.
>
>I don`t mean make the characters better looking, but to provide more
>choice when picking
>you character.
>
>If some new Horde specific classes were to be made then people would go
>horde to try these.
>
>Lets say Necromancer for the undead only would be a good start.
>
>This would not spoil the existing game world by any way but would
>provide
>more incentive for new players to go horde. I.e if you want to be able
>to summon skeletons etc then
>you need to go horde.
>
>Any thoughts.

I'm not sure about the balance of Power, and it only really matters on
the PvP servers. There are a number of issues that affect peoples
choices I'm sure, A lot of young un's go for Horde because they are
"bad" and find it appealing to be a disgusting taint on the face of
the world. Others go for Munchkin power, If you introduce more
specific chars, you just tip the scales. Personally I chose Alliance
because I find the Horde unappealing. I don't really want to be a
smelly semi unintelligent race from another world or reanimated
carrion :) ) Part of the way the world has panned out means accepting
such things as being in a minority.
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 4:25:19 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

In article <1120653976.407325.106820@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
trawetstrebor@hotmail.com says...
> It's my experience that PVE/RP servers are Alliance heavy, PVP servers
> are Horde heavy. Take a look at the censii and compare for yourself.

I don't know where you are pulling this "info," but it's flat-out wrong.
Regardless of type, almost every single server has Alliance at 2:1 or
3:1 advantage. There are only 1 or 2 exceptions to this in the US.

--
Rob Berryhill
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 4:27:33 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

"BombayMix" <bombaymix@altavista.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1120648942.902711.215940@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
>> Everybody moans about the fact that the horde is way outnumbered by
>> the Alliance.
>
>> Why is this?
>
> *sigh* not this old chestnut again. I'll advise you to trawl through
> the ng archive. You will find many posts about this and hours of
> reading.

Not to rock any boats but this *is* a discussion group and although the
topic has been covered it's sometimes nice to reinitiate conversations to
keep things 'alive'.

No offence meant at all.

In response to Chizel:

Something does have to be addressed. On Bloodhoof (EU-PVE) we are
outnumbered by the Alliance 2.3:1 according to Warcraft Realms. This is
probably the reason why I have absolutely no interest in PVP whatsoever.
It's no fun fighting anything up to 3 level 60 Alliance at once only to get
killed and ganked.

I agree with the new classes. A necro would be a fantastic idea. I miss the
Zookeepers of Diablo 2 :) 

--
Moif of Bloodhoof <The Suffering>
http://www.wowrankings.com/viewb.htm?id=27138
http://www.the-suffering.co.uk
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 5:04:39 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

On 6 Jul 2005 04:51:42 -0700, "Chizel" <cgm@firstoption.com> wrote:

>I disagree. This is JUST as important on PVE as well.
>
>My server is PVE & is outnumbered about 3-1.
>
>I have played a Human,Dwarf,Night Elf & Undead all on the same server.
>
>You try mining or herbalism when 3 times more people are all doing the
>same thing!
>
>Also have you ever seen the Alliance queue for Warsong Gulch!
>
>And lastly the old favourite Ironforge LAG!
>
>Dont let me get started on that old favourite!

The mining and Herb picking will be the same wherever there are
concentrations of players regardless of side though. reading your
statement, I agree that it is important in PVE, especially when I
thought about turnaround times for battlegrounds. I admit to not
following the Battlegrounds as I keep forgetting they exist. I really
must go and look at some point or other.
Its still more of an issue in PvP circumstances, and I would have
thought it so in PVP servers where you are always open to ganking,
which seems to be the issue that upsets people. However, I've seen
Horde doing raids quite happily, it used to be all the rage in
astranaar.
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 5:18:43 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

I invited you to take a look yourself.

Here's where you can do so:

http://www.warcraftrealms.com/realmstats.php?sort=Ratio


Here are some figures I found.

RP Servers:

Server Alliance Horde Alliance:Horde Overall
Cenarion Circle 8,222 (79%) 2,244 (21%) 3.7:1 10,466
Argent Dawn 13,404 (75%) 4,566 (25%) 2.9:1 17,970
Earthen Ring 15,544 (71%) 6,323 (29%) 2.5:1 21,867
Scarlet Crusade 11,813 (68%) 5,516 (32%) 2.1:1 17,329
Silver Hand 11,877 (66%) 6,182 (34%) 1.9:1 18,059
Feathermoon 10,028 (64%) 5,576 (36%) 1.8:1 15,604
Shadow Council 7,519 (62%) 4,542 (38%) 1.7:1 12,061

RP servers are exclusively Alliance dominated and are home to 8.76% of
the playing population.

----

PVE servers:

Server Alliance Horde Alliance:Horde Overall
Kargath 8,273 (85%) 1,504 (15%) 5.5:1 9,777
Hellscream 10,443 (85%) 1,895 (15%) 5.5:1 12,338
Lothar 8,752 (84%) 1,719 (16%) 5.1:1 10,471
Lightbringer 9,686 (80%) 2,430 (20%) 4:1 12,116
Whisperwind 7,252 (78%) 2,006 (22%) 3.6:1 9,258
Alleria 13,050 (78%) 3,604 (22%) 3.6:1 16,654
Perenolde 10,486 (77%) 3,101 (23%) 3.4:1 13,587
Stormrage 9,228 (77%) 2,765 (23%) 3.3:1 11,993
Hyjal 7,729 (74%) 2,651 (26%) 2.9:1 10,380
Icecrown 8,340 (73%) 3,107 (27%) 2.7:1 11,447
Eonar 9,151 (71%) 3,798 (29%) 2.4:1 12,949
Windrunner 14,340 (71%) 5,982 (29%) 2.4:1 20,322
Thunderhorn 12,204 (71%) 5,057 (29%) 2.4:1 17,261
Elune 8,980 (69%) 3,989 (31%) 2.3:1 12,969
Dragonblight 7,017 (70%) 3,043 (30%) 2.3:1 10,060
Azjol-Nerub 10,890 (70%) 4,778 (30%) 2.3:1 15,668
Llane 8,617 (69%) 3,939 (31%) 2.2:1 12,556
Gilneas 11,153 (68%) 5,152 (32%) 2.2:1 16,305
Proudmoore 13,915 (67%) 6,759 (33%) 2.1:1 20,674
Terenas 9,384 (67%) 4,656 (33%) 2:1 14,040
Doomhammer 11,812 (66%) 6,016 (34%) 2:1 17,828
Bloodhoof 9,285 (66%) 4,865 (34%) 1.9:1 14,150
Suramar 12,300 (66%) 6,430 (34%) 1.9:1 18,730
Uther 11,078 (66%) 5,772 (34%) 1.9:1 16,850
Medivh 8,467 (65%) 4,626 (35%) 1.8:1 13,093
Silvermoon 6,708 (65%) 3,655 (35%) 1.8:1 10,363
Bronzebeard 10,910 (64%) 6,216 (36%) 1.8:1 17,126
Blackhand 10,164 (63%) 5,853 (37%) 1.7:1 16,017
Skywall 8,822 (62%) 5,370 (38%) 1.6:1 14,192
Zul'jin 8,538 (62%) 5,206 (38%) 1.6:1 13,744
Shadowsong 8,503 (61%) 5,333 (39%) 1.6:1 13,836
Garona 4,469 (61%) 2,826 (39%) 1.6:1 7,295
Kilrogg 10,181 (62%) 6,197 (38%) 1.6:1 16,378
Durotan 9,500 (60%) 6,330 (40%) 1.5:1 15,830
Cenarius 8,499 (59%) 5,836 (41%) 1.5:1 14,335
Khadgar 9,053 (59%) 6,333 (41%) 1.4:1 15,386
Aggramar 7,298 (56%) 5,838 (44%) 1.3:1 13,136
Eldre'Thalas 6,980 (57%) 5,306 (43%) 1.3:1 12,286
Uldum 7,423 (56%) 5,947 (44%) 1.2:1 13,370
Draenor 6,873 (54%) 5,838 (46%) 1.2:1 12,711
Dalaran 7,002 (50%) 6,913 (50%) 1:1 13,915
Malygos 4,112 (51%) 4,023 (49%) 1:1 8,135

Not a single PVE server has a Horde majority. And it is rare that they
are equal. 2, out of 42 servers, have near equal ratios.

PVE servers are home to 579,531 players or 44.78% of the playing
population.

(What's the attraction of PVE vs. RP? The ability to use L33Tspeak and
name your characters Dopey and Pizzoff?)


---

On the PVP servers, there are servers where the Alliance are in the
majority:

Server Alliance Horde Alliance:Horde Overall
Spinebreaker 6,696 (95%) 384 (5%) 17.4:1 7,080
Kel'Thuzad 11,649 (69%) 5,148 (31%) 2.3:1 16,797
Darkspear 8,073 (68%) 3,801 (32%) 2.1:1 11,874
Kil'Jaeden 11,878 (68%) 5,612 (32%) 2.1:1 17,490
Burning Blade 6,327 (65%) 3,404 (35%) 1.9:1 9,731
Tichondrius 7,782 (66%) 4,089 (34%) 1.9:1 11,871
Dragonmaw 8,261 (62%) 5,000 (38%) 1.7:1 13,261
Dunemaul 6,356 (63%) 3,681 (37%) 1.7:1 10,037
Stormreaver 6,159 (63%) 3,691 (37%) 1.7:1 9,850
Thunderlord 4,601 (63%) 2,708 (37%) 1.7:1 7,309
Azgalor 6,685 (62%) 4,118 (38%) 1.6:1 10,803
Destromath 8,585 (62%) 5,328 (38%) 1.6:1 13,913
Laughing Skull 9,458 (62%) 5,881 (38%) 1.6:1 15,339
Gorefiend 8,114 (61%) 5,236 (39%) 1.5:1 13,350
Mannoroth 8,950 (60%) 6,047 (40%) 1.5:1 14,997
Stonemaul 7,033 (61%) 4,589 (39%) 1.5:1 11,622
Archimonde 11,800 (59%) 8,299 (41%) 1.4:1 20,099
Burning Legion 5,554 (59%) 3,848 (41%) 1.4:1 9,402
Crushridge 5,543 (56%) 4,382 (44%) 1.3:1 9,925
Gorgonnash 6,249 (56%) 4,891 (44%) 1.3:1 11,140
Shattered Hand 7,345 (56%) 5,775 (44%) 1.3:1 13,120
Daggerspine 6,365 (55%) 5,233 (45%) 1.2:1 11,598
Eredar 6,057 (55%) 4,988 (45%) 1.2:1 11,045
Warsong 9,889 (54%) 8,349 (46%) 1.2:1 18,238
Dethecus 7,107 (53%) 6,309 (47%) 1.1:1 13,416
Nathrezim 4,658 (52%) 4,307 (48%) 1.1:1 8,965

26 servers have Alliance in the Majority. Alliance dominated PVP
servers are home to 322,272 players, or 24.9% of the playing
population.

On the PVP servers, these are the servers where the Horde are in the
majority:

Server Alliance Horde Alliance:Horde Overall
Gurubashi 4,957 (36%) 8,637 (64%) 1:1.7 13,594
Mal'Ganis 4,936 (37%) 8,239 (63%) 1:1.7 13,175
Sargeras 3,678 (37%) 6,255 (63%) 1:1.7 9,933
Illidan 6,021 (39%) 9,577 (61%) 1:1.6 15,598
Bonechewer 2,978 (40%) 4,537 (60%) 1:1.5 7,515
Bloodscalp 6,500 (42%) 8,954 (58%) 1:1.4 15,454
Ner'zhul 6,590 (42%) 9,141 (58%) 1:1.4 15,731
Stormscale 4,191 (42%) 5,905 (58%) 1:1.4 10,096
Blackrock 7,967 (45%) 9,916 (55%) 1:1.2 17,883
Bleeding Hollow 9,101 (46%) 10,510 (54%) 1:1.2 19,611
Deathwing 6,680 (46%) 7,694 (54%) 1:1.2 14,374
Frostmane 5,002 (46%) 5,916 (54%) 1:1.2 10,918
Lightning's Blade 4,147(44%) 5,174 (56%) 1:1.2 9,321
Shadow Moon 6,602 (46%) 7,695 (54%) 1:1.2 14,297
Spirestone 4,382 (46%) 5,092 (54%) 1:1.2 9,474
Arthas 5,313 (48%) 5,737 (52%) 1:1.1 11,050
Firetree 5,350 (48%) 5,693 (52%) 1:1.1 11,043
Magtheridon 5,935 (48%) 6,315 (52%) 1:1.1 12,250
Smolderthorn 4,680 (49%) 4,925 (51%) 1:1.1 9,605

19 Servers have a Horde majority. Horde dominated PVP servers are home
to 240,922 players, or 18.62% of the playing population.

3 PVP servers have equal ratios

Server Alliance Horde Alliance:Horde Overall
Boulderfist 3,973 (49%) 4,095 (51%) 1:1 8,068
Frostwolf 5,993 (49%) 6,268 (51%) 1:1 12,261
Skullcrusher 8,951 (50%) 8,789 (50%) 1:1 17,740

48 PVP servers have 601,263 players.

---

I'll split the difference with you. 19 PVP servers, out of 48 total
PVP servers, and 97 servers in total, have Horde in the majority.

There are 19 exceptions to the Alliance domination of the Horde on the
U.S. servers, not 1 or 2. I'll stand corrected, but not as flat-out
wrong.

And my argument was that the PVE and RP servers would be mostly
Alliance and the numbers bore me out.

As for your statement that every single server has Alliance with at
least a 2:1 advantage, except 1 or 2 exceptions, that's not true.

29 Servers have an Alliance ratio 2:0 or greater.

68 Servers have an Alliance ratio of less than 2.0.

19 Servers have Horde majorities, and not one of those servers is a PVE
or RP server.

(My math may be off a bit. It's late.)

My contention was: Where players are playing in roles where they may
attack other players, they will be more likely to play on the Horde
side. Because they feel they are doing a bad thing what better way to
do it than wear wolfs clothing?

(And yes, Night Elf gankers are extremely creepy! And that Night Elf
priestess who corpse camped me in STV? Shame, shame. :)  You got
yours though.)

So, the only servers where the Horde ever break better than even with
the Alliance, it's been PVP servers.

When I said "It's my experience that PVE/RP servers are Alliance heavy,
PVP servers are Horde heavy. Take a look at the censii and compare for
yourself." It's what I meant. Here's the #'s to back it. I'll admit
Horde aren't in the majority on the PVP servers, but it's the one place
where they do pull ahead in places.
July 6, 2005 5:58:08 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

BombayMix wrote:
>>There's nothing wrong with that. The only problem I see is just:
>>as long as the A:H ratio is like 2:1, it's antisocial to
>>pick alliance because it weakens the game experience even more.
>
>
> Er surely that would mean the antisocial thing to do would be to pick
> horde because there are less people and therefore less to interact
> with? If you want to interact with the most players you pick Alliance.

You are confusing antisocial with asocial.
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 7:35:46 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

<trawetstrebor@hotmail.com> wrote:

(I dind't want to take part of this thread, because this topic always
upsets me like hell, and I tend to write stuff which expresses things
in a slightly harder way than it was meant to, but oh boy...)

> I imagine if one is playing a role, or only doing quests, or maybe
> occasionally dabbling in attacks on the towns and outposts of evil,
> they'll tend to play the "good" side with an Alliance character.
>
> What role-player is going to want to find himself in the Undercity as
> they torture and execute alliance races?

Some with black humor will. Do you know the adams family? Do you
like them because although they ARE monsters and ACT like monsters,
they somehow just are sympathic? Or do you hate them because you
take it so serious (and seriously, I wouldn't want to be a neighbour
of them, but hey, it's not real, and in a virtual setting, I like
them very much).

> Will they cheer on the
> sidelines?

Besides the forsaken, what makes you think, from the history of
azeroth, that the horde races of the tauren, trolls and orcs are
"evil" and the alliance races are pure and good?

> On a PVP server, you tend to bring the "bad boys" in folks out. When
> they are going to play for ganking, they'll feel like they are playing
> the "bad" side and tend to pick Horde. When your itinerary involves
> hitting Redridge to decimate rogues doing their lockpicking quest, you
> ain't sweetness personified. When you run down that little chick with
> the pink buns, a short anime Princess Leia, and frostshock her silly,
> then dead, you aren't going to be winning any Noble Prize. You know
> you're bad, and loving it.

I know a lot of people on my server who switched from alliance to horde,
AFTER they had their ally chars levelled quite high. And the generel
consens, at least on this server, is that ganking is coming far more
often from alliance side, and that the general immaturity is in the
hand of the alliance. I've read a lot in our servers forum from
alliance players that were confused why they weren't attacked by
higher level hordes, and that this wouldn't be the case if the higher
levels were allies.

That's a generalisation, and it might be that it's different on my
server, but I can't recall I've ever read someone chooses horde to
justify to gank other players. That's just.... weird.
In the beginning, I expected allies to be the nicer folks, just
because I thought something similar like you did: They've chosen
to play the "good" guys, so they'll most likely act good. This is
not the case. Maybe allies don't gank more than hordies do, but
it just feels more wrong. For example, I remember being killed by
a level ~35 hunter when I was in hillsbrad the first time and was
level 25. She was member of a guild like <Knights of honor>. I'd
expect to be ganked from someone who has 30 cm long teeth in his
face and is member of a guild like <Forces of evil>, and not from
a beatiful night elf of <Knights of honor>. And it confuses me a
bit that it's rather the other way around.

Or to put it another way: If Frodo or Gandalf would have been played
by the average ally I know, Gollum had been killed for his 2 CP on the
first opportunity, and the ring would've never been destroyed :o )

btw, I'm playing a tauren on a PvP server, and I think I act quite
adequate in the role to play one of those noble creatures. I don't
attack people more than 5 levels beyond me for example. I would
never attack an opponent who is busy fighting mobs or weakened
in another way (this of course doesn't apply in raids, or when
the specific enemy showed a lack of respect by doing similar things
to me or mates). Basically, I just try to be a good guy and show
respect. This doesn't mean I don't fight my enemy, it just means
I don't want to kill other players in a fight they don't have a
chance to win.

> So I'm thinking it is the inherent goodness in most of society that has
> us play the good guys when we act in a story.

You can play a good guy in either faction. Playing alliance doesn't make
you automatically a good guy. If only half the alliance I meet would
actually play the good guys, I'd have a ways better opinion about
alliance players in general. And if only half the people on horde side
chose to play evil, then I'd have switched sides a long time ago or
stopped playing WoW, because I prefer with nice people who respect the
other players, even when they are red colored.
In fact, I've not yet seen a hordy on my server playing evil by
intention.

> And then there's the alliance rogues. :)  I play mine as a defender of
> freedom out on the edge. Vigilante justice.

Killing a beautiful night elf chick = ganking, killing an ugly green
creature = fighting for the forces of light. I know the stereotypes
and I got sick of them.

> Sure it's a generalization, but the census figures bear this out.

If there's something in your post that is based on census data, then
it's the difference of A:H ratio between PvE/RP and PvP servers
(which I haven't doublechecked). Everything else is your
interpretation. Just as most of this post is my interpretation.

> If someone has a different theory to explain the disparity I'd be
> curious to hear it.

I'm quite sure that "people who want an easy game and are cowards
choose alliance" is about as wrong as "people who want to play the
bad evil R0XX0RZ play horde".
I personally chose horde because I knew they were outnumbered.
Before I figured this I'd have played alliance, because it was just
obvious to play the "knight in the shining armor".
I chose horde because noone needs me on alliance side. There are
enough players there, why should I join them? And, after some
thinking about it, I started to like the concept of playing the
so-called bad guys more than to play the so-called holy knights.

In fact, there are many reasons why people choose one side or the
other. Some choose alliance because they want an easy game. Some
choose them because they find their characters more appealing.
Some may choose them because they want to be a hero and can't
imagine to be an "ugly" hero.
There's nothing wrong with that. The only problem I see is just:
as long as the A:H ratio is like 2:1, it's antisocial to
pick alliance because it weakens the game experience even more.

Chris

--
[WoW] Wildcard - Treehugging Tauren (55) on EN Sunstrider [PvP]
Lonewalker - Striding Tauren (15) on EN Sunstrider [PvP]
Jazrah - Brutal Troll (16) on EN Sunstrider [PvP]
Jivarr - Charming Troll (12) on EN Sunstrider [PvP]
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 7:35:47 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 15:35:46 +0200, "Christian Stauffer"
<wildcard666@bluewin.ch> wrote:

><trawetstrebor@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>(I dind't want to take part of this thread, because this topic always
>upsets me like hell, and I tend to write stuff which expresses things
>in a slightly harder way than it was meant to, but oh boy...)
>
>> I imagine if one is playing a role, or only doing quests, or maybe
>> occasionally dabbling in attacks on the towns and outposts of evil,
>> they'll tend to play the "good" side with an Alliance character.
>>
>> What role-player is going to want to find himself in the Undercity as
>> they torture and execute alliance races?
>
>Some with black humor will. Do you know the adams family? Do you
>like them because although they ARE monsters and ACT like monsters,
>they somehow just are sympathic? Or do you hate them because you
>take it so serious (and seriously, I wouldn't want to be a neighbour
>of them, but hey, it's not real, and in a virtual setting, I like
>them very much).
>
>> Will they cheer on the
>> sidelines?
>
>Besides the forsaken, what makes you think, from the history of
>azeroth, that the horde races of the tauren, trolls and orcs are
>"evil" and the alliance races are pure and good?
>
>> On a PVP server, you tend to bring the "bad boys" in folks out. When
>> they are going to play for ganking, they'll feel like they are playing
>> the "bad" side and tend to pick Horde. When your itinerary involves
>> hitting Redridge to decimate rogues doing their lockpicking quest, you
>> ain't sweetness personified. When you run down that little chick with
>> the pink buns, a short anime Princess Leia, and frostshock her silly,
>> then dead, you aren't going to be winning any Noble Prize. You know
>> you're bad, and loving it.
>
>I know a lot of people on my server who switched from alliance to horde,
>AFTER they had their ally chars levelled quite high. And the generel
>consens, at least on this server, is that ganking is coming far more
>often from alliance side, and that the general immaturity is in the
>hand of the alliance. I've read a lot in our servers forum from
>alliance players that were confused why they weren't attacked by
>higher level hordes, and that this wouldn't be the case if the higher
>levels were allies.
>
>That's a generalisation, and it might be that it's different on my
>server, but I can't recall I've ever read someone chooses horde to
>justify to gank other players. That's just.... weird.
>In the beginning, I expected allies to be the nicer folks, just
>because I thought something similar like you did: They've chosen
>to play the "good" guys, so they'll most likely act good. This is
>not the case. Maybe allies don't gank more than hordies do, but
>it just feels more wrong. For example, I remember being killed by
>a level ~35 hunter when I was in hillsbrad the first time and was
>level 25. She was member of a guild like <Knights of honor>. I'd
>expect to be ganked from someone who has 30 cm long teeth in his
>face and is member of a guild like <Forces of evil>, and not from
>a beatiful night elf of <Knights of honor>. And it confuses me a
>bit that it's rather the other way around.
>
>Or to put it another way: If Frodo or Gandalf would have been played
>by the average ally I know, Gollum had been killed for his 2 CP on the
>first opportunity, and the ring would've never been destroyed :o )
>
>btw, I'm playing a tauren on a PvP server, and I think I act quite
>adequate in the role to play one of those noble creatures. I don't
>attack people more than 5 levels beyond me for example. I would
>never attack an opponent who is busy fighting mobs or weakened
>in another way (this of course doesn't apply in raids, or when
>the specific enemy showed a lack of respect by doing similar things
>to me or mates). Basically, I just try to be a good guy and show
>respect. This doesn't mean I don't fight my enemy, it just means
>I don't want to kill other players in a fight they don't have a
>chance to win.
>
>> So I'm thinking it is the inherent goodness in most of society that has
>> us play the good guys when we act in a story.
>
>You can play a good guy in either faction. Playing alliance doesn't make
>you automatically a good guy. If only half the alliance I meet would
>actually play the good guys, I'd have a ways better opinion about
>alliance players in general. And if only half the people on horde side
>chose to play evil, then I'd have switched sides a long time ago or
>stopped playing WoW, because I prefer with nice people who respect the
>other players, even when they are red colored.
>In fact, I've not yet seen a hordy on my server playing evil by
>intention.
>
>> And then there's the alliance rogues. :)  I play mine as a defender of
>> freedom out on the edge. Vigilante justice.
>
>Killing a beautiful night elf chick = ganking, killing an ugly green
>creature = fighting for the forces of light. I know the stereotypes
>and I got sick of them.
>
>> Sure it's a generalization, but the census figures bear this out.
>
>If there's something in your post that is based on census data, then
>it's the difference of A:H ratio between PvE/RP and PvP servers
>(which I haven't doublechecked). Everything else is your
>interpretation. Just as most of this post is my interpretation.
>
>> If someone has a different theory to explain the disparity I'd be
>> curious to hear it.
>
>I'm quite sure that "people who want an easy game and are cowards
>choose alliance" is about as wrong as "people who want to play the
>bad evil R0XX0RZ play horde".
>I personally chose horde because I knew they were outnumbered.
>Before I figured this I'd have played alliance, because it was just
>obvious to play the "knight in the shining armor".
>I chose horde because noone needs me on alliance side. There are
>enough players there, why should I join them? And, after some
>thinking about it, I started to like the concept of playing the
>so-called bad guys more than to play the so-called holy knights.
>
>In fact, there are many reasons why people choose one side or the
>other. Some choose alliance because they want an easy game. Some
>choose them because they find their characters more appealing.
>Some may choose them because they want to be a hero and can't
>imagine to be an "ugly" hero.
>There's nothing wrong with that. The only problem I see is just:
>as long as the A:H ratio is like 2:1, it's antisocial to
>pick alliance because it weakens the game experience even more.
>
>Chris

I do think the only "Evil" player race are Undead, I think the
greenskins are just vilified. But I think I see where the other guy is
coming from, its so much easier to be a bit bad when you think it
suits your race.
ie : Undead rogues killing the cat ladies cats. I reckon it would be
near impossible to have done that (aside from game mechanics) as an
Alliance player. It was sooooooo evil.
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 7:35:47 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

In article <42cbde32$0$1164$5402220f@news.sunrise.ch>, wildcard666
@bluewin.ch says...
> I know a lot of people on my server who switched from alliance to horde,
> AFTER they had their ally chars levelled quite high. And the generel
> consens, at least on this server, is that ganking is coming far more
> often from alliance side, and that the general immaturity is in the
> hand of the alliance. I've read a lot in our servers forum from
> alliance players that were confused why they weren't attacked by
> higher level hordes, and that this wouldn't be the case if the higher
> levels were allies.

This is *EXACTLY* my experience. I leveled to 45 as Alliance and then
switched to Horde and I got ganked a *LOT* more as Horde. The irony is
that the supposedly "godly" paladins are the WORST gankers out there. On
my current server (Dragonmaw), I usually win even fights (close to same
level and maybe only 2 of them against me or if I'm lucky, 1), only to
have them go get their whole guild to get "even" because they can't do
it on their own under fair terms.

--
Rob Berryhill
July 6, 2005 7:35:47 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

Christian Stauffer wrote:
> <trawetstrebor@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> On a PVP server, you tend to bring the "bad boys" in folks out. When
>> they are going to play for ganking, they'll feel like they are playing
>> the "bad" side and tend to pick Horde. When your itinerary involves
>> hitting Redridge to decimate rogues doing their lockpicking quest, you
>> ain't sweetness personified. When you run down that little chick with
>> the pink buns, a short anime Princess Leia, and frostshock her silly,
>> then dead, you aren't going to be winning any Noble Prize. You know
>> you're bad, and loving it.
>
>
> I know a lot of people on my server who switched from alliance to horde,
> AFTER they had their ally chars levelled quite high. And the generel
> consens, at least on this server, is that ganking is coming far more
> often from alliance side, and that the general immaturity is in the
> hand of the alliance. I've read a lot in our servers forum from
> alliance players that were confused why they weren't attacked by
> higher level hordes, and that this wouldn't be the case if the higher
> levels were allies.

As I've posted before, I play many characters on many servers, in both
factions, and on all three types of servers. The consistent impression I
have from that experience is that in general the Alliance is less
tactically capable than the Horde, and more ignoble. I first noticed it
when all my characters were Alliance--it depressed me that our side were
such losers as compared to the Horde players I encountered. At first I
thought it was just isolated incidents. Later I thought it was just that
server. But with the passage of time and the accumulation of experience,
I have developed a strong impression that it's a general trend: the
Alliance tends to attract people who are less capable and less worthy of
respect. One Horde player I was playing with put it this way: two level
40 Horde will attack three level 43 Alliance; two level 40 Alliance will
attack 1 level 20 Horde.

Of course this generalization is not true of every single person. It is
a general trend that has emerged from my plat experience over eight
months, 25 or so characters in both factions, and five servers.

I really don't know why it would be true, but it does seem to be. I
started out with no particular preference for either side, but after the
accumulation of experience I now definitely like the Horde better than
the Alliance.

> That's a generalisation, and it might be that it's different on my
> server, but I can't recall I've ever read someone chooses horde to
> justify to gank other players. That's just.... weird.

Me either. On the contrary, as a practical matter if you want to gank,
you are much better off choosing the Alliance. It will be much easier on
most servers to raise a group that can outnumber and outgun the opposing
players.

> In the beginning, I expected allies to be the nicer folks, just
> because I thought something similar like you did: They've chosen
> to play the "good" guys, so they'll most likely act good. This is
> not the case. Maybe allies don't gank more than hordies do, but
> it just feels more wrong. For example, I remember being killed by
> a level ~35 hunter when I was in hillsbrad the first time and was
> level 25. She was member of a guild like <Knights of honor>. I'd
> expect to be ganked from someone who has 30 cm long teeth in his
> face and is member of a guild like <Forces of evil>, and not from
> a beatiful night elf of <Knights of honor>. And it confuses me a
> bit that it's rather the other way around.

Right. From the experience of playing Alliance characters and discussing
these things with others, I learned that many of the Alliance players I
encountered don't think of the "good guy"/"bad guy" dichotomy in terms
of behavior at all; they think of it in, if you'll pardon the
description, racialist terms: there are "good" races and "bad" races.
Killing a Horde player is automatically "good" because he is a member of
a "bad" race. Whatever the Horde does is bad because it is the Horde
doing it; whatever the Alliance does is good because it is the Alliance
doing it.

To me, being a "good guy" entails doing good things. To some of the
folks I talked to, that has nothing to do with it; there is no behavior
that could make a Horde player a good person, and no behavior that could
make an Alliance player a bad person, at least when we are talking about
PVP play (of course things are very different when we are talking
about people's behavior in parties and instances--suddenly these same
people acquire the ability to distinguish good from bad behavior when it
affects their own profits).

This makes no sense at all to me; the race you choose does not make you
a good guy or a bad guy; your behavior does. Maybe that somehow accounts
for the bad impression we both have of the Alliance; maybe it attracts
people who believe that choosing the right race makes you a "good guy",
and that your behavior has nothing to do with it, so once you've chosen
the right race you can behave however you want and still be a "good guy".

>> If someone has a different theory to explain the disparity I'd be
>> curious to hear it.
>
>
> I'm quite sure that "people who want an easy game and are cowards
> choose alliance" is about as wrong as "people who want to play the
> bad evil R0XX0RZ play horde".
> I personally chose horde because I knew they were outnumbered.
> Before I figured this I'd have played alliance, because it was just
> obvious to play the "knight in the shining armor".
> I chose horde because noone needs me on alliance side. There are
> enough players there, why should I join them? And, after some
> thinking about it, I started to like the concept of playing the
> so-called bad guys more than to play the so-called holy knights.
>
> In fact, there are many reasons why people choose one side or the
> other. Some choose alliance because they want an easy game. Some
> choose them because they find their characters more appealing.
> Some may choose them because they want to be a hero and can't
> imagine to be an "ugly" hero.
> There's nothing wrong with that. The only problem I see is just:
> as long as the A:H ratio is like 2:1, it's antisocial to
> pick alliance because it weakens the game experience even more.

I didn't pick either faction. I didn't have any favorites when I
started. I wanted to try every class, every race, and both factions when
I started out, and let my experience teach me what my favorites were.

So experience taught me: all the races and clases are fun to play. They
all have their strengths and weaknesses. It turns out that I like mages,
hunters, warriors, rogues, and shamans a bit more than the other
classes, and find paladins a trifle boring. My favorite races are
Taurens and Gnomes, but I like them all.

And, quite unexpectedly, and because of the behavior of the players
rather than any feature designed by Blizzard, I like the Horde better
than the Alliance.
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 1:43:19 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

"mikel" <mikel@evins.net> wrote:


> I have developed a strong impression that it's a general trend: the
> Alliance tends to attract people who are less capable and less worthy of
> respect.

I've played characters on both sides, and I have to agree with you.When
doing instances, it seems that I get a lot more group wipes when playing my
alliance character. There are good and bad players on both sides, but there
seems to be more bad players on the alliance side. I don't have any idea why
though.
July 7, 2005 1:43:20 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

Xis wrote:
> "mikel" <mikel@evins.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>I have developed a strong impression that it's a general trend: the
>>Alliance tends to attract people who are less capable and less worthy of
>>respect.
>
>
> I've played characters on both sides, and I have to agree with you.When
> doing instances, it seems that I get a lot more group wipes when playing my
> alliance character. There are good and bad players on both sides, but there
> seems to be more bad players on the alliance side. I don't have any idea why
> though.

Yes, I'm at a loss to account for it myself. I was slow to draw the
conclusion, because I couldn't make any sense of it. Still can't.
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 5:19:20 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

trawetstrebor@hotmail.com wrote:

> I invited you to take a look yourself.
>
> Here's where you can do so:
>
> http://www.warcraftrealms.com/realmstats.php?sort=Ratio
>
>
> Here are some figures I found.
>
> RP Servers:
>
> Server Alliance Horde Alliance:Horde Overall
> Cenarion Circle 8,222 (79%) 2,244 (21%) 3.7:1 10,466
> Argent Dawn 13,404 (75%) 4,566 (25%) 2.9:1 17,970
> Earthen Ring 15,544 (71%) 6,323 (29%) 2.5:1 21,867
> Scarlet Crusade 11,813 (68%) 5,516 (32%) 2.1:1 17,329
> Silver Hand 11,877 (66%) 6,182 (34%) 1.9:1 18,059
> Feathermoon 10,028 (64%) 5,576 (36%) 1.8:1 15,604
> Shadow Council 7,519 (62%) 4,542 (38%) 1.7:1 12,061
>
> RP servers are exclusively Alliance dominated and are home to 8.76% of
> the playing population.
>
> ----
>
> PVE servers:
>
> Server Alliance Horde Alliance:Horde Overall
> Kargath 8,273 (85%) 1,504 (15%) 5.5:1 9,777
> Hellscream 10,443 (85%) 1,895 (15%) 5.5:1 12,338
> Lothar 8,752 (84%) 1,719 (16%) 5.1:1 10,471
> Lightbringer 9,686 (80%) 2,430 (20%) 4:1 12,116
> Whisperwind 7,252 (78%) 2,006 (22%) 3.6:1 9,258
> Alleria 13,050 (78%) 3,604 (22%) 3.6:1 16,654
> Perenolde 10,486 (77%) 3,101 (23%) 3.4:1 13,587
> Stormrage 9,228 (77%) 2,765 (23%) 3.3:1 11,993
> Hyjal 7,729 (74%) 2,651 (26%) 2.9:1 10,380
> Icecrown 8,340 (73%) 3,107 (27%) 2.7:1 11,447
> Eonar 9,151 (71%) 3,798 (29%) 2.4:1 12,949
> Windrunner 14,340 (71%) 5,982 (29%) 2.4:1 20,322
> Thunderhorn 12,204 (71%) 5,057 (29%) 2.4:1 17,261
> Elune 8,980 (69%) 3,989 (31%) 2.3:1 12,969
> Dragonblight 7,017 (70%) 3,043 (30%) 2.3:1 10,060
> Azjol-Nerub 10,890 (70%) 4,778 (30%) 2.3:1 15,668
> Llane 8,617 (69%) 3,939 (31%) 2.2:1 12,556
> Gilneas 11,153 (68%) 5,152 (32%) 2.2:1 16,305
> Proudmoore 13,915 (67%) 6,759 (33%) 2.1:1 20,674
> Terenas 9,384 (67%) 4,656 (33%) 2:1 14,040
> Doomhammer 11,812 (66%) 6,016 (34%) 2:1 17,828
> Bloodhoof 9,285 (66%) 4,865 (34%) 1.9:1 14,150
> Suramar 12,300 (66%) 6,430 (34%) 1.9:1 18,730
> Uther 11,078 (66%) 5,772 (34%) 1.9:1 16,850
> Medivh 8,467 (65%) 4,626 (35%) 1.8:1 13,093
> Silvermoon 6,708 (65%) 3,655 (35%) 1.8:1 10,363
> Bronzebeard 10,910 (64%) 6,216 (36%) 1.8:1 17,126
> Blackhand 10,164 (63%) 5,853 (37%) 1.7:1 16,017
> Skywall 8,822 (62%) 5,370 (38%) 1.6:1 14,192
> Zul'jin 8,538 (62%) 5,206 (38%) 1.6:1 13,744
> Shadowsong 8,503 (61%) 5,333 (39%) 1.6:1 13,836
> Garona 4,469 (61%) 2,826 (39%) 1.6:1 7,295
> Kilrogg 10,181 (62%) 6,197 (38%) 1.6:1 16,378
> Durotan 9,500 (60%) 6,330 (40%) 1.5:1 15,830
> Cenarius 8,499 (59%) 5,836 (41%) 1.5:1 14,335
> Khadgar 9,053 (59%) 6,333 (41%) 1.4:1 15,386
> Aggramar 7,298 (56%) 5,838 (44%) 1.3:1 13,136
> Eldre'Thalas 6,980 (57%) 5,306 (43%) 1.3:1 12,286
> Uldum 7,423 (56%) 5,947 (44%) 1.2:1 13,370
> Draenor 6,873 (54%) 5,838 (46%) 1.2:1 12,711
> Dalaran 7,002 (50%) 6,913 (50%) 1:1 13,915
> Malygos 4,112 (51%) 4,023 (49%) 1:1 8,135
>
> Not a single PVE server has a Horde majority. And it is rare that they
> are equal. 2, out of 42 servers, have near equal ratios.
>
> PVE servers are home to 579,531 players or 44.78% of the playing
> population.
>
> (What's the attraction of PVE vs. RP? The ability to use L33Tspeak and
> name your characters Dopey and Pizzoff?)
>
>
> ---
>
> On the PVP servers, there are servers where the Alliance are in the
> majority:
>
> Server Alliance Horde Alliance:Horde Overall
> Spinebreaker 6,696 (95%) 384 (5%) 17.4:1 7,080
> Kel'Thuzad 11,649 (69%) 5,148 (31%) 2.3:1 16,797
> Darkspear 8,073 (68%) 3,801 (32%) 2.1:1 11,874
> Kil'Jaeden 11,878 (68%) 5,612 (32%) 2.1:1 17,490
> Burning Blade 6,327 (65%) 3,404 (35%) 1.9:1 9,731
> Tichondrius 7,782 (66%) 4,089 (34%) 1.9:1 11,871
> Dragonmaw 8,261 (62%) 5,000 (38%) 1.7:1 13,261
> Dunemaul 6,356 (63%) 3,681 (37%) 1.7:1 10,037
> Stormreaver 6,159 (63%) 3,691 (37%) 1.7:1 9,850
> Thunderlord 4,601 (63%) 2,708 (37%) 1.7:1 7,309
> Azgalor 6,685 (62%) 4,118 (38%) 1.6:1 10,803
> Destromath 8,585 (62%) 5,328 (38%) 1.6:1 13,913
> Laughing Skull 9,458 (62%) 5,881 (38%) 1.6:1 15,339
> Gorefiend 8,114 (61%) 5,236 (39%) 1.5:1 13,350
> Mannoroth 8,950 (60%) 6,047 (40%) 1.5:1 14,997
> Stonemaul 7,033 (61%) 4,589 (39%) 1.5:1 11,622
> Archimonde 11,800 (59%) 8,299 (41%) 1.4:1 20,099
> Burning Legion 5,554 (59%) 3,848 (41%) 1.4:1 9,402
> Crushridge 5,543 (56%) 4,382 (44%) 1.3:1 9,925
> Gorgonnash 6,249 (56%) 4,891 (44%) 1.3:1 11,140
> Shattered Hand 7,345 (56%) 5,775 (44%) 1.3:1 13,120
> Daggerspine 6,365 (55%) 5,233 (45%) 1.2:1 11,598
> Eredar 6,057 (55%) 4,988 (45%) 1.2:1 11,045
> Warsong 9,889 (54%) 8,349 (46%) 1.2:1 18,238
> Dethecus 7,107 (53%) 6,309 (47%) 1.1:1 13,416
> Nathrezim 4,658 (52%) 4,307 (48%) 1.1:1 8,965
>
> 26 servers have Alliance in the Majority. Alliance dominated PVP
> servers are home to 322,272 players, or 24.9% of the playing
> population.
>
> On the PVP servers, these are the servers where the Horde are in the
> majority:
>
> Server Alliance Horde Alliance:Horde Overall
> Gurubashi 4,957 (36%) 8,637 (64%) 1:1.7 13,594
> Mal'Ganis 4,936 (37%) 8,239 (63%) 1:1.7 13,175
> Sargeras 3,678 (37%) 6,255 (63%) 1:1.7 9,933
> Illidan 6,021 (39%) 9,577 (61%) 1:1.6 15,598
> Bonechewer 2,978 (40%) 4,537 (60%) 1:1.5 7,515
> Bloodscalp 6,500 (42%) 8,954 (58%) 1:1.4 15,454
> Ner'zhul 6,590 (42%) 9,141 (58%) 1:1.4 15,731
> Stormscale 4,191 (42%) 5,905 (58%) 1:1.4 10,096
> Blackrock 7,967 (45%) 9,916 (55%) 1:1.2 17,883
> Bleeding Hollow 9,101 (46%) 10,510 (54%) 1:1.2 19,611
> Deathwing 6,680 (46%) 7,694 (54%) 1:1.2 14,374
> Frostmane 5,002 (46%) 5,916 (54%) 1:1.2 10,918
> Lightning's Blade 4,147(44%) 5,174 (56%) 1:1.2 9,321
> Shadow Moon 6,602 (46%) 7,695 (54%) 1:1.2 14,297
> Spirestone 4,382 (46%) 5,092 (54%) 1:1.2 9,474
> Arthas 5,313 (48%) 5,737 (52%) 1:1.1 11,050
> Firetree 5,350 (48%) 5,693 (52%) 1:1.1 11,043
> Magtheridon 5,935 (48%) 6,315 (52%) 1:1.1 12,250
> Smolderthorn 4,680 (49%) 4,925 (51%) 1:1.1 9,605
>
> 19 Servers have a Horde majority. Horde dominated PVP servers are home
> to 240,922 players, or 18.62% of the playing population.
>
> 3 PVP servers have equal ratios
>
> Server Alliance Horde Alliance:Horde Overall
> Boulderfist 3,973 (49%) 4,095 (51%) 1:1 8,068
> Frostwolf 5,993 (49%) 6,268 (51%) 1:1 12,261
> Skullcrusher 8,951 (50%) 8,789 (50%) 1:1 17,740
>
> 48 PVP servers have 601,263 players.
>
> ---
>
> I'll split the difference with you. 19 PVP servers, out of 48 total
> PVP servers, and 97 servers in total, have Horde in the majority.
>
> There are 19 exceptions to the Alliance domination of the Horde on the
> U.S. servers, not 1 or 2. I'll stand corrected, but not as flat-out
> wrong.
>
> And my argument was that the PVE and RP servers would be mostly
> Alliance and the numbers bore me out.
>
> As for your statement that every single server has Alliance with at
> least a 2:1 advantage, except 1 or 2 exceptions, that's not true.
>
> 29 Servers have an Alliance ratio 2:0 or greater.
>
> 68 Servers have an Alliance ratio of less than 2.0.
>
> 19 Servers have Horde majorities, and not one of those servers is a PVE
> or RP server.
>
> (My math may be off a bit. It's late.)
>
> My contention was: Where players are playing in roles where they may
> attack other players, they will be more likely to play on the Horde
> side. Because they feel they are doing a bad thing what better way to
> do it than wear wolfs clothing?
>
> (And yes, Night Elf gankers are extremely creepy! And that Night Elf
> priestess who corpse camped me in STV? Shame, shame. :)  You got
> yours though.)
>
> So, the only servers where the Horde ever break better than even with
> the Alliance, it's been PVP servers.
>
> When I said "It's my experience that PVE/RP servers are Alliance heavy,
> PVP servers are Horde heavy. Take a look at the censii and compare for
> yourself." It's what I meant. Here's the #'s to back it. I'll admit
> Horde aren't in the majority on the PVP servers, but it's the one place
> where they do pull ahead in places.
>

I've learn to not take these specific censii as truth. They account for
the number of characters on the server. I personally have 7 characters
on EU-Sunstrider, 4 of which are above level 20, and all of which are
above level 10. I still count as ONE horde player.

This simple fact brought me to me use the "activity" ratio along with
the census. For a long time Sunstrider has been seen as a Horde 1.2 : 1
Alliance (census = total number of characters), but the activity ratio
was Horde 1 : 1.4 Alliance (activity = average number of characters
online per day). Both ratios are of course flawed. The truth is
somewhere between the two.

But you still bring a good point: there is a majority of alliance on
pve/rp servers, but the numbers are really balanced in pvp servers.
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 6:57:04 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

>I've learn to not take these specific censii as truth. They account for
>the number of characters on the server. I personally have 7 characters
>on EU-Sunstrider, 4 of which are above level 20, and all of which are
>above level 10. I still count as ONE horde player.

>This simple fact brought me to me use the "activity" ratio along with
>the census. For a long time Sunstrider has been seen as a Horde 1.2 : 1
>Alliance (census = total number of characters), but the activity ratio
>was Horde 1 : 1.4 Alliance (activity = average number of characters
>online per day). Both ratios are of course flawed. The truth is
>somewhere between the two.

Yeah the census is flawed. According to it my server, Thunderhorn, has
17k players and Silvermoon has 10k. But it you look at the server
status Silvermoon is a rock solid "high" loaded server with regular
queues and Thunderhorn is in the middle of the "medium" loaded server
and never has queues.
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 11:41:35 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 01:19:20 +0200, Babe Bridou <babebridou@hotmail.com> wrote:

> But you still bring a good point: there is a majority of alliance on
> pve/rp servers, but the numbers are really balanced in pvp servers.

Just a thought on why the rations on pvp servers are more balanced (not
as in more 1:1 ratios on servers, but the ration between horde heavy and
alliance heavy servers).

I could imagine that people who have never played a MMORPG (or whathever the
correct abbreviation is :-) may tend towards picking the 'obvious' choice
without giving it much though. This would lead to the majority of beginners
picking pve servers and human/dwarf characters which would explain why pve
servers are mostly alliance heavy.

People who have levelled up their pve-alliance character may start wondering
about other aspects of the game ("why don't i try a horde char" or "what is
pvp like") and many of them may try to satisfy their curiosity at once this
creating a pvp-horde char. Or after having levelled a pve-ally they may just
have a quick go at a pve-horde before switching over to try out pvp. And
when picking their pvp char they may put considerably more thought to which
class and race they pick, eliminating the 'default ally' chars thus giving
the horde a better ratio on the pvp servers.

the same would most likely be true for converts from other games who made
their 'default ally' experience in another game and - being experienced
MMORPG players - give quite some consideration to their server mode and
character choice.

all this of course assumes that pvp is perceived as being the more advanced
(or just more difficult?) mode of play. and it gives no explanation why
there are no horde-heavy RP servers because I sure would think that taking
care to not just play but actually play in char would require more effort
and therefore also be 'advanced'.

I'm certain there are many nits to pick with this line of reasoning so I'm
looking forward to hearing where I went wrong :-)

And just for those wondering: WoW is my first MMORPG and I started on a PvE
server because I wanted to get to know the game without being afraid of
being ganked all the time (I didn't realise I would be safe until somewhere
around lvl20 when I would need to venture into contested areas) and thought
I would have my hands full with learning the game without bothering to stay
in char. My main is a hunter because that's a class that I like (I always
pick hunters in RPGs no matter wheter on a computer or pen&paper). My first
two alts were a troll rogue and a tauren druid because I wanted to find out
about the horde (one pve, the other pvp) but I didn't really level them very
far as I wanted to first advance my main. My third alt was a human paladin
intended as an AH mule but I found my pally so much fun I levelled it
farther than I intended (I may start to be bored once I get her to higher
levels... as others seem to :-). Anyway, for the time being I intend to
stick to my two ally chars just because I am into them but once my main is
where I feel it will stay for a while I definitely intend to go and gain
some more horde experience.

Just my ramblings on the topic
Urbin

--
Urbin (34), Dwarven Hunter (PvE) @dunmorogh.de
Gera (14), Human Paladin (PvE) @dunmorogh.de
Sneak (7), Troll Rogue (PvE) @dunmorogh.de
Gorosh (5), Tauren Druid (PvP) @sunstrider.uk
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 2:27:15 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

"Chizel" <cgm@firstoption.com> wrote:

> Hi.
>
> Original poster here.

Hi original poster.

> I did not want the thread to go this way, but something annoyed me.

This is usenet. A thread goes where a thread goes. This can be
interesting, but in case of topics that are likely to cause flamewars
it's most often annoying (Oh boy, who could have imagined this topic
leads to some hard discussed posts or even flames? Maybe because it
happened every single time in the past?).

> "AFTER they had their ally chars levelled quite high. And the generel
>> consens, at least on this server, is that ganking is coming far more
>> often from alliance side, and that the general immaturity is in the
>> hand of the alliance."

You know how to reply to a usenet message so it appears in relation
to the quoted parts, and not in a totally different node in the tree?

> Seeing this kind of thing REALLY ANNOYS ME!
> Why everyone keeps putting stuff like this is beyond me.

I was responding to the totally stupid "people play horde on PvP
servers because horde acts evil" argumentation. The above statement
is something from some alliance players on my server.

> Let me explain.
>
> Lets say out of every 10 players:
> 2 are complete immature morons.
> 1 is a really nice honurable person.
> 7 are just ordinary people trying to just have fun without being an
> arse, but without being overly helpful.
>
> The average Alliance vs Horde ratio is 3-1.
> So if 500 Horde are on a server you are going to roughly get
> 100 morons and 50 cool people.
>
> going with the above ratio means you will have 1500 alliance players
> which equates to 300 morons but 150 cool people.
>
> So yes there will always be more immature morons on the alliance side,
> but they will have 3 times as many cool people as the Horde!

So ... what? If for example 2 out of 10 people I meet are morons,
it doesn't matter how many people are on this server.
And if those 300 morons are enough to make alliance people switch
factions, what's all the math for?

> Just because somebody is an Alliance player does not make them
> immature!

Erm... Where did I write they were?

> And just because somebody is Horde does not make them guranteed mature
> adults!

Of course not. Again: Where did I write something that makes you
believe I'm a fan of everyone who's a hordy and I hate everyone
who's playing alliance?
We have a very cool alliance guild on sunstrider, we even started
alts on Ragnaros to play together with them.
I try to judge everyone I meet individually (ok, when I see a human
pal or a night elf rogue, I'm expecting them to be morons). But this
doesn't prevent me to get an image of the AVERAGE ally I meet.
This doesn't mean it applies on every ally on earth. You know the
difference of _average_ and _everyone_, don't you? I didn't write
"of course it's only a generalisation" or "in general" or "my
opinion" to get some smart replies like "omg you hate every alliance
player", because that's not the case.

Chris

--
[WoW] Wildcard - Treehugging Tauren (55) on EN Sunstrider [PvP]
Lonewalker - Striding Tauren (15) on EN Sunstrider [PvP]
Jazrah - Brutal Troll (16) on EN Sunstrider [PvP]
Jivarr - Charming Troll (12) on EN Sunstrider [PvP]
July 7, 2005 2:57:24 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

"BombayMix" <bombaymix@altavista.co.uk> wrote:
> >I've learn to not take these specific censii as truth. They account for
> >the number of characters on the server. I personally have 7 characters
> >on EU-Sunstrider, 4 of which are above level 20, and all of which are
> >above level 10. I still count as ONE horde player.
>
> >This simple fact brought me to me use the "activity" ratio along with
> >the census. For a long time Sunstrider has been seen as a Horde 1.2 : 1
> >Alliance (census = total number of characters), but the activity ratio
> >was Horde 1 : 1.4 Alliance (activity = average number of characters
> >online per day). Both ratios are of course flawed. The truth is
> >somewhere between the two.
>
> Yeah the census is flawed. According to it my server, Thunderhorn, has
> 17k players and Silvermoon has 10k. But it you look at the server
> status Silvermoon is a rock solid "high" loaded server with regular
> queues and Thunderhorn is in the middle of the "medium" loaded server
> and never has queues.

Census+ makes snapshots. Such a "snapshot" can easily take 20 minutes to
complete. Users that are online during that time when it "scans" a level
region are collected in the database, others are not. Census is never
accurate so you cannot take the data as _the_ reference. It's an
approximation whose quality is very variable. I've been using Census+ since
late february but never uploaded any data to the website. If there are too
few updates, the data on the web page is simply a "hint" but by no means a
correct status. Blizzard is the only one who could provide accurate data
but they don't do it.

when keeping that in mind, the data is useful but never take it for the
current reality. I don't even want to know how many of the chars recorded
by Census are not played any longer (and might even be deleted - Census
cannot know this)

CU

René

--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB
July 7, 2005 4:45:40 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

Chizel <cgm@firstoption.com> stared blankly into space for a short
while before writing:
> Everybody moans about the fact that the horde is way outnumbered by
> the Alliance.
>
> Why is this?
>
> Well it could be down to the following reasons:
>
> 1> People prefer the alliance, as they are the good guys.

Or, People prefer the Horde, as they are the Bad Guys.

> 2> A real life friend is already alliance so you join them.

A R/L friend is already Horde, so you join them.

> 3> Guilds from other games such as SWG start playing alliance
> characters.

Guilds from other games such as (umm.. dunno:)  start playing Horde
characters

> 4> The character models are more easy on the eye.

The character models look tough and more like fighters *should* look
like, whereas the models for Alliance all look a bit "poofy" ;) 

> How can this be addressed?
>
> My thought on this would be to make the horde more appealing.
>
> I don`t mean make the characters better looking, but to provide more
> choice when picking
> you character.
>
> If some new Horde specific classes were to be made then people
> would go horde to try these.
>
> Lets say Necromancer for the undead only would be a good start.
>
> This would not spoil the existing game world by any way but would
> provide
> more incentive for new players to go horde. I.e if you want to be
> able to summon skeletons etc then
> you need to go horde.
>
> Any thoughts.

Dunno. I've got 8 Alliance characters and 4 Horde, which I think is
about equal to the world wide demographic :) 

The only thing about Horde that put's me off is the Undead ("Beware the
living!"). I like Orcs, 'cause they look the part ("Zug zug!"). I like
Trolls, just because... ("Beware da voodoo mon!"). And I like Taurens
because of the whole Indian theme. ("Ancestors watch over you")

--
Doc
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 7:21:29 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

Christian Stauffer wrote:
> <trawetstrebor@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I chose horde because noone needs me on alliance side. There are
> enough players there, why should I join them? And, after some

Out of every reason I've heard to play a horde, that's the first one that
actually made me consider it.
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 7:29:15 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

Chizel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Original poster here.
>
> I must say that this thread has gone slightly off topic. I did not
> want to get into the whole Alliance vs Horde in the sense of which
> one is better.
>
> I wanted to just see peoples thoughts on addressing the balance of
> numbers between the two.

Welcome to usenet. Don't take this as me bitching at you, but you do seem
to have some unrealistic expectations that I should cleanse you of, before
they lead to frustration on your part.

1. Threads derail. It happens. You can't stop it. Nobody can stop it.
Just smile and accept it.
2. Nobody owns a thread. No, you didn't say you did, but it's important to
understand, anyways.
3. It's futile to try to get a thread back on track, either by pointing out
that it's off track, or reposting (or summarizing) your orginal premise. If
people want to respond to your question, they'll reply to the orignal post.
It's that simple.

We hope you'll find these tips helpful in the future, and thank you, once
again, for flying AirNNTP.
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 7:31:42 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

Xis wrote:
> "mikel" <mikel@evins.net> wrote:
>
>
>> I have developed a strong impression that it's a general trend: the
>> Alliance tends to attract people who are less capable and less
>> worthy of respect.
>
> I've played characters on both sides, and I have to agree with
> you.When doing instances, it seems that I get a lot more group wipes
> when playing my alliance character. There are good and bad players on
> both sides, but there seems to be more bad players on the alliance
> side. I don't have any idea why though.

More alliance players means it's easier for the good ones to make their own
guilds and not have to interact with the general populace (in an effort to
avoid the type of players that make Alliance look bad). Horde doesn't have
the base, so it's harder for them to do so.
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 7:37:43 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

Chizel wrote:
> Everybody moans about the fact that the horde is way outnumbered by
> the Alliance.
>
> Why is this?
>
> Well it could be down to the following reasons:
>
> 1> People prefer the alliance, as they are the good guys.
> 2> A real life friend is already alliance so you join them.
> 3> Guilds from other games such as SWG start playing alliance
> characters.
> 4> The character models are more easy on the eye.
>
> How can this be addressed?
>
> My thought on this would be to make the horde more appealing.
>
> I don`t mean make the characters better looking, but to provide more
> choice when picking
> you character.
>
> If some new Horde specific classes were to be made then people would
> go horde to try these.
>
> Lets say Necromancer for the undead only would be a good start.

I think it's poor design to give horde a tactical advantage to make up for
what is essentially a cosmetic-driven disadvantage. Just add two more
races - a pretty horde race and an ugly alliance race, and be done with it.
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 12:55:21 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

>> I think it's poor design to give horde a tactical advantage to make up for
>> what is essentially a cosmetic-driven disadvantage. Just add two more
>> races - a pretty horde race and an ugly alliance race, and be done with it.

>That would solve some of the problem, particularly for couples where the
>guy is trying to get the girl to play Horde chars, and failing (my
>experience). But I doubt Blizzard will pull a discontinuity at this
>point by redesigning the art... maybe for WoW II, but not WoW.

>I suggest a solution to the Alliance/Horde ratio problem: Economics.
>Give various leveling advantages to the outnumbered faction, based on
>the magnitude of the discrepancy, and let demand (i.e. ppl starting
>Horde chars) sort it out. And if demand does not sort it out, the
>outnumbered faction will level faster and easier. I don't know what the
>exact formulas ought to be, to maintain balance, but for a server with a
>3:1 Alliance/Horde ratio, it might be something like: Horde has all
>training costs reduced by 20%, and a 20% exp bonus across the board.
>2:1 ratio might mean 10% and 10% bonuses, and 1:1 would be nil,
>obviously. Blizzard could advertise the ratio and the bonuses on the
>character creation screen, so a server that is way out of whack and
>therefore has large bonuses in effect would entice people to take up
>with the outnumbered faction. This solution has the advantage of being
>implementable without changing the feel of the game (character art,
>nerfing class abilities, etc) and being easily tweakable if the formulas
>aren't quite right.

Queue massive amount of complaints from Alliance players about
favouritism and people cancelling in disgust. Like the guy said
unbalancing the game to get round a cosmetic issue is a very bad idea.
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 1:23:47 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

In article <4wfze.55282$iU.2394@lakeread05>,
"sanjian" <sanjian@widomaker.com> wrote:

> Chizel wrote:
> > Everybody moans about the fact that the horde is way outnumbered by
> > the Alliance.
> >
> > Why is this?
> >
> > Well it could be down to the following reasons:
> >
> > 1> People prefer the alliance, as they are the good guys.
> > 2> A real life friend is already alliance so you join them.
> > 3> Guilds from other games such as SWG start playing alliance
> > characters.
> > 4> The character models are more easy on the eye.
> >
> > How can this be addressed?
> >
> > My thought on this would be to make the horde more appealing.
> >
> > I don`t mean make the characters better looking, but to provide more
> > choice when picking
> > you character.
> >
> > If some new Horde specific classes were to be made then people would
> > go horde to try these.
> >
> > Lets say Necromancer for the undead only would be a good start.
>
> I think it's poor design to give horde a tactical advantage to make up for
> what is essentially a cosmetic-driven disadvantage. Just add two more
> races - a pretty horde race and an ugly alliance race, and be done with it.


That would solve some of the problem, particularly for couples where the
guy is trying to get the girl to play Horde chars, and failing (my
experience). But I doubt Blizzard will pull a discontinuity at this
point by redesigning the art... maybe for WoW II, but not WoW.

I suggest a solution to the Alliance/Horde ratio problem: Economics.
Give various leveling advantages to the outnumbered faction, based on
the magnitude of the discrepancy, and let demand (i.e. ppl starting
Horde chars) sort it out. And if demand does not sort it out, the
outnumbered faction will level faster and easier. I don't know what the
exact formulas ought to be, to maintain balance, but for a server with a
3:1 Alliance/Horde ratio, it might be something like: Horde has all
training costs reduced by 20%, and a 20% exp bonus across the board.
2:1 ratio might mean 10% and 10% bonuses, and 1:1 would be nil,
obviously. Blizzard could advertise the ratio and the bonuses on the
character creation screen, so a server that is way out of whack and
therefore has large bonuses in effect would entice people to take up
with the outnumbered faction. This solution has the advantage of being
implementable without changing the feel of the game (character art,
nerfing class abilities, etc) and being easily tweakable if the formulas
aren't quite right.

--
Eonar: Hemophage (60), Human warrior Purge (49), Undead mage
Dagobert (34), Human mage Vaik (12), Night Elf rogue
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 8:39:20 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Babe Bridou schreef:
<snip>
> Hunter: I choose tauren because I can't choose undead
> Shaman: I choose tauren because I can't choose undead
> Mage: I choose undead because trolls only have melee racials
> Rogue: I choose undead because of WOTF
> Priest: I choose undead because of WOTF and Devouring Plague
> Druid: I choose tauren because I can't choose undead
> Warrior: I choose tauren because of the war stomp stun but I'd prefer an
> undead but it's okay cause I look bad ass
> Warlock: I choose undead because of WOTF

I picked a Troll Warlock because of the higher rate of spell firing when
wounded (Berserking - Activate when "Wounded" to increase melee and
spellcasting speed by 25% - lasts 20 sec - 2 min cooldown). The 10%
health regen bonus is also nice for a caster because we've got so few of
it already :-)

Besided, they look cool (like the blue skin).

My input on this tread would be to allow Horde players for extra playing
days that they can 'win' by doing quests or earning experience (relative
to their current level).

Also, all my RL friends are on the Allience side, and I will lure a new
player there too soon with my guest account, though I am not sure if he
will keep playing (he's inflicted with RSI).

I think it is cool that Blizzard didn't put any copy protection on their
cd's so I could isobuster, zip and ftp the cd's to him. He lives on the
other side of the Netherlands from where I play.

What Blizzard could also do, is to focus less on the war and allow
Alliance players to mail money and talk with Horde players! (maybe by
doing a learn 'language' quest). Maybe they could even quest together!
(in neutral territory of course). You know, an enemy of my enemy is my
friend kind of stuff.

Horde players could also be allowed to not have to wait in line when a
server is queued, making it attrictive for Alliance players to play with
the Horde when the servers are loaded.

My 2ct,
Thomas
- --
Life is like a videogame with no chance to win - ATR
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQB5AwUBQs6QGAEP2l8iXKAJAQHmVAMdFQenjDn/Ws6wsnY1cQd5Adpx74cML601
D/oHRI9IfIw7ZvjYB8uNV9hnqmFYIJ7D6kEwt8mZBgi9nOJ76b7eu/ywyuTcejuP
86FGceOXRcu6i40BjW6hCxhOK2mBmVChqz4T+w==
=PMcW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 8:44:37 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Thomas J. Boschloo schreef:
<snip>
> I picked a Troll Warlock because of the higher rate of spell firing when

That should be Shaman of course, Warlock is not allowed for Trolls. I
play a Gnome Warlock (highest Intelligence+Spirit combo), thus the
confusion.

Because of my Alliance friends, I play him most. In math:
(much)^2 >> (few)^2 if both increase by the same percentage of new
players. So I don't see this problem getting any less worse unless
Blizzards starts taking action on this!

Thomas
- --
Life is like a videogame with no chance to win - ATR
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQB5AwUBQs6RVQEP2l8iXKAJAQEi8wMePb0HDda+gSCOtjbvcnuV/tKwZlXvBjD8
1wlTYTzU50Rw5A81ByNvOyFiXsTbikuwzixpSF1Qilb4jGR/Bdk9dZeyVWtg3j/H
FZ+r1hqVWeMMuvuOSN5SdvN2a6TYJz3cYuIrzA==
=pghn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 8:49:46 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

Thomas J. Boschloo wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> Thomas J. Boschloo schreef:
> <snip>
>
>>I picked a Troll Warlock because of the higher rate of spell firing when
>
>
> That should be Shaman of course, Warlock is not allowed for Trolls. I
> play a Gnome Warlock (highest Intelligence+Spirit combo), thus the
> confusion.
>
> Because of my Alliance friends, I play him most. In math:
> (much)^2 >> (few)^2 if both increase by the same percentage of new
> players. So I don't see this problem getting any less worse unless
> Blizzards starts taking action on this!
>
> Thomas

Walt and Christian Stauffer currently provide pink paws to every
newcomer on Horde EN-Sunstrider (PVP)! Come join our merry band,
<Cracked Sash Inc>!
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 10:31:10 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

On 8 Jul 2005 08:55:21 -0700, "BombayMix" <bombaymix@altavista.co.uk>
wrote:

>>I suggest a solution to the Alliance/Horde ratio problem: Economics.
>>Give various leveling advantages to the outnumbered faction, based on
>>the magnitude of the discrepancy, and let demand (i.e. ppl starting
>>Horde chars) sort it out. And if demand does not sort it out, the
>>outnumbered faction will level faster and easier. I don't know what the
>>exact formulas ought to be, to maintain balance, but for a server with a
>>3:1 Alliance/Horde ratio, it might be something like: Horde has all
>>training costs reduced by 20%, and a 20% exp bonus across the board.
>>2:1 ratio might mean 10% and 10% bonuses, and 1:1 would be nil,
>>obviously. Blizzard could advertise the ratio and the bonuses on the
>>character creation screen, so a server that is way out of whack and
>>therefore has large bonuses in effect would entice people to take up
>>with the outnumbered faction. This solution has the advantage of being
>>implementable without changing the feel of the game (character art,
>>nerfing class abilities, etc) and being easily tweakable if the formulas
>>aren't quite right.
>
>Queue massive amount of complaints from Alliance players about
>favouritism and people cancelling in disgust. Like the guy said
>unbalancing the game to get round a cosmetic issue is a very bad idea.

That would not unbalance the game in the slightest. A level 60 char
would still be a level 60 char - it would get there a bit faster, but
the relative power of the character would be completely unchanged.

--
Regards
Simon Nejmann
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 10:31:11 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

Simon Nejmann wrote:
> On 8 Jul 2005 08:55:21 -0700, "BombayMix" <bombaymix@altavista.co.uk>
> wrote:

>> Queue massive amount of complaints from Alliance players about
>> favouritism and people cancelling in disgust. Like the guy said
>> unbalancing the game to get round a cosmetic issue is a very bad
>> idea.
>
> That would not unbalance the game in the slightest. A level 60 char
> would still be a level 60 char - it would get there a bit faster, but
> the relative power of the character would be completely unchanged.

Well, it would give the horde a higher average level, though I'm not sure
that means anything.

None the less, I don't like the idea of making the game easier for a
faction, just because they're less popular. Fix what's broken instead of
hunting down work-arounds. If I've got a cooler that's fowled, I don't
increase pump discharge pressure to try to compensate, I clean the cooler.
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 1:18:39 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

"BombayMix" <bombaymix@altavista.co.uk> wrote:

>>I suggest a solution to the Alliance/Horde ratio problem: Economics.
>>Give various leveling advantages to the outnumbered faction, based on
>>the magnitude of the discrepancy, and let demand (i.e. ppl starting
>>Horde chars) sort it out. And if demand does not sort it out, the
>>outnumbered faction will level faster and easier. I don't know what the
>>exact formulas ought to be, to maintain balance, but for a server with a
>>3:1 Alliance/Horde ratio, it might be something like: Horde has all
>>training costs reduced by 20%, and a 20% exp bonus across the board.
>>2:1 ratio might mean 10% and 10% bonuses, and 1:1 would be nil,
>>obviously. Blizzard could advertise the ratio and the bonuses on the
>>character creation screen, so a server that is way out of whack and
>>therefore has large bonuses in effect would entice people to take up
>>with the outnumbered faction. This solution has the advantage of being
>>implementable without changing the feel of the game (character art,
>>nerfing class abilities, etc) and being easily tweakable if the formulas
>>aren't quite right.
>
> Queue massive amount of complaints from Alliance players about
> favouritism and people cancelling in disgust. Like the guy said
> unbalancing the game to get round a cosmetic issue is a very bad idea.

Erm... "unbalancing"? On a server with a 3:1 ratio, the game IS
unbalanced, and favouring one faction would work towards a balance.

Chris

--
[WoW] Wildcard - Treehugging Tauren (56) on EN Sunstrider [PvP]
Lonewalker - Striding Tauren (15) on EN Sunstrider [PvP]
Jazrah - Brutal Troll (16) on EN Sunstrider [PvP]
Jivarr - Charming Troll (12) on EN Sunstrider [PvP]
!