This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Why Are Horde Better In BattleGrounds?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Skreeran
I don't know though. For one, it's going to differ from realm to realm, and even bracket to bracket. Second, I seem to get my ass kicked no matter which side I play. I have both Horde and Alliance characters, and in some brackets, it seems like the Horde just can't catch a break.
It's worth noting that my realm has about a 5:1 ratio of Alliance to Horde.
Post by
Rankkor
I don't know though. For one, it's going to differ from realm to realm, and even bracket to bracket. Second, I seem to get my ass kicked no matter which side I play. I have both Horde and Alliance characters, and in some brackets, it seems like the Horde just can't catch a break.
This.
The whole "X- Faction is better than Y at BGs" is a myth. A myth by people who just can't cope with loses and instead chooses to put blame on imaginary conditions.
Truth of the matter is that victory or defeat in a BG depends entirely on luck when its not a premade group. You need to be lucky to be paired with other skilled players who like to work as a team rather than lone wolves who play by their own rules. The more wild canons you have on your team, the less likely you are to win. And when it comes to stupid, unskilled, disruptive, and downright AWFUL players, I've seen innumerable amounts of them as both alliance and horde.
So no, "The horde is not better in battlegrounds". Random players are better at battlegrounds.
Edit: Also this is a necro of a FIVE year old thread. Is it sad that all but ONE out of every poster in page 1 and 2 are long gone from the site? D=
Post by
ElhonnaDS
It's not a myth, if the numbers support it.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
It's not a myth, if the numbers support it.
4.5% seems well within the margin of error for the methods used, though I would need to have access to the original data to do a proper statistical analysis. The fact that no actual statistical analysis was done, coupled with the fact that the bar graphs used are visually deceiving leads me to question whether the results are really statistically significant.
Post by
Rankkor
Then I must have one hell of a bad luck streak, because when I queue for pvp as horde, the overwhelming majority of the time, my team is made of trained chimpanzees and we get brutally owned by the enemy team.
Besides the difference isn't that large on those numbers (Assuming they're accurate). The lowest % is 42 and the highest is 58.
So they're pretty close.
Post by
Skreeran
It's not a myth, if the numbers support it.
Again though, this is going to vary pretty wildly from Battlegroup to Battlegroup.
Like mine for example, where Alliance dominate in every Bracket from 10 to 59.
Post by
Pallyalt
The question isn't whether or not horde dominate in bgs, but
why
. Statistically this is a fact and anyone can see these stats with a dependable addon like OQueue. While this may vary from battleground to battleground, overall, horde do dominate and this is true on every realm I've played.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Statistically this is a fact and anyone can see these stats with a dependable addon like OQueue. While this may vary from battleground to battleground, overall, horde do Dominate and this is true on every realm I've played.
You're not backing up your statistical "fact" with the actual statistical analysis required to make that claim.
I'm not saying being Horde and winning BGs don't have a significant correlation, but rather that it has yet to be demonstrated.
Post by
Pallyalt
Statistically this is a fact and anyone can see these stats with a dependable addon like OQueue. While this may vary from battleground to battleground, overall, horde do Dominate and this is true on every realm I've played.
You're not backing up your statistical "fact" with the actual statistical analysis required to make that claim.
I'm not saying being Horde and winning BGs don't have a significant correlation, but rather that it has yet to be demonstrated.
This information is readily available to anyone with the OQueue Addon, which is free and accessible through Curse. There is no way to provide screenshots of my ingame display going back 8 months, and even if I could, who's to say I didn't tamper with the images? But anyone with this Addon will see that what I said is true and accurate.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I don't think you understand what "statistical analysis" means. There is more to statistics than collection raw data and presenting it. A whole field of math exists to analyze that data. To present something a "statistical fact" without any actual statistical analysis is disingenuous.
Post by
Rankkor
I don't think you understand what "statistical analysis" means. There is more to statistics than collection raw data and presenting it. A whole field of math exists to analyze that data. To present something a "statistical fact" without any actual statistical analysis is disingenuous.
And just like that I like you a lot more than I did an hour ago :P even if your final conclusion is different from mine =D
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I don't think you understand what "statistical analysis" means. There is more to statistics than collection raw data and presenting it. A whole field of math exists to analyze that data. To present something a "statistical fact" without any actual statistical analysis is disingenuous.
But HSR, the red bars are SOOOOO much bigger than the blue bars. And they made a graph. You know who else makes graphs- mathematicians. That has to count, right? I'm convinced.
Really, though, I think that if we were only accounting for deviations in statistics based on margins of error in collection methods, it's unlikely for every individual comparison to be skewed in favor of the same faction unless there was already a disparity, or something about the collection method inherently invited that bias. My own feelings are that it's a self fulfilling prophesy. People think the horde are better at PvP. People who are interested mostly in PvP are more likely to gravitate to the side they feel will be more successful. As a result of the migration, there's a higher concentration of PvP focused-players on the one side, which results in more wins, which results in people thinking the horde is better at PvP, and around and around we go.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##ElhonnaDS##DELIM##
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
And just like that I like you a lot more than I did an hour ago :P
My bad, won't let that happen again.
;)
But HSR, the red bars are SOOOOO much bigger than the blue bars. And they made a graph. You know who else makes graphs- mathematicians. That has to count, right? I'm convinced.
Mathematicians are frauds, all of them! It's mathemagicians like me you should trust; we understand the true nature of mathology.
Post by
Pallyalt
I don't think you understand what "statistical analysis" means. There is more to statistics than collection raw data and presenting it. A whole field of math exists to analyze that data. To present something a "statistical fact" without any actual statistical analysis is disingenuous.
You're trying to make this much more complicated than it really is. You're speaking of science here, when the bottom line is really just a matter of wins and losses. When the win/loss stats are showing horde with 10,929 and alliance with 10,135, no amount of "statistical analysis" is going to change the fact that horde won more battles.
Interestingly, scientists were able to prove, through "statistical analysis", that bees were incapable of flight. Go figure lol
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Mathematicians are frauds, all of them! It's mathemagicians like me you should trust; we understand the true nature of mathology.
Yeah, but then you turn it into a frog.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I don't think you understand what "statistical analysis" means. There is more to statistics than collection raw data and presenting it. A whole field of math exists to analyze that data. To present something a "statistical fact" without any actual statistical analysis is disingenuous.
You're trying to make this much more complicated than it really is. You're speaking of science here, when the bottom line is really just a matter of wins and losses. When the win/loss stats are showing horde with 10,929 and alliance with 10,135, no amount of "statistical analysis" is going to change the fact that horde won more battles.
Has
won more battles
. Not
does
win more battles
. See the difference? If you flip a coin 10 times and heads comes up 6 times, we can say that
heads
did
come up more than tails
, not that
heads
does
come up more than tails
. To arrive at the latter conclusion in either case, you need to use statistics, because when it comes to judging things like randomness and normal distribution, human intuition is notoriously scewed as we are built to see patterns even when there are none.
Interestingly, scientists were able to prove, through "statistical analysis", that bees were incapable of Flight. Go figure lol
1) The issue here is with physics and fluid modelling, not statistics. They barely have anything to do with one another.
2) Scientists didn't prove anything. It was a commonly held belief that stemmed from a lack of knowledge about the physics involved. Obviously they do fly, so no scientist is going to prove that they don't fly. Instead they simply admit that the currently accepted models do not account for it, and until the models are adapted or overturned it remains unexplained.
3) This particular issue was laid to rest 3 or 4 years ago with advanced computer modelling, and the scientists involved were able to explain exactly how bees are able to fly. Can't find an online copy of the research paper in question, but
this
is straight from Oxford.
Post by
Skreeran
1) The issue here is with physics and fluid modelling, not statistics. They barely have anything to do with one another.
2) Scientists didn't prove anything. It was a commonly held belief that stemmed from a lack of knowledge about the physics involved. Obviously they do fly, so no scientist is going to prove that they don't fly. Instead they simply admit that the currently accepted models do not account for it, and until the models are adapted or overturned it remains unexplained.
3) This particular issue was laid to rest 3 or 4 years ago with advanced computer modelling, and the scientists involved were able to explain exactly how bees are able to fly. Can't find an online copy of the research paper in question, but
this
is straight from Oxford.Also
this
. I would trust Snopes more than my own mother.
Post by
Pallyalt
Let me rephrase this a bit for you. For the past 8 months, I have had the ability to see the win/loss stats for all battlegrounds in the realm I am on at any given time. I am online roughly 3-6 hours a day, an hour in the morning and the rest in the evening after I get off work. During this time, the stat display has consistently shown horde in the lead. Never once has it shown alliance in the lead. So, for roughly 245 days, horde has consistently had more wins than alliance. At times, it has been close, but 100 more wins is still a "statistical" lead.
Now, I admit, I can only account for the times I have been online. I cannot speak for those hours when I'm working, or out with my family. Maybe alliance miraculously takes the lead during this time, then right before I get back online, falls behind. Who knows?
Hyperspacerebel, you're obviously a very smart person and know quite a bit about science, but this doesn't take a degree in science or months/years of analysis to figure out. It's simply a matter of looking at the numbers and drawing the best conclusion based on the information. A high school kid could do that. It's like watching a game of pool and seeing someone hit the cue ball and knowing it caused the eight ball to go into the corner pocket.. Sure, you could do all sorts of analysis to determine what caused that ball to go into the pocket, but it really isn't necessary because it's simply a matter of common sense.
As for the bee statement, it was more sarcastic than a basis of fact; it was intended to illustrate that sometimes, a lot of facts can actually "prove" something that isn't true.
Skreeran, not sure about that article, but when I was in high school, we were taught that science once
did
"prove" that bees couldn't fly. While they obviously knew otherwise, based on their understanding of physics at the time, bees should not have been able to fly. In any event, there are many historical instances where scientists believed something to be true or false and later discovered they were wrong. People err, it happens...
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Let me rephrase this a bit for you. For the past 8 months, I have had the ability to see the win/loss stats for all battlegrounds in the realm I am on at any given time. I am online roughly 3-6 hours a day, an hour in the morning and the rest in the evening after I get off work. During this time, the stat display has consistently shown horde in the lead. Never once has it shown alliance in the lead. So, for roughly 245 days, horde has consistently had more wins than alliance. At times, it has been close, but 100 more wins is still a "statistical" lead.
Now, I admit, I can only account for the times I have been online. I cannot speak for those hours when I'm working, or out with my family. Maybe alliance miraculously takes the lead during this time, then right before I get back online, falls behind. Who knows?
Who knows?
Yeah... who knows? If only there existed some form of math tell us whether my sample size is good enough to show a significant correlation. If only there was some way we could stop wondering about it and know as much as is mathematically possible.
Here's the long and short of it. You are providing what amounts to anecdotal evidence to support conclusions that you are representing as fact. Anecdotal evidence is fine. But as soon as you start using works like "fact" and "statistically", then you've gone beyond the boundaries of anecdote. And I have a problem with that. I don't really have an opinion one way or the other on the actual issue at hand (my experience is all over the place), but I do not like it when people disregard proper analytically methodology when it comes to discussing any issue.
Hyperspacerebel, you're obviously a very smart person and know quite a bit about science, but this doesn't take a degree in science or months/years of analysis to figure out. It's simply a matter of looking at the numbers and drawing the best conclusion based on the information. A high school kid could do that. It's like watching a game of pool and seeing someone hit the cue ball and knowing it caused the eight ball to go into the corner pocket.. Sure, you could do all sorts of analysis to determine what caused that ball to go into the pocket, but it really isn't necessary because it's simply a matter of common sense.
But it's not that simple, nor is it a matter of common sense. It's a matter of probability. From a set of raw data, you're arriving at a conclusion. Unfortunately, you're not only not using the correct tools to arrive at that conclusion, but you're arguing against the use of them. That's just wrong. Your conclusion might be correct, but your methodology is completely lacking.
As for the bee statement, it was more sarcastic than a basis of fact, but it was intended to illustrate that sometimes, a lot of facts can actually "prove" something that isn't accurate.
Except all it does is illustrate a grave misunderstanding about how the scientific method works.
Post by
Pallyalt
Yeah... who knows? If only there existed some form of math tell us whether my sample size is good enough to show a significant correlation. If only there was some way we could stop wondering about it and know as much as is mathematically possible.
Here's the long and short of it. You are providing what amounts to anecdotal evidence to support conclusions that you are representing as fact. Anecdotal evidence is fine. But as soon as you start using works like "fact" and "statistically", then you've gone beyond the boundaries of anecdote. And I have a problem with that. I don't really have an opinion one way or the other on the actual issue at hand (my experience is all over the place), but I do not like it when people disregard proper analytically methodology when it comes to discussing any issue.
But it's not that simple, nor is it a matter of common sense. It's a matter of probability. From a set of raw data, you're arriving at a conclusion. Unfortunately, you're not only not using the correct tools to arrive at that conclusion, but you're arguing against the use of them. That's just wrong. Your conclusion might be correct, but your methodology is completely lacking.
The fact (yes, I said "fact") is, it really
is
that simple. Comparing two numbers really is just a matter of simple subtraction.
Here's some end of day numbers for you:
Day 1: Horde: 10,921 | Alliance: 10,234
Day 2: Horde: 2,457 | Alliance: 1,987
Day 3: Horde: 4,100 | Alliance: 3,978
Day 4: Horde: 12,110 | Alliance: 11,646
Total: Horde: 29,588 (average: 7,397) | Alliance: 27,845 (average: 6,961.25)
Now, what you're telling me is that unless I apply some advanced statistical analysis process, I cannot accurately comprehend these numbers? From my vantage point, there is a difference of 1,743 and Horde is in the lead. How does it look on your end?
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.