equal numbers of players in bg

[Gregoriano]

I'm talking about these situations, where in the beginning of a bg there is 15vs~7 players or something stupid like that. It is really common recently and usually means a free win, even if more players join eventually.

On a server, I was playing back in the days there was a very simple system that prevented it. It permited only one extra player to join the outnumbering side, even if there are more queued, they will have to wait for players from the outnumbered side to join.

For example, there are 15 hordes and 10 allys queued for AB.
- queue will pop for 11 hordes and 10 allys. 4 hordes will still have to wait untill 4 more allys joins queue.

On a side note - If this was implemented, maybe it would make some hordes to switch to alliance, since either side wouldn't get "free" wins by simply outnumbering the other.

[Imperium]

I'm talking about these situations, where in the beginning of a bg there is 15vs~7 players or something stupid like that. It is really common recently and usually means a free win, even if more players join eventually.

On a server, I was playing back in the days there was a very simple system that prevented it. It permited only one extra player to join the outnumbering side, even if there are more queued, they will have to wait for players from the outnumbered side to join.

For example, there are 15 hordes and 10 allys queued for AB.
- queue will pop for 11 hordes and 10 allys. 4 hordes will still have to wait until 4 more allys joins queue.

On a side note - If this was implemented, maybe it would make some hordes to switch to alliance, since either side wouldn't get "free" wins by simply outnumbering the other.

every BG has a certain quota to meet before even beginning.
five people from EACH faction must queue for WSG and then it will pop the qeue

but people don't always accept, even if they are in queue. this is not something easily fixedd, because like you say, 15vs.7 but obviously the system didn't do that on purpose, 15 people must have queued but only 7 accepted.
it comes back to player response, nothing we can really do about it. that i know of.

[Henhouse]

We had a system that kept it balanced to the exact number -- however it broke group-queuing and too many people complained for it to be removed, so we did.

[kjb]

I could see this working. As for you saying its not easily fixed why can't they just make it so that 1 horde and 1 alliance have to que. Instead of just requiring 5 people and then letting it go where ever. That means even if the battle is started already a horde cant get in without an alliance and an alliance cant get it without a horde. It would keep it perfectly even.

[Henhouse]

I could see this working. As for you saying its not easily fixed why can't they just make it so that 1 horde and 1 alliance have to que. Instead of just requiring 5 people and then letting it go where ever. That means even if the battle is started already a horde cant get in without an alliance and an alliance cant get it without a horde. It would keep it perfectly even.

That's a terrible idea. That means 10v1 would be acceptable and completely goes against what you just originally suggested. No, the minimum requirements will stay.

[kjb]

Clearly you don't understand what I am saying. Let's say it is wsg and 9 alliance and 9 horde are in the battle. If an alliance goes to Q they should not be allowed in until a horde ques to match them. This as opposed to letting him in early and making it 10 vs 9.

[Ricekrispies]

We had a system that kept it balanced to the exact number -- however it broke group-queuing and too many people complained for it to be removed, so we did.

This might have been handy at the time.

[Rumers]

in 90% of AB and EOTS there is 15 hordes in and 7 alliance no matter what GM do.so go horde or change server.

[Akeno]

in 90% of AB and EOTS there is 15 hordes in and 7 alliance no matter what GM do.so go horde or change server.

You are so wrong.