Tol Barad Balance
Originally Posted by Blizzard (Blue Tracker)
Now that Cataclysm is out in the wild, more players are getting gearing up and checking out Tol Barad, the new outdoor PvP zone. Today, we wanted to address some of the concerns players have expressed about the zone, including how challenging it can be to win as the attacking team, and provide some insight into our design approach. We also wanted to share some of the lessons we learned from Wintergrasp, discuss the difference between the two zones, and touch upon the recent hotfixes made to Honor Point gains and how we plan to improve Tol Barad going forward. We're confident this zone will provide meaningful and fun PvP for some time to come, but we also recognize additional tuning is required to ensure Tol Barad is everything we intend it to be.

As we mentioned earlier, the attacking faction is having a pretty tough time winning control of Tol Barad -- and we're OK with that, at least in theory. Here's why: When we set out to create Wintergrasp, one of the issues we dealt with was that we were never able to ensure the sides were even -- in fact, they rarely were. Because the smaller team would almost always be assured defeat, we attempted to address team-size imbalance by favoring the attacker. Control of Wintergrasp went back and forth, and the result was that battles lost their impact. On most realms the defenders became complacent, knowing they were likely to lose control of the zone, returning to re-take it when it was their turn to attack. The sides swapped back and forth every few hours, and Wintergrasp wasn’t so much about an epic struggle for a meaningful piece of land as it was a complicated game of leapfrog.

Since then we’ve devised mechanics that help ensure equal team sizes, and we've taken Wintergrasp's lessons to heart when we designed Tol Barad. Tol Barad is intentionally balanced so that it’s a challenge for the attackers, because we want to make sure that control of Tol Barad matters. For the defenders, there’s a sense of urgency that Wintergrasp didn't have -- if you lose it, you’re going to have a hell of a time taking it back. For the attackers, there are a number of rewards at stake -- such as access to the Baradin Hold raid and additional daily quests -- that we hope players feel are worth fighting for. That sort of tension is what we wanted from Wintergrasp, and what we believe Tol Barad can ultimately offer.

With that being said, we want winning Tol Barad to be a challenge for the attacking faction... but we don't want it to be impossible. Taking Tol Barad should be tough -- but right now it’s a little bit too tough, and it’s something we’re actively working to balance. Earlier, we attempted to temporarily address the issue by offering a far better reward to the winning attackers: Honor Points awarded for successfully attacking were increased tenfold, but that was such a great incentive that it ultimately undermined the spirit of competition. Since then, the reward for winning as an attacker has been brought back down to a more reasonable amount.

While we've already made minor adjustments to improve the gameplay and address select exploits, our job in Tol Barad is far from over. We ultimately want to make sure that any changes we make are all steps in the right direction, and we intend to make several updates in the next minor patch to address design and balance issues affecting attackers that we can't address with hotfixes. For example, we plan to alter the battle slightly so that a team with two bases captured can more quickly and easily capture the third, as opposed to a team with one or zero bases. This way, if the defenders turtle up, it'll be a little easier for the attackers to take their last base before the defense can take one of the attackers' other bases.

We've been reading your feedback, watching trends across our global realms, and fighting plenty of battles in Tol Barad ourselves to get a feel for what's working and what isn't, and we're committed to making Tol Barad a fun and engaging zone. We want owning the zone to be meaningful throughout the lifespan of the expansion -- and while the attackers may always face somewhat of an uphill battle, the defenders should feel much more pressure not to lose than they do currently. Just the same, the attacking faction should feel motivated to take Tol Barad back, but they shouldn't feel that the odds are insurmountable. So keep fighting the good fight, and we'll continue watching the battlefield and listening to your feedback.

Cory "Mumper" Stockton is the lead content designer on World of Warcraft and enjoys a good set of LEGOs.
This article was originally published in forum thread: Tol Barad Balance started by Boubouille View original post
Comments 244 Comments
  1. Brett Skullcrack's Avatar
    Even with all its flaws, I would take WG over TB any day. The fundamental flaw in Blizzard's philosophy is that this is not a premade and properly lead pvp battle, instead it's a large group of people randomly picked from a queue who will do whatever they feel like. As a result any single player has no impact in the final result, there is no chance to device and execute strategies, and the whole thing is an essentially random flocks of players going around.

    Stacking the odds so greatly against the attacker does nothing to alleviate the problems they had with WG, defending is still boring and people do it only for honor and hks, while it made attackers complacent too. Why would I bother to go attack in TB when I'm overwhelmingly likely to lose, when I cannot personally contribute to any degree to the outcome, and I know that at some point during the week my faction will have BH anyway?
  1. Xcursion's Avatar
    just make it into a 24/7 pvp zone, take out the dailies make the zones have independent dailies ie. if alliance can get IG then they get 2 IG dailies if they lose it they have to re gain it back to turn them in. etc. this is the only viable solution just tweaking it into the ground will end up with both sides so frustrated that we will all hear the dreaded excuse of "it was not as intended " with translates into "we dont have a clue"
  1. Keristrasza's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by wiIdi View Post
    "the attacking faction is having a pretty tough time winning control of Tol Barad -- and we're OK with that"

    with this decision you make tol barad imbalanced by default, think about it..
    Everything they are "ok with" makes this entire expansion gimped, imbalanced and un-fun. Forcing people to be in a guild to get ANY Sort of "perk" what so ever that DOES alter game play by a great deal, screw over the new PVP zone so its almost impossible to win, make healing obnoxious to the point its impossible to find a good one, same issue with tanking AND make the LFG function nearly worthless because 90% of the time you've got some idiot that doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground. Only thing keeping me playing atm is my friends, if it wasn't for them I'd probably have saved myself the money and not bothered getting Cata until the following expansion ... unless they some how make the game worse.


    Quote Originally Posted by Brett Skullcrack View Post
    Even with all its flaws, I would take WG over TB any day. The fundamental flaw in Blizzard's philosophy is that this is not a premade and properly lead pvp battle, instead it's a large group of people randomly picked from a queue who will do whatever they feel like. As a result any single player has no impact in the final result, there is no chance to device and execute strategies, and the whole thing is an essentially random flocks of players going around.

    Stacking the odds so greatly against the attacker does nothing to alleviate the problems they had with WG, defending is still boring and people do it only for honor and hks, while it made attackers complacent too. Why would I bother to go attack in TB when I'm overwhelmingly likely to lose, when I cannot personally contribute to any degree to the outcome, and I know that at some point during the week my faction will have BH anyway?
    ^ This. Took 5 tries to get the achievement for winning ... and I don't bother joining TB at all now. Wintergrasp was FUN, I enjoyed wintergrasp. I sit around waiting at the camp near the portal until the fights over. If we win, I go get the dailies then leave. If we don't, I go farm leather until the next fight ... then rinse and repeat. Why waste my time in a BG that is to annoying to win and don't get a good enough reward for it? 100-300 honor isn't worth the time it takes.
  1. yetgdhfgh's Avatar
    ive noticed that the defending team never bothers defending the towers they just let the attacking side destroy them so they can just focus on zerging each base
    so maybe a nice buff for the attacking side for destroying all 3 towers would help that way the defending side would need to send players to defend the towers and it would it would give a huge boost for the attacking side in the dying minutes of the game
  1. Richtea's Avatar
    Personally, I love TB. It's hit #2 spot in my list of favorite BGs, even with the defender bias.
    Just to qualify, my server is 3:1 (or there abouts) horde to ally, with the horde being slightly more PvP orientated. Despite this, TB swaps sides roughly 2-3 times a day (don't know about nighttime).

    Having read the wall of blue, I'm actually looking forward to the changes. There's nothing actually flawed with an imbalanced BG providing both sides have access to both attack and defence, just in TB you actually have to win on attack in order to qualify for the much easier defence job. It rewards better/smarter/more organised play, great. But, they've noted that the (im)balance isn't quite there yet and have told you how they're going to fix it.

    Lets for a minute take a look at the way the BG works (or at least the way I understand it), say you need 1000 "points" to cap a base. You get a certain number of points per player at that node, plus you get a fixed number per "kill" at that node (there's probably a fair bit more to it than just that, but that'll do for now), this favours the defender who can either sit in one base and hold it till time up, or can just move the majority of his forces on to take another in the same time it takes the attacker to cap the remaining one.

    What has been said is, the "points" needed to take the final base are being reduced, if you already have two.

    Now lets say you now only need 800 to cap that final base, suddenly, turtling isn't so attractive for the defender as their "buffer" for the fixed kill "points" at a base is smaller; if the attacker gets a sudden streak of kills (and they have the shorter gy run afterall, so can mana drain the defenders with their corpses) they can take it from under them. Likewise, you can't rush from one base to another because you'll take longer to grab the next base than the other side will capturing the one you just left.
    Now, the defender has to worry about defending two bases rather than just the one.

    Making the towers more meaningful would be nice as well, but all in all, I like what's been said.
  1. Lansworthy's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Boubouille View Post
    Puppies, my friend.
    Puppies are happy when you smash sleeping pills into their food.
  1. unholyskipper's Avatar
    I think thats terrible i would much rather is be hard to defend and easy to attack
  1. levanto's Avatar
    "Cory "Mumper" Stockton is the lead content designer on World of Warcraft and enjoys a good set of LEGOs."

    on topic... when the hell will we get a set of World of Warcraft LEGOs???
  1. Bogrim's Avatar
    We get control of the zone maybe once a day if we're lucky, and the control bounces back to the Horde after that. Players on our realm aren't motivated for an uphill battle - Wintergrasp was an uphill battle for the larger and last parts of Wrath as well. While I like the design philosophy that the battle should matter, Blizzard needs to realize that losing a battle constantly is not motivating and will result in players not enjoying the battle at all. In Wintergrasp, there were still mechanics that empowered the attacking faction the more they failed to seize control of the zone so that even if the faction wasn't winning at all, eventually the zone control would shift regardless.

    In a couple of days I will have my Drake from Tol Barad and after that I am never going back at the zone. I know a lot of guild mates and friends who feel the same way, the grind and PvP feels horrible and it's only something we take on because of the rewards. The zone is overcamped, the battles aren't any fun and the only reason for us to really participate is the unique rewards from the daily quests - once we have that we won't bother doing it anymore. Tol Barad isn't going to last an expansion's life-time, it's going to last until the first wave of players have their rewards then it's going to become an extremely underpopulated zone that nobody cares about.
  1. delage35's Avatar
    They clearly don't even remember their own notes about what WG devolved into... faction swaps and server swaps to ensure that 1 side always won -- some servers were heavy alliance and some were heavy horde. Leap frog hadn't happened routinely for months. This was Blizzards own assessment of the situation.

    So yeah, use a complete rewrite of history to decide what's will help TB.
  1. HATERADE's Avatar
    STILL!!!!!??????? I cant believe this still isnt fixed. even if it is fixed, at this point the season is ruined. one faction has had a huge honor advantage over the other.
  1. Xirony's Avatar
    BT should have been fix before the game came out IMO.
  1. Cows For Life's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by delage35 View Post
    They clearly don't even remember their own notes about what WG devolved into... faction swaps and server swaps to ensure that 1 side always won -- some servers were heavy alliance and some were heavy horde. Leap frog hadn't happened routinely for months. This was Blizzards own assessment of the situation.

    So yeah, use a complete rewrite of history to decide what's will help TB.
    I played on two servers and have never seen that behavior in any of the 1000+ WG battles that I've played over two years and in addition I haven't even heard of that happening elsewhere. Lie more please.
  1. mmoccc0b2dd691's Avatar
    simple way of making TB fun.. making the towers actually mean something. can we not maybe give slightly longer spawn timers for the vehicles and once a tower goes down give a smaller time increase but a buff to capturing bases. This will make it harder for defenders to just zerg round and round.. it also might actually get them to defend the towers too.
  1. phatomphreak's Avatar
    let's see if they fix. It i have been there once and well, just slighty bewildered that the hoarde were in our camp and 10 deaths later i got to the port. the gaurds just stand there and look dumb but if we get to close to their camp you are dead.
  1. Stockli's Avatar
    Hurray for the fix
  1. momobear's Avatar
    Here's an idea to maybe make Tol Barad a little easier for attacker. For each place their faction owns increase their cap rate. i think that might seem a bit fair
  1. Harpocrates's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by MagusUnion View Post
    Then, you sir, have a battlegroup who knows how to fight war...

    Tol Barad is a test to see which faction can tactically use the men and women given in the PvP queue system to collectively come together and complete an objective. It's almost RTS in that nature, without the point-and-click type control over 'units'... and it also rewards the most coordinated, and leader-worthy.

    With that being said, Blizzard is ignoring the fact that many players don't care about the battle, or the concept of honor and faction loyalty. They just want to win... the game is not about the story to them, just winning. It's this sad lack of immersion that I think makes TB a failfest, because people who don't listen (or care enough to listen), and just going to ignore strategy and end up gimping the faction they are on...
    40v40

    Team A : needs 1 base to win
    Team B : needs 3 bases to win

    team B, needs to split up those 40 into 3 sections....team A needs to zerg all 40 onto each base


    do the math

    TB is retarded, broken and a big mistake
  1. johurl71's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Harpocrates View Post
    40v40

    Team A : needs 1 base to win
    Team B : needs 3 bases to win

    team B, needs to split up those 40 into 3 sections....team A needs to zerg all 40 onto each base


    do the math

    TB is retarded, broken and a big mistake
    Agreed!!! To anyone who said it takes skill right now to defend TB, you are FOOLS. /Turtle takes no SKILL. Now with the new possible implementation of he who possesses the most bases gets advantage for 3rd base this may make it better. No more, hold base 1 until overtaken then rush base 2 with 40 people. All i can say is, WE SHALL SEE BLIZZ....
  1. Buu's Avatar
    Cutting to the chase:
    Quote Originally Posted by Harpocrates View Post
    Team A : needs 1 base to win
    Team B : needs 3 bases to win
    Why!? WHY!? Why people still coming out and insisting that some weird, isolated happening they saw now and then is the rule?
    NO! That's the most simple it can get to. The stupid attackers winning you saw was some kind of exploit that is not the rule.
    Rule is TEAM A NEED 1, TEAM B NEED ALL 3. No matter the crap you drop here, that is simple and final.
    LOL Barad is broken. And seriously, with the TONS of good suggestions, and things that would make people happy simply being thrown at their lap, so they just have to implement, and no damn test of ANY of those systems in PTR. Somebody, please burn, shred, smash, melt, those LEGOs.

Site Navigation