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. CaptainArlong's Avatar
    So because WG switched sides occasionally they didn't like it? Uhh yeah ok....

    I just hit 85 this weekend and decided to check out Tol Barad to see what the fuss was about. That place is horrid. It's just Arathi Basin but with far more players, and by holding 1 single base you win if you're defending. We would capture 2 bases, then the Horde would turtle. The game ends with the defended winning, and then someone says we hadn't had won TB since the Tuesday before, for 2 hours. I'm not joining another TB until it's changed.

    So Blizzard, you didn't like how people would stop defending in WG, now you've got people that don't even want to attack in TB.
  1. LazerCats's Avatar
    To be perfectly frank, I'm not sure why they replaced Wintergrasp at all. It had its problems, sure, but it was a rather novel concept and felt a heck of a lot more epic than TB does. I'd be happy, and I'm sure others would as well, if they made a non-snowy copy of Wintergrasp, perhaps with a few layout changes, make the quests dailies instead of weeklies again, and make the teams even as they are in TB. No more tenacity, but you still have epic fights that aren't just big runarounds. The attacking team has a clear objective, and can make progress toward that without the worry of backtracking the rest of the fight.
  1. Xathian's Avatar
    Did they basically just say they don't want this to be balanced? They WANT it to be harder for 1 side?

    Jesus Christ, to hell with these idiots in charge of game design.
  1. Scot's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by fangless View Post
    The way this community acts when they don't like things is ridiculous. I'd never say anything to the players if all that happened was I got spit on after doing so.
    They just spew meaningless PR bullshit when there are huge problems. They never directly address these problems or even outright acknowledge them. Its always "there MAY be an issue" or "we'll keep an eye on it" when its painfully obvious to everyone who plays (and pays for) this game that there IS a problem and it needs to be fixed, not observed. If this is the type of crap they want to send out, I would prefer nothing. Then at least I wouldn't have to waste my time reading it only to realize that it had no actual substance.
  1. mmoc3484d6014b's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Befizzled View Post
    that is not true
    why?
    because if alliance is 40 players, then horde is also 40 players. max is 80 per faction - Love how people pull facts out of their arse
    WG wasn't like that, which was what he was saying.
  1. PraLiNeN's Avatar
    Atleast it doesn't lag as badly as WG did
  1. dlld's Avatar
    I say flip the balance around so the difficulty in attacking now is the same as defending and attacking as defending is now, reintroduce the 1800 honor for winning defend.

    You cant (really) win trade and both sides will have major incentives to win both defend and attack.
  1. Gnomity's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Befizzled View Post
    that is not true
    why?
    because if alliance is 40 players, then horde is also 40 players. max is 80 per faction - Love how people pull facts out of their arse
    I'm pretty sure he's referring to the fact that WG was not 1:1 balanced for 95% of WOTLK, meaning that on a server that has 9:1 horde, the horde would almost always win. With TB, and the 1:1 enforcement, it's not a foregone conclusion simply because of the number of players on the respective teams.
  1. RevDrLuv's Avatar
    Tol Barad is actually very balanced. The only time the larger faction has the advantage is late at night when there are fewer players on so they are more likely to meet the 25 min player cap than the other team.

    Here is the ONLY thing they need to change. Seriously it would keep it competitive without changing the way the game is played.

    Just increase the size of the "cap" part of the bases status bars. That way it takes longer to uncap a base giving the attackers more time to get all three.
  1. tripl3x's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by fangless View Post
    The way this community acts when they don't like things is ridiculous. I'd never say anything to the players if all that happened was I got spit on after doing so.
    Quoting for truth... can't agree any more.
  1. Buu's Avatar
    Man, that BG is a complete FAIL.
    What about the NEW exploit, where a raid dissolves, and the game keep calling more players of that faction to fill the BG, BUT does NOT expel the deserters, making that faction outnumber the other?
    WTH they were doing instead of work on Tol Barad, that made things rushed and broken that way.
  1. Glnger's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Calaba View Post
    /facepalm
    The more organized team is more likely to win?! What a complete disaster!
    You know the solution, though. Its the same as what caused this to start with on many servers - faction transfers.


    dip$hit faction transfers is not a fix for imbalance. way to miss read/quote to my argument which is servers with less pop factions have MORE control over getting them organized teams.
    yes organization is key, but the bias remains regardless. now go fly a kite, or catch bugs on your tongue or something
  1. darc's Avatar
    they didnt even talk about adressing the only issue i have with it. on unbalanced servers like mine only 20-25 horde queue and 100s of alliance do. now you could say so what let them fight it for you but what you arent thinking about is the 25 horde that queued 20 did so becuase they pvp and are geared and they get put up against a random assortment of alliance that dont have my 2k resil that arent healers that dont know what they are doing. either let us all in or pick the ones that will make it a fight not all new blue geared pups with no clue how to take it back
  1. Xathian's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by tripl3x View Post
    Quoting for truth... can't agree any more.
    Well you see, some of us don't have Blizzard balls deep down our throats, and don't give a fuck about treating them like gods. They don't give us a gift, we pay for them to have their damn houses and their jobs, and they pay it back by designing horrible shit then telling us we have no right to think our concerns are valid.
  1. Zelven's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by wildemu View Post
    I am surprised that he is satisfied with the 40 cap for the bg.

    Absolute garbage in my eyes, this is just a bunch of lawyer press release garbage.
    40 cap? We've had two full raids on each side before. And Skywall is, by far, not the largest server out in the pool. There's something like a 100 player cap for each side.

    Tol Barad works just fine. Sure, for a while, it was difficult to wrestle control back. But once all the morons who can't figure out how to CC or kill the healers left the place (typically the same rejects who don't understand how to move out of the fire) got tired of losing and stopped queuing, we've been seeing the place swap back and forth rather consistently. If they play to make the place easier, yay? Not going to complain if they do, but the only places that need it are the ones with a complete group of morons for one faction. And even then, I doubt the fix they plan will do anything for the servers that still can't win the zone back -now-.
  1. wowplayer's Avatar
    i like TB since the map is smaller. i play alliance so still have no clue what to do there...
  1. thatguy181's Avatar
    The suggested fix will do very little. If you've got the defenders turtling up in one base they're fighting a losing battle anyway.

    Defenders split into two groups. One group retakes whatever location the other faction recently claimed as they get destroyed at their old location.
    The Horde and Alliance switch bases effectively. Defense stays ahead by 2 to 1 and they almost always win this way. I've told the bg leaders before they were idiots to suggest we just fall back and defend the last tower for 10 minutes. You can and will lose that way.
  1. shotrey's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by wych View Post
    Attacking should be easier in a situation imo, when the zone in question has major PvE benefits (at a time like this), it should be easier for a side to win so their side has a chance to do the boss etc, rather than one side dominating.
    More to the point, it should be easier on attackers so that the losing side doesn't just get frustrated and quit.
  1. turlockmike's Avatar
    One thing I loved about WG was the destructible buildings, siege vehicles, etc. Without those things it becomes really boring quickly. The towers are pointless and the game quickly devolves into a race to trade. Also with the increased health pools, the disadvantage of having pve gear has mostly evaporated meaning it's really really balanced and boring. The goal should be a 50/50 chance of winning depending on strategy and players involved. Right now we win about 1/20 tol barads while on offense and only lose like 1/20 while on defense (mostly due to retards fighting on the road).

    The whole thing needs to be redesigned to make it more fun and more interesting, otherwise, once everyone is exalted with the faction, there will simply be no incentive to go there. Adding cannons to the bases and moving the attackers graveyard would go a long way to improve it. It would be interesting if the attackers graveyard was directly underneath the center.
  1. Buu's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by darc View Post
    they didnt even talk about adressing the only issue i have with it. on unbalanced servers like mine only 20-25 horde queue and 100s of alliance do. now you could say so what let them fight it for you but what you arent thinking about is the 25 horde that queued 20 did so becuase they pvp and are geared and they get put up against a random assortment of alliance that dont have my 2k resil that arent healers that dont know what they are doing. either let us all in or pick the ones that will make it a fight not all new blue geared pups with no clue how to take it back
    Back on WG someone said that the buff that made the players mini-raid-bosses was enough to fight a unfair amount of other faction players, IF that included a CC-immunity for X seconds after being released from a CC. And really, THAT was the lack of balance. They could face 7 players of the other faction with the buffs to attack, HP and defense, BUT the fact there was 7 CC working on chain on the character, made it unfair.
    So WG problem was not about the numbers on each side. They did a pretty good job there. It was about ALLOWING the smaller side to act. So, the addressing with the problem in WG is wrong.
    And that might have set the direction on TB wrong too.

Site Navigation